Open Thread: On parity and salary caps


Now that I’m done with my first round of law school finals, I can dig out from under this avalanche of baseball articles I’ve been saving for various threads. Let’s start with some Maury Brown musings on baseball’s salary structure.

Basically using some recent numbers from Sports Business Journal, Brown argues against a cap. He notes that the Yanks have paid out over $120 million in luxury tax fees with the Red Sox and Angels the only other two teams ever to dole out a cent. “With revenues at an all-time high, the second highest attendance level on record, and as of late, the most parity, it seems a hard sell to say MLB needs a salary cap,” he concludes.

It’s hard to disagree with that. While I recently questioned baseball’s economic system, if the sport doesn’t need a salary cap, I won’t agitate for one. As Yankee fans, we should be happy seeing our team able to dole out the money it draws in by virtue of its being in New York and having great fans.

Anyway, use this as your open thread tonight. Talk salary caps. Talk baseball. The Knicks are off, but the Islanders, Rangers and Nets all have games tonight. Just play nice.

Categories : Open Thread


  1. AMS223 says:

    Obviously to be taken with a grain of salt but a “source close to manny” is saying that Manny “is confident the Yankees will offer him a contract of at least three years,”

    • Murph1010 says:

      “According to a source, Ramirez has told friends that he is confident the Yankees will offer him a contract”

      How can anyone take that seriously? “according to a source” = monumentally vague/likely made up…. “ramirez has told friends” … How would anyone know what manny is telling his friends? Is manny telling the “source” exactly what him and his friends discuss? Are manny’s friends telling the “source” what manny tells him? Then the “source” that gathered the info on manny’s conversations immediately contacted Feinsand so he could break the news rather than reporting him himself? The wording that article screams 100% speculation.

    • yankeefan91 (sign manny asap) says:

      i hope they do sign him cuz there isnt another clutch free agent out there like manny and u noe he is going to produce hit more den 30 homeruns drive in 100 + runs

      • Murph1010 says:

        Completely agree. But the way he chose to write this article, Feinsand might as well have titled it “Worthless speculation on Manny: Not Worth Reading”

        It’s almost as if he went out of his way to make it sound speculative. For God sake, there isn’t even a quote in the entire article.

      • whozat says:

        Yeah! This time, signing expensive, aging all-stars well into their decline phases will turn out different!

        The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. You can make a case for signing Tex to a long deal…they kind of have an opening at 1B, and he’s 28/29. You can even make a case for signing’d get him for his prime years, essentially, and then get to cut him loose. And he’s probably not premier enough to demand a no-trade, so you’re not necessarily going to be stuck with him.

        If they get in on Manny, they’ll either have to sign him for too long up-front, or deal with him agitating for an extension in 2010, standing at the plate with his bat on his shoulder against an opposing closer, and faking knee injuries during critical series.

        • Jake H says:

          Manny is a beast but do you really see him playing hard all the time? I just don’t.

        • christopher says:

          why would signing manny to a short term deal be abandoning the youth? Last time I checked they do not, other than AJAX, have any offrnsivr players on the horizon. Should they have sn outfield of melky, gardner and nady because it is young?

          Manny will cost money and a 3rd round pick. Other than AJax there will be no other big time hitters coming up in the next three years that would play his position. Although there is a stud who will most likely be a 1st baseman in 2 or 3 years.

          What should they do? Should they hang onto that 3rd round pick? Should they give melky the everyday LF job next year? Should they overpay be trade their top pitching prospects for Dejesus?

          You cannot just decide to build a team of young players especially if you do not have them to begin with. Manny would in fact aid the youth movement because with him on this team they can be patient with AJax come next year ir even gardner this season.

          Signing guys to long tern deals is what hurts the youth movement more than anything because that takes a roster spot up. If they got Tex, you then have 1B taken for at least the next 8 seasons. Part of the Red Sox strategy since theo took over is that the yankees are copying is avioding long term commitments.

  2. Steve H says:

    Salary caps are un-american. And spending money doesn’t guarantee success. Look at this Knicks, they’ve been among the highest payrolls in the NBA for years and not only haven’t won, but have lost, a lot. Despite the soft salary cap in the NBA, the Knicks spending has been much bigger than a ton of teams, with nothing to show for it.

    • Murph1010 says:

      The fact they haven’t won is irrelevant. Just because their spending hasn’t been successful, that doesn’t mean it’s fair. If they spent the same money wisely and won several championships in a row, this argument couldn’t be made, yet the same system would be involved with the same money spent.

