The Daily Jolt is a dose of baseball reality every weekday morning.Red Sox ownership is at it again. They called for a salary cap in 2004 after the Yankees plucked Alex Rodriguez from under their noses, and after another spending binge in the Bronx this winter -- one which cost them Mark Teixeira, another player they coveted -- they're leading the charge again.
"I think we all agree that competitive balance is an issue," principal owner John Henry told reporters Wednesday in Fort Myers, Fla. "If there was a way to put together an enlightened form of a salary cap, I think everybody among the owners would support that."
I'm not entirely sure what an "enlightened" salary cap would entail, though if it included something called a mid-level exception, that'd drive me up the wall. But I do know a bunch of baloney with a side of sour grapes when I hear it.
On the surface, it might be difficult to understand why the Red Sox of all teams would want a salary cap. They have been in the top five in team payroll for most of the decade and they have won two World Series titles under the current system. Because of the rabid interest in the team in New England, Boston can tap seemingly unlimited revenue streams and make risky eight-figure investments in players like Julio Lugo without batting an eye.
Of course, it's not quite that simple, not with a $200 million juggernaut in your division making life awfully difficult. Because of their rivalry, their enormous payrolls and their -- ahem -- colorful fanbases, it's easy to see the Red Sox and Yankees as one and the same. But payroll-wise, Boston lags some $70 million behind New York. Roughly the same gap exists between the Sox and the Kansas City Royals. Having a huge advantage over most other teams in the payroll department just doesn't mean as much when you play in the same division as the Yankees.
Much of the salary cap talk has to come from there. The Red Sox have been wildly successful anyway these past few seasons, but new Yankee Stadium is going to change the game again, re-opening a gap between the two clubs that Boston had been able to close by renovating Fenway Park and racking up record ratings on team-owned regional network NESN. The Sox are already the smartest guys in the room, so to speak. Leveling the financial playing field would only make life easier for one of the best management teams in the game.
But there is another motivation behind Henry's call for a salary cap. It will make him richer.
It has always been mystifying to me why fans are so quick to welcome a form of communism in sports, when they would never accept it at their own jobs and when it doesn't really help their favorite team all that much. Face it, the relationship between salary controls and competitive balance is a complete myth.
The NFL has been dominated in this decade by three teams -- the Steelers, Colts and Patriots -- who have combined for six Super Bowl wins and only missed the playoffs five times since 2000. The Lakers and Spurs have won a combined seven titles and appeared in nine of 10 NBA finals since 1999. Some parity.
Boston is the only team in baseball with two championships since 2000. The Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, White Sox and Phillies have won the ultimate prize and the Astros, Tigers, Rockies and Rays have been one step away. All of that has happened in a league with a fascinating and relatively accessible infrastructure, a league with guaranteed contracts and no easy way out, a league that has given birth to Moneyball, 9=8, the Pirahnas and a host of other small-market success stories.
And there isn't enough "competitive balance" for Henry? Please.
A salary cap would allow the Red Sox to spend less on payroll and probably spell the end of revenue sharing as it is currently spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement. That means Henry would be able to pocket more money and his team would have less to overcome on the field with the Yankees' spending reigned in.
It's easy to understand why he would want all of that. It just doesn't have anything to do with the greater good of baseball.

















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-19-2009 @ 12:25PM
Hit Dog said...
What a reactionary, foolish, and poorly thought out argument this is, just when I thought the pointing out of the Red Sox as being right between Kansas City and the Yankees was going to be used as insightful.
So here's one point you failed to follow through on: By argument of that statistic, one could call the Red Sox a MIDDLE OF THE PACK SPENDING TEAM.
I'm not saying that's true. I'm saying, that's how insane a NYY, NYM, Detroit (sometimes) can skew the market.
Here's a few other mistakes:
--Salary cap: Socialism, not Communism. No one is attempting to pay all ballplayers equally, or by scale. Socialistic elements also helped save America from the Great Depression and might do so from this one. But keep waving the Red flag.
--Competitive balance: Presently, the Red Sox etc. have the advantage of being able to make big mistakes. A Julio Lugo-like contract can be on the books for two years with 2 ALCS appearances. Small market teams can't fail big, nor can most middle market. Teams like Tampa Bay can survive by signing their team young and early. In a salary cap era, there will be more incentive for all teams to do this, a lesser volume of free agency, and with more "our guys" on each team, the chance of improved attendance all over. And if a team like the Yankees signs a big bust of a free agent (as they likely already did this off-season), they would be forced to live with the mistake. Thanks to guaranteed contracts, the salary cap would, unlike in the NFL, mean something from a strategic point of view.
--Revenue sharing: Weren't you against "Communism," Andrew? And can you possibly be against the other part of a salary cap, Minimum payroll requirements? If not, I've got 5 angry Marlins fans who want your address.