      Their success has nothing to do with it. Regardless of outcome, the Yankees and Knicks have an enormous financial advantage above most teams in their respective sports. Even if they don’t use it as wisely as they could, that doesn’t mean the advantage isn’t there.

      • Steve says:

        ‘Even if they don’t use it as wisely as they could, that doesn’t mean the advantage isn’t there.’

        If an advantage doesn’t equal results, then its not an advantage.

        “any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specially favorable to success”

        No success, no advantage.

        • whozat says:

          No success, no advantage.

          No…the very quote you posted contradicts this statement.

          You can have an advantage and squander it. It’s “favorable to success” not “guaranteeing success”

          • Steve says:

            No it doesn’t. When the Mets and Knicks finished in last place with the highest payroll in their league, how did they benefit from their financial “advantage”? Where else could they have finished if they spent league minimum?

            When you say things like “Regardless of outcome” in relation to “advantage”, you’re the one who’s contradicting himself.

            • christopher says:

              Everyone loves the NFL parody and the salary cap, but they conveniently forget that in the NFL you can cut players, Without non-garunteed contracts a salary cap will not work because the ability to cut players allows teams to correct their mistakes.

              Look at the NBA to see what happens with garunteed contracts and a cap – even a soft cap. Teams make poor decisions – see the NY Knicks and they are screwed for years. Knick fans have had NOTHING to look forward too besides the draft and are now eagerly awaiting 2010 because for the first time since Ewing left they will actually be able to sign an impact player. The NBA is set up so that the really good teams stay good for a long time and the teams at the bottom stay at the bottom unless they get lucky from the draft.

              A cap cannot work in baseball unless the contracts are no longer garunteed and that will never happen and as for the NFL, I dont like the fact that a great team can have its roster stripped down in one off season and become an 8-8 team the next.

          • Murph1010 says:

            He’s pulling our leg, I’m telling you. Nobody could post that with a straight face.

            • Steve says:

              Murph, do me a favor. Skip over my posts from now on. I’m not interested in what you think about anything, since you are incapable of a respectful dialogue.

        • Murph1010 says:

          What you said doesn’t make sense. Their enormous financial resources in relation to their opponents is most definitely “opportunity and favorable to success” … You are telling me the Yankees being able to spend 200 million on a team isn’t “opportunity”?? a 200 million payroll isn’t “favorable to success”???

          You have to be joking or pulling my leg, right?

          Regardless, a huge payroll has unquestionably favored the Yankees. They could sweep their mistakes (pavano, jaret wright, farnsworth, igawa) under the rug and plunge on when it came to acquiring players, while had other teams made that many FA signings that didn’t work out, they would be crippled. Not to mention their financial power yielded them numerous superstars in their prime during the dynasty years. They got these players almost purely because of their money, so you can conclude their money directly related to winning 4 World Series.

          As for the Knicks, no they haven’t had success, but their monetary situation without question gives them “opportunity”. It also unquestionably is “favorable to success”. How can being the richest team NOT be favorable to success?

          You can’t keep this argument up with a straight face.

          • Steve says:

            Right, last place teams with money have an “enormous advantage”


            Believe it or not, some of us think this stuff comes down to personnel decisions. Who you hire as GM, who you select in the draft, who you choose to sign as free agents. If you spend tons of money on guys like Andruw Jones, you’ve wasted your resources. If you spend it on Mike Mussina, you have increased your chances at success.

            In case you haven’t noticed, the Yanks have outspent all of Baseball for the past 5 years and won nothing. Sorry, but you just apparently have a hang up about money that I don’t have.

            • Murph1010 says:

              They’ve won nothing???? They’ve averaged over 90 wins a season for like 15 years???? Money directily led to them winning 4 World Series…… What are you talking about????????

              Teams like the Rays have to have EVERYTHING go right ((which they did in 08)) to have a chance. The yanks can make mistake after mistake after mistake ((pavano, wright, igawa, to a certain extent giambi, etc etc)) and STILL gorge themselves in free agency.

              Again, I challenge you to answer this question…. How can being the richest team in your sport NOT be considered good “opportunity” or “favorable to success”??? …. Remember, I’m just using the definition you provided for me.

              Saying the yanks have won nothing for their monetary advantage is laughable. It makes the “Joba to the bullpen” argument look smart by comparison.

              If you can’t understand why being the richest team in a sport with no salary cap isn’t favorable to success, I’m wasting my time arguing with you.

              • Jay CT says:

                Having major income is an advantage in a non salary cap league, and there is no question to that. The Yankees will be the first to admit that they have the advantage of a high revenue. I don’t understand why you two are fighting about this? Having a large revenue and a salary cap does not give you an advantage, ergo the cap.

                That being said, many more teams in baseball have large revenue along with the Yankees. The Dodger, Angels, Cardinals, Tigers, Cubs, White Sox, Boston, Mets, and more, can all afford more then they spend. Other teams just treat this is a buisness, where as the Steinbrenners treat it like an obsession.

              • christopher says:

                you are absolutly correct. whether or not yankee fans want to admit it, the team’s biggest asset is its wallet; whether it be in free agency, acquiring players via salary dumps, international scouting, minor league facilities, and major league facilities.

                Any given year a small to mid-market team can be put together perfectly and win a WS, but how many small to mid-market teams have made multiple WS appearances let alone have multiple titles in the past 15 years?

                What money gives you is the ability to make mistakes and still succeed. It also puts you in a position to make the post-season every season – something you cannot say for small market teams. As good as the rays are, does anyone really think they will be able to hold onto enough players to make the post-season 10 straight years?

                Once you get to October, anything goes but a big payroll gives you the advantage via star power and depth to get there year in and year out

            • christopher says:

              define “success”. to me being in the playoffs every year from 1995-2007, winning w WS and appearing in 6 is pretty darn successful.

              I am sure any other team in baseball would die for that kind of success

      • Steve H says:

        There’s a bigger problem (in baseball) with the fact that the small markets team horde there revenue sharing money, instead of putting it back into the team. The Yankees have spent the most money in baseball that last 10 years, but their bottom line isn’t #1. They bring so much revenue to other teams by attendance at Yankee road games, Revenue sharing, and apparel sales. These teams crying poor have money to spend, they choose not to spend it. If they don’t want to spend it on free agents, spend it in the draft. Look at San Diego taking Matt Bush #1 overall solely for financial purposes. Had they instead taking the best player in the draft, they would be fielding a better major league team right now. And that investment would have been less than a year of Gil Meche. Who’s the richest owner in baseball? Minnesota’s Carl Pohlad. He makes money off the Twins. He treats baseball solely as a business, to make money. The Steinbrenners (and others) treat it as a passion. If the Yankees spent $100 million a year on payroll instead of $180 million, most of the teams in baseball would be pissed. It would dry up their gift revenue sharing money, and if the Yankees were less successful for a period of time, they’d draw less fans to their away games.

        • RobC says:

          With all the flack the Yanks take about their spending it would be far worse if they did not spend and just pocketed the money.
          Unless of course they want to cut pay roll to $125 million and use the $75 million saved to reduce ticket prices LOL

        • christopher says:

          wasnt the marlins overall payroll in 2008 less than what they received in revenue sharing — that is a joke

    • Jake H says:

      It’s all about how you spend the money. Also there are owners who are richer then big stein is. The twins owner is worth multiple billions yet he doesn’t put anything into the team. That is the major problem, owners not putting any of the money they have to use.

      Look at the Marlins. They had a payroll of 15 million a couple years ago. They got more money in revenue sharing then that but you don’t hear casual fans complain about that.

  3. Steve says:

    I think the NFL set up the hardest cap imaginable, the NBA has the 2nd most stringent, and yet Baseball has had just as much diversity in champions as Football (8 different teams) over the past 10 years. The NBA, on the other hand, has had only 5 different teams win over the past 10 years.

    Its worth noting that in the previous 10 year period, there were 8 different Super bowl champions, 6 in the prior 10 year period and 7 in the previous 10 year period. Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for 1-2 different champs per decade.

  4. yankeefan91 (sign manny asap) says:

    on the knicks i hear a rumor that the knicks want to trade curry and malik rose to the bobcats for diaw and bell and dat the bobcats want to add sean may in the deal

    • christopher says:

      what are the contract like for the players the knicks get in return? getting rid of curry’s contract would be great.

      liking their new GM — he is close to erasing all of isiahs misktakes in half a year

  5. Adam Hobson says:

    I think one of the reasons why lower revenue and lower salaried teams can still compete in baseball sans-salary cap is the controlled salaries of younger players. Tampa Bay can accumulate a team of young stars, many who were high draft picks, and pay them next to nothing. I don’t think Tampa Bay would have a chance if they had to pay David Price the $50 some million that Jake Long got from the Dolphins.

    It’s actually gotten to the point where many NFL teams are starting to think that the very top draft picks aren’t worth it. If the draftee doesn’t pan out, his huge salary has sunk the drafting team. On the other hand in baseball, a first round pick can fail out, and the main loss was opportunity.