Reply
2-19-2009 @ 3:15PM
Goldie said...
Yeahhh...What you said!!!!!
2-19-2009 @ 4:14PM
Andrew said...
"I'm not saying that's true. I'm saying, that's how insane a NYY, NYM, Detroit (sometimes) can skew the market."
The Yankees, Mets and Tigers are grouped together separately from the Red Sox? That doesn't even make sense. It's the Yankees ... then everybody else. Financially, Detroit and the Mets have much more in common with the Red Sox than the Yankees. Not sure what your point is here.
"--Salary cap: Socialism, not Communism. No one is attempting to pay all ballplayers equally, or by scale. Socialistic elements also helped save America from the Great Depression and might do so from this one. But keep waving the Red flag."
Semantics. It was an expression. I really don't care if socialism is going to save the American economy. Baseball economics and real economics don't have much in common.
"--Competitive balance: Presently, the Red Sox etc. have the advantage of being able to make big mistakes. A Julio Lugo-like contract can be on the books for two years with 2 ALCS appearances. Small market teams can't fail big, nor can most middle market. Teams like Tampa Bay can survive by signing their team young and early. In a salary cap era, there will be more incentive for all teams to do this, a lesser volume of free agency, and with more "our guys" on each team, the chance of improved attendance all over. And if a team like the Yankees signs a big bust of a free agent (as they likely already did this off-season), they would be forced to live with the mistake. Thanks to guaranteed contracts, the salary cap would, unlike in the NFL, mean something from a strategic point of view."
As I demonstrated above, baseball has had PLENTY of parity in the last decade, a whole lot more than the other professional sports in this country. The attendance record has also been broken four or five times this decade. Clearly there is healthy interest in the game and clearly there is plenty of competitiveness. All salary caps do is line the pockets of the owners. Baseball doesn't need it for fairness and I have no interest in making a bunch of billionaires more wealthy for no reason.
"--Revenue sharing: Weren't you against "Communism," Andrew? And can you possibly be against the other part of a salary cap, Minimum payroll requirements? If not, I've got 5 angry Marlins fans who want your address."
I never said I was against communism, nor did I say I was for revenue sharing. If there was a salary floor that would be kind of cool, but the Marlins won 84 games last year and signed Hanley Ramirez to a long-term deal. Clearly they don't need a cap or floor to compete.
2-20-2009 @ 4:06AM
Xzavier said...
Sure there's parity, if you ignore Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Toronto, Baltimore, Washington and other teams that haven't been to the playoffs since 2000. The fact is that besides the Marlins, the rest of the World Champions have come from big market teams. The Phillies, Cardinals, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, Angels and White Sox are all in big markets. Where is the parity for the Pirates and Royals? Oh yeah, their lousy records give them first picks in the draft. Ya know, that thing that gives them nobodies like Mike Stodolka, Colt Griffin, John Van Benschoten and Bryan Bullington. Meanwhile, the Red Sox draft Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis and Jon Lester. Again, even in the draft, all the best players end up in Boston, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Any bets that Eric Hosmer and Pedro Alvarez are gonna be busts? I bet the best player from this draft will be a fourth or fifth round pick for the Red Sox. A salary cap will end some of the inequities created by free agency and the draft.
Reply
2-20-2009 @ 4:57AM
Andrew said...
Get a grip. What do you mean by big markets? Do you mean there are a lot of people there? If you do, then you've grouped Washington and St. Louis incorrectly and it becomes awfully hard to explain teams like Milwaukee and Minnesota being successful in tiny markets.
Or do you mean teams that spend a lot? I think you know the problems there. St. Louis, Philadelphia and Arizona are middle-of-the-pack payroll teams and you've completely ignored teams like Tampa Bay and Oakland who are in the bottom third in baseball and yet very successful.
As for the draft, there's no guarantee that would be a part of the salary cap, and the examples you've cited are poor anyway. Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis did not slip to the Red Sox because of signability issues, they slipped to them because many teams simply didn't like them very much. That has everything to do with brains and nothing to do with financial might. Hosmer and Alvarez? They represent a sea change for Kansas City and Pittsburgh because in the past both teams would have passed on them because of signability.
So yeah. What was your point again?
2-23-2009 @ 9:58PM
Da Gimp said...
MLB does need a definitive salary cap, if for no other reason, than to keep a fair, competitive balance amongst the teams that just could never reach the financial level of the Red Sox, Yankees, or any other big-spending clubs. Calling one evil, just because they use their resources is petty.
Just because you can afford to pay the penalties every year for going 'over' what is considered to be a cap doesn't make it equal for everyone. Some of those teams use that extra money just to stay in business, and lose more and more free agents to the big teams.
Otherwise, pro baseball will be split, a few teams that afford everyone and everything, and the rest of the pack. Takes the fun out of watching the games if you ask me...
Reply