    Thanks to this system you also get a huge salary gap between veterans and young stars. I don’t think there is a single person out there who would say that Jamie Moyer is better than Joba or and a guy like Evan Longoria is better than Jason Giambi, and yet Moyer and Giambi get multi-year contracts worth millions this year, while Joba and Longoria make next to nothing (relatively speaking). In the salary cap world of the NFL, guys like Moyer and Giambi would be lucky to even get a guaranteed contract for veterans minimum.

  6. Steve says:

    Buster Onley’s latest, about free agents and the economy

    “The other day, a general manager chatted about Arizona’s signing of veteran second baseman Felipe Lopez for $3.5 million. When I referred to it as a low-budget signing, the GM laughed.

    “Low-budget?” he scoffed. “Are you kidding? I wish I had $3.5 million to spend.”

    Throughout baseball, budgets are being downsized from week to week to reflect the latest read on the economy, and what you are about to see — once the smoke clears from the Sabathia and Burnett and Teixeira news conferences — is a stunning drop in salaries for the free agents, a time when solid veteran players might be fortunate to get one-year offers for $5 million to $8 million. General managers throughout the game are reporting, on background, that their payrolls are being locked down, cut down, slashed. ”

    Top guys will continue to get paid, but the second tier of free agents are seeing their salaries drop by the day. The top guys will always get paid and always have. Babe Ruth saw his salary grow during the height of the Great Depression.


    • Ryan S. says:

      I read that article today too, interesting stuff. At least teams that lose players to free agency gets draft picks. If teams have a quality scouting force, they can overall, eventually compensate from losing free agents even if they don’t go back on the market to replace because they can’t afford to. Talented prospects are more valuable than gold these days – how else could a team like the Brewers get an extremely valuable proven commodity like Sabathia on their team any other way? This THT article speaks about how quality prospects are projected to become even more valuable in the future:

      If a team is run properly, there are proven methods of becoming a contender regardless of salary. The only difference between teams like NYY or BOS or The Rays is that we never have to go through much of a rebuilding cycle, as our money can shore up weaknesses that other teams need to cover up through player develop / trades. Its not like its The Yankee’s (or The Red Sox) fault they make so much money due to their extremely loyal and zealous fanbase and that they have a global market presence. Its the nature of the beast, and its good for baseball. We bring in tons of shared revenue, and help highlight smaller market teams by driving in crowds when we visit their ballclubs.

      Its also interesting how 100% of the actual guys that make this game what it is, y’know … the PLAYERS … , they’re all for free agency. The only ones that win w/ a salary cap are the owners, its just more money for them. Its amazing, this is one of the only cases where union workers are made out to be villains for trying to get as much money as possible from the owners they work for. Who’s the genius spin doctor responsible for that?

      • Steve says:

        There’s another angle to this that could affect things for many years to come. If only a select few players get long term deals for big money, then the supply of players on the FA market will increase down the road, further suppressing salaries.

        For example, if the Corner OF market is so tight that guys only get 1-2 year deals from the teams that sign them, then they will come up for free agency again when some other players are reaching the market for the first time. Then there’s a glut at the position, all of them have to lower their demands to get signed and nobody gets anything close to what teams were paying previously.

        BTW-I read the HBT piece too, last night. Good stuff.

        • Steve says:

          Another thing about the falling prices for free agents. Give Cashman credit where it’s due, he was 100% right NOT to offer arbitration to Abreu, Pudge and Pettitte. Had he done that all three would have accepted, and we would be stuck with them at what would be ridiculous salaries by today’s market.

          I was disgusted at the time, but I was dead wrong about it. He read the market correctly.

          • Ryan S. says:

            He really did. He’d be getting so much more heat now for offering arb (and all 3 accepting most likey) than he did a few weeks ago when he decided not to.

            • Sweet Dick Willie says:

              The thing is, he did get killed (especially by the MSM) when he chose not to offer arb to anyone, with most people bemoaning the loss of draft picks.

              You two are the first I’ve seen giving him kudos for what, in retrospect, was the right decision. So kudos to you two, and especially to Steve, for admitting he was wrong. Have yet to see that from any one in the MSM.

    • christopher says:

      this is a reason why I think the yankees need to flex their financial muscle even more this off-season as there are a lot of players that can be ad at bargain basebment prices – maybe not Tex or Manny, but they could probably get some very good players to take a little extra from the yankees (still a cheap contract) to be a 4th outfielder.

      I am curious as to how much a guy like milton bradley will get in the market and if he finds no bidders, I wouldnt mind seeing abreu back on a one year deal for dirt cheap

  7. Steve says:

    Buster Onley’s latest, about free agents and the economy

    “The other day, a general manager chatted about Arizona’s signing of veteran second baseman Felipe Lopez for $3.5 million. When I referred to it as a low-budget signing, the GM laughed.

    “Low-budget?” he scoffed. “Are you kidding? I wish I had $3.5 million to spend.”

    Throughout baseball, budgets are being downsized from week to week to reflect the latest read on the economy, and what you are about to see — once the smoke clears from the Sabathia and Burnett and Teixeira news conferences — is a stunning drop in salaries for the free agents, a time when solid veteran players might be fortunate to get one-year offers for $5 million to $8 million. General managers throughout the game are reporting, on background, that their payrolls are being locked down, cut down, slashed. ”

    • Reggie C. says:

      I predict Wang will be the quietest 17 game winner in ’09. He’s got to be psyched over these additions.

      • Ryan S. says:

        Totally. Wang is mentally tough enough to handle the mantle of staff ace, but I don’t think its the ideal spot he wants to be in. Obviously that’s complete speculation, but just the sense I get from Wang as a quiet guy from Taiwan who is probably shy and kinda lonely when he’s in NY. The focus is off of him entirely, what with not only CC and AJ, but also with Joba’s bright future bound to get more attention. He’s just gonna be the quiet guy in the corner and keep doing what he does – win baseball games.

        • Old Ranger says:

          I really doubt he is lonely in NYC, there are a plethora of Taiwanese groups in most large cities. Believe me, he has many friends in town. I am married to a Vietnamese woman, everywhere we go she runs into some Viet people and they act like they are relatives from the old country.
          With this line-up (If healthy), CMW should win 20 games. I say this because, he will have no pressure at all, just go do his thing. With CC, AJ, JC and AP around him, it should be better for him…they take the pressure, he wins the games. 27/09.

          • Ryan S. says:

            Hey I’m glad to hear that Old Ranger, you’re very right. He just strikes me as the shy type but what do I know? I’m sure Wang can have a helluva time whenever he feels like it. I know Wanger is a total superstar in Taiwan too, I know the guy is livin a damn good life and is setting himself up for a major raise in the near future. In could totally see that being a possibility, Wang leading the team in wins and ERA … its not like its a completely crazy thought (I like CC’s odds better though :D ). I was content with Wang being the staff ace coming into last season and the guy is ready to peak, he should have an outstanding year with all the support he’s going to get.

        • christopher says:

          and everyone has seem to forgotten that he won 19 games in 2 of the last three seasons and would have been up there again if not for the injury

  8. Reggie C. says:

    Supposedly Tex is only a matter of days from deciding. Its about time. If Tex manages to surprise me and opt not to sign with the Sux, then I’ll go into work on the 24th a happy man. At this point, isn’t it safe to say that the Yanks aren’t going to make Tex an offer?

    • Ryan S. says:

      My guess is we’re only in the talks to raise up the price, but I don’t think its safe to say we’re out of the running until the ink is dry on whatever contract Tex ends up signing.

      • Steve says:

        Yeah, that’s my take. I’d be shocked if the Yanks sign Tex, they’re going to want to leave 1B open for A-Rod in a few years.

        But even as I type that, a little voice in my head sees Cash saying “2011 is too far away, we’ll worry about that when we get there”. Given the needs in our lineup, there’s no doubt that Tex is a perfect fit. That also moves Swisher to more of a 400 AB utility type role, which would be ideal for both keeping the (aging) regulars fresh and strengthening the bench.

        So who knows.

        • Old Ranger says:

          Yeah, that’s my take. I’d be shocked if the Yanks sign Tex, they’re going to want to leave 1B open for A-Rod in a few years.


          Not meaning to get picky…but, I will!
          A-Rod to 1st…what is that? He can play 3rd as long as he wants to, look;
          Jr. Gilliam, Ventura, Boggs, Nettles all these guys were playing 3rd @36 to 43 years old. Those guys were no were near in the shape A=Rod keeps himself in. No reason to move him. 27/09.

          • Ryan S. says:

            I agree. A-Rod is peak physical condition and will continue to be at least reliably average at the hot corner for the next 5 years and maybe more. I still think we do not sign Tex, but I do not believe A-Rod is in anyway a factor in that decision…unless they want to move Jeter to 3rd and A-Rod to 1st in the future, which I don’t see happening.

  9. ortforshort says:

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Pretty much every team is making money and there is a good deal of parity. By luck, the current system is working well because, for the most part, the teams with the least money in baseball seem to have the most savvy and vice versa.

  10. Ryan S. says:

    Can someone tell me what the Red Sox starting rotation is projected to be? I’m guessing…


    Is that correct?

    • Reggie C. says:

      As of now that’s the starting rotation. Can’t count them out on adding Lowe into the mix though. His price has got to be dropping.

      • Steve says:

        According to Buster Onley, he’s gone from 90 mil for 5 to 60 mil for 4 in the past few weeks.

        But anyway, I think Lowe winds up with the Mets.

        • Ryan S. says:

          I think even 4/60 is probably something Theo wouldn’t want to do for a 36 year old pitcher who already had a less than brilliant career at Fenway. I’d also say Theo is wrong and that Lowe would be a great #4/#5 starter in the context of their current rotation, and worth the money based on how fantastic of a sinker Lowe still has. But yeah, Lowe to the Mets is the likeliest outcome in my mind too. Should happen within a week of Andy signing back up with us.

    • christopher says:

      i have heard that masterson has the upperhand inthe race for the 5th slot

  11. Steve says:

    Giant Valuev beats Holyfield by questionable verdict

    Next fight vs Rocky Balboa.

  12. TonyNYYfam says:

    We can see what each player will make, but what about the owners?

    If I was a fan of say Minn, TB or Reds and I see that they make more than the NY Yankees owner….. would I say good? Glad he didn’t spend that extra 10 Mil on that player.

    • Sweet Dick Willie says:

      Are you saying that an owner should use his personal funds to improve his team? Because I’m fairly certain the Steinbrenner family doesn’t do that. The Yankees have the highest payroll in baseball because they generate the most revenue in baseball, and George was never shy about re-investing that revenue to improve his team. But I’ve never heard nor read that he used his personal funds to finance baseball operations.

  13. LeftyLarry says:

    It’s difficult but not impossible to change the system

    I don’t understand how you can tell the Yankees or other large market teams in midstream that their franchises values should be reduced by hundreds of millions of dollars by sharing revenue.

    If the Steinbrenners suddenly sold their franchise for 1 billion dollars or whatever , based on the teams ability to generate income and the new ownership had to worry about a system that would reduce the value of that team through revenue sharing, nobody would buy the teams AND the small market teams values would increase by the same amount that the Yankees and other large Markets franchises decreased in value.
    What a potential windfall for people who paid less for their teams than say the Dodgers ownership and did nothing to deserve the windfall.That would not fly.

    No, the only way to do that would be for Baseball (and this is probably no longer possible in the current economic environment) to go out and leverage every team to the hilt, refinance the entire value of every team through one investment Banking loan vehicle, give the big market owners the difference in value between their franchises and say a Milwaukee franchise, so the Steinbrenner’s get the intrinsic value of their franchise out now in the form of non-taxable income (a loan) and then use the entire proceeds of ALL of baseball to service and repay the debt.

    So, if Baseballs net worth for financing purposes is say 4 billion Dollars (just for this conversation), Steinbrenner might get a payout of close to a Billion Dollars and Minnesota Owners might get only a few million but ALL of baseballs revenues would be used to repay the new debt and anything left over on a yearly basis shared equally with every team.

    This way the bigger market teams would take out the additional equity and value their franchises currently are worth, invest that money elsewhere and everyone going forward would be on the same playing field.

    I suggested this to THE COMMISIONER’S office a few years back and the guy I knew there said the idea had a lot of merit but that the players association might not like it.

    To me asking the big markets teams to walk away form so much equity is a non-starter.Pay them off now and then everyone repays the loans and shares the income evenly.

    In a way, it’s pretty much what the NFL did and does if you think about it.

    • Ryan S. says:

      Kudos to you for thinking of a realistic way of pulling that off … me? …I’m proud of myself for just understanding the concept you’re proposing lol.

      Anyway, even with this scenario, the Yanks could still leverage their wealth. We can agree that salary cap or not, the Yankees are going to pull in more revenue from their franchise than a team like the Twins, right? The Yankees are an intrinsically more popular and powerful franchise than any other team. In a salary cap scenario, we’d simply reinvest more money into scouting/player development. We could offer $10,000,000 signing bonuses to top prospects and utterly outbid the competition on young talent just like we do now with free agents. We could also invest even more in trainers, coaches, scouts, facilities, etc – everything needed to give our prospects the best shot to develop.

  14. christopher says:

    question regarding the luxury tax….Does the 9 million dollar bonus count toward the luxury tax money?

    if not, i see the bonus as a way for the yanks to keep their actual payroll within the 200 million dollar range while adding a bat. IMO their “budget” is as much about public perception of the team’s payroll than it is about profits/revenue.

    I know someone made a comment earlier that they are actually paying CC 23 million this season not 14 million – no shit, I can add, but if their payroll only reflects the 14 million than you can bet that they will use that extra 9 million on a player and all signs to me are pointing to manny ramirez especially if Tex signs with the Angels leaving really only the dodgers as competion. The Nats have the money but they are rebuilding. Bringing in Tex would give them a player to build around, bt bringing in many would make no sense for them as he wont be around long enough to see the team, get into contention.

    The signing bonus is a way of manipulating the final payroll figures. The yankees dont want to go over 200 million dollars – not because they cannot afford it, but because they do not want to be the team that bought a championship

  15. The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

    “I know someone made a comment earlier that they are actually paying CC 23 million this season not 14 million – no shit, I can add, but if their payroll only reflects the 14 million than you can bet that they will use that extra 9 million on a player…”

    Yes, you can add, but you’re missing a pretty elemental point here… The “official payroll” number is irrelevant, THE YANKEES ARE PAYING CC $23 MILLION IN 2009. There is no magical “extra” $9 million that appears and that the Yankees get to spend just because they call $9 million of the 2009 paycheck a “bonus” instead of “salary.”

    • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

      My comment above is a response to Christopher’s 9:55 PM comment ( My bad.

      Mondesi fail.

      • Steve H says:

        Greenman fail.

      • christopher says:

        do you really think that an extra 10 million on their salary hurts the yanks at all? personally, i believe that they want to at least stay somewhere near their competition. They want their payroll to say 195 and not 204.

        maybe i am wrong, but I see a team that has the revenue to spend 250 million but holds back as to not make a mockery out of the system. It is the perception of a team that is well over 200 million that the yankees want to avoid

        and my question remains – is that 9 million dollar bonus taxable under the luxury tax system

        • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

          “maybe i am wrong, but I see a team that has the revenue to spend 250 million but holds back as to not make a mockery out of the system. It is the perception of a team that is well over 200 million that the yankees want to avoid”

          The Yankees are going to far outspend every other team by a wide margin, whether they’re just over or under $200 million in payroll. Nobody’s perception of their spending will change just because $9 million of CC’s paycheck is a bonus and is not “salary.”

          “and my question remains – is that 9 million dollar bonus taxable under the luxury tax system”

          See below, I addressed that. I think it is taxed.

        • steve (different one) says:

          is that 9 million dollar bonus taxable under the luxury tax system


    • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

      And one more thing… The $9 million is not disregarded in the computation the Yankees’ payroll. My reading of the relevant sections of the CBA is that signing bonuses are attributed over the years of the contract for purposes of determining a team’s payroll (for luxury tax and other purposes). So just stop, it’s silly to argue that the Yankees have $9 million more to spend because $9 million of CC’s $23 million for 2009 is characterized as a signing bonus.

  16. ryan says:

    It’s well known that the yanks are held ransom by FAs. Every player knows perfectly well the yanks have tons of money. A player is gonna demand more of the yankees than they would your small market or even average team. Even a player who wants to be a yankee bc “it was there dream as a kid” will make the yanks over pay for their services. Teams all around the league seem to retain players for far cheaper than the yanks retain their players. You have to add into the reasoning that bc these players (yankees) are playing on a bigger stage they do deserve to be paid more. Yanks have a definate advantage with the amount of money they spend but a good percentage of it is bc they are at a disadvantage in negotiating for a FA.

  17. Manimal says:

    hahahaha COWBOYS BLOW, they get with in 2, force a fumble, LOSE it and then give up a 80 yard run on the next play.

  18. Jamal G. says:

    LoL at the Dallas Cowboys and New York Mets: both of ‘em talk a lot, both of ‘em never back it up, and both of ‘em close out their respective stadiums with losses that keep them out of the playoffs.

    • Manimal says:

      We can’t talk shit to the mets because the yankees didn’t make the playoffs, but we can shit on the cowboys lives now. Tony Romo in a do-or-die game comes out with 60 something passing rating. Fail.

      • Mike Pop says:

        This game was not Romo’s fault at all. Its okay cause you didnt watch it but he stepped up the game in the 4th and was great. He did not choke, it was the defense. 24 points should have won this game but the defense fell on their face at the end.

        • Ryan S. says:

          A rookie QB did better than Romo did though…sometimes a QB needs to carry the team on his back, and Romo doesn’t seem to be capable of that. The wide receivers didn’t show up, and neither did the defense.

          • Mike Pop says:

            Bullshit comparison. Baltimore D was lightyears ahead of Dallas D tonight. Romo outplayed Eli last week because our defense dominated gmen’s o-line. Romo played great in the end while being pressured badly. Defense lost this game bad, Romo carried them at the end but the D gave up back to back TD rushes. Flacco is a good QB and he did perform well tonight. Probably better that we don’t make the playoffs anyways, less heartbreak.

            • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

              Would you rather your favorite team miss the playoffs instead of going to the playoffs but not winning a championship?

              • Mike Pop says:

                Depends. The expectations, draft picks, how we look. This year I would rather go to the playoffs because we have no 1st round pick anyways(DET). Plus I think the Cowboys could compete in the playoffs with the rest of the NFC. But if missing the playoffs meant moving up a couple spots to get a stud and my team is in a bad situation anyway, ya I’ll miss the playoffs.

                9 times out of 10 though, I want to be in the playoffs.

                With the Yankees its a total different story though. I want to be in every year.

                • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

                  Yeah I hear you… I don’t know, I always want to be in the playoffs, other stuff (draft picks etc.) be damned. If you’re on the cusp of the playoffs it’s not like you have a top-of-first-round pick anyway, I always think it’s more important to get into the postseason and go for it/take your chances, in any sport.

                • Mike Pop says:

                  Yup, but I dont mind punting games at the end of the season if its clear my team is not getting in the playoffs. If I can get from the 15th to the 10th because of that Im happy. Bills have done it the past 2 years, they got Lynch and McKelvin out of it. Some good talent there.

                • Mike Pop says:

                  I know thats a different issue but just wanted to bring that up. I think taking your chances in the playoffs is good too but I am depressed man. My guys havent won in so long as all of you know lol.

                • Ryan S. says:

                  I’m a huge Cowboy hater but I had them pegged for the Superbowl favorites coming into this year. Now they’re probably not even going to make it, T.O. is up to his old antics, Jerry Jones is making more obviously bad judgment calls, all the big egos are clashing and Wade can’t keep them in check…and they just got booed off the field on the last game ever at Texas Stadium.

                  I love it.

        • Manimal says:

          I never said it was his fault, I was just stating his non-clutchiness(New word). He did step up when he was supposed to but still 2 picks that were clearly under thrown. All 11 men in the box and they can’t stop a running back? I agree the D lost this game.

  19. mustang says:

    Michael S. Schmidt at the New York Times writes:
    “The Yankees are interested in signing Teixeira, according to two people in baseball with knowledge of the matter, but for the moment are unwilling to pay him more than $160 million over eight years, one of them said.”

    Seem like Scott got his answer from the Yankees now is up to Tex.
    Does he want to play for the Yankees for 10 million less then what he would be getting from Boston (most reports have them at 8 for 170)?

    And the drama goes on.

    • Mike Pop says:

      I wanna see the offer become official first.

      • mustang says:

        Nothing is official until they sign all you can go by right now is rumors and this doesn’t seem crazy at all.

        • Ryan S. says:

          Naw, this is a limp dick rumor. Like when FA became open, the Yankees instantly offered CC 6/140. THAT is an official offer. This current Tex stuff is merely rumblings – given, it very well could turn into much more than that – stuff like this merits enough to say that the Yanks are in the running and are probably gonna get last looks, but that’s about it for right now.

      • Mike Pop says:

        They gotta tell Teix that with him we are legit World Series favorites and like A.J. said have a chance to put up 6 like MJ. Thats why he should come here

        • mustang says:

          We will see. NY is closer to his home and Donny is his bsaeball idol, but 10 million less. Ouch !
          I don’t know?

        • Ryan S. says:

          Boras is his client, and the Red Sox, sadly, can offer that same perk. If its between us, LA, and Boston, its whoever puts up the most cash.

          • mustang says:

            Beltran would of taken less to play with the Yanks and Bernie did so you never no. It’s not always about the money. What’s 10 million when you’re making 160, but with all that being said you’re probably right.

            • Ryan S. says:

              It really is too bad we didn’t get Beltran. On an aside, I really hope Jeter gives us a discount on his next contract in both terms of money and especially length. That would be swell.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.