Salary cap for the poor, beg some owners

The undeniable case against Jon Garland
Yanks demanding the moon for Nady

As the baseball owners met quietly in Phoenix this week to discuss the baseball economy and take care of some administrative details, the ever-popular stop-the-Yankees salary cap idea came out for the umpteenth time this postseason.

“I think there’s a lot of owners that would like to have that right now,” Lew Wolff, owner of the A’s, said. “I think the parity is what we’re looking for, and the more ways you can get to parity the better. I think it’s pretty good now, but I think it could be better.” Coincidentally — or not — the A’s ownership has a net worth estimated at $1.5 billion.

Brewers owner Mark Attanansio, who recently paid a quarter of a billion dollars for the right to get into the ownership club, echoed Wolff’s complaints. “I would ask, if it’s such a bad idea, what sport doesn’t have a salary cap other than us?” he said.

The AP, linked above, had more:

The Yankees’ offseason spending spree has sparked renewed talk of a cap, an issue owners haven’t brought up in negotiations since the disastrous 1994-95 strike that wiped out the World Series for the first time in 90 years. But not all owners are critical of the Yankees’ acquisition of pitchers CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett and infielder Mark Teixeira.

“I have no problem with what they’ve done,” [Cubs Chairman Crane] Kenney said. “They’ve done it within the rules, within the confines of our agreement…

Wolff’s team recently agreed to a one-year, $5.25 million year with Jason Giambi, who had bolted Oakland after the 2001 season to sign a $120 million, seven-year contract with the Yankees. Asked if the Yankees’ spending concerned him, Wolff replied, “I probably should say it does, but to me it doesn’t because, frankly, the more visible they are — they are baseball, traditionally. And they’re not doing anything different than they’ve done traditionally for years. I think they benefit all of us more than they hurt us…”

“There’s no sour grapes here,” Attanasio said. “The Yankees are playing within the rules of the system. So you can’t blame the team. You have to change the system.”

I won’t pass judgment on Attanasio, but it’s interesting to see Kenney’s comments make this article. In a way, it shows what the real fight would be if the owners try to hammer out a salary cap. In one corner would be the rich teams, the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, Cubs, Angels of the game. In the other would be the Pirates, Marlins, and A’s of the world. Never the twain shall meet. The players, indeed, have nothing to worry about.

As I said last week, baseball doesn’t need a salary cap, and baseball probably couldn’t even afford a salary cap. These owners are failing to recognize that the Yanks will have a lower or comparatively similar Opening Day payroll in 2009 as they did in 2008, and they are spoiling for a fight with each other that neither side can win. This is one sleeping dog best left undisturbed.

The undeniable case against Jon Garland
Yanks demanding the moon for Nady
  • ortforshort

    If parity is what you want, then a salary floor is needed to get the weak teams into the game. That’s why it will be very difficult to ever get a cap in place because it will also mean a floor and there are a bunch of owners unwilling to spend (the same ones complaining about the Yankees spending) who will never allow it. Its a moot point. Also, what’s so great about parity? Look at the NFL. Parity equals mediocrity. Look how crummy the NFL’s playoffs are this year without a single clear cut good team. The NFL makes money hand over fist because of all the people watching the games due to their betting on the games, not because of parity. On top of everything else, the Yankees spending to be good puts money in everybody’s pockets. They fill stadiums for every game home and away, raise TV ratings and, because they are good, but haven’t been dominating – other clubs have a legitimate chance at winning titles. Baseball has the best of all worlds right now – why fix something that’s not broken?

    • MattG

      If parity is what you want, then a salary floor is needed to get the weak teams into the game.

      I completely disagree. “Parity” is a propaganda device, and nothing else. Whenever an owner say “Parity,” you must replace it with “Make more money.” That is much closer to the truth.

      Parity would be increased if the rules can be tweaked to help small markets keep their 24-27 year old plus players. Fixing arbitration rules would have the biggest impact.

      • Ace

        How would you change the arbitration rules?

        • MattG

          I have two primary ideas, not meant to be combined:

          1. make revenue sharing funds available only for the purpose of paying arbitration rulings or draft picks. This would force teams to draft and develop well, or they wouldn’t get the money.

          2. give the union free agency one year earlier (after five years) in exchange for giving the clubs control of the players for the first two arbitration years (thus ending arbitration entirely). Institute some sort of ML minimum for 4th and 5th year players, considerably lower than what Ryan Howard is about to earn. This would be a trade-off that would allow small market teams to keep their players with cost certainty for 2 additional years.

      • Steve S

        Agreed, they could also make changes to the draft like allowing trading of draft picks, create an international player draft, lock in salaries for draft picks instead of the ridiculous suggested compensation stuff and then of course the draft pick compensation stuff. All of that would help some of these teams and would be a much worthier cause to fight if your goal is parity.

        • steve (different one)

          the international draft is a tough one. on one hand, it would help level the playing field.

          but on the other, it would take away a lot of the money that team’s spend in those poorer countries to try to get a leg up on signing that competition.

          why should the Yankees run a baseball academy in the DR if all the picks will be put in one pool with every team getting an equal shot to pick them?

          that one is not so black and white.

          • Steve S

            steve, I didn’t realize I had to address socio-economic impact of baseball in Latin American countries. I’m not saying it needs to be done Im just saying if Im one of these small market teams, that is something I would push for if parity was something that was an actual concern, as opposed to the salary cap. The bottom line is that if they really want to make changes to help make teams more competitive, the first answer isnt a salary cap or floor, rather there are a ton of other things you can do, which you could probably sell to the players union easier, that would have a greater impact.

            And the answer to why the Yankees would maintain the academy would be that they would have an edge in scouting these kids. Plus, from the stuff that came out with Bowden (and others), it doesnt seem as though these kids get treated that great, it sounds like its a lot of guys in those countries taking advantage of them and selling them off to the highest bidder, and not with respect to how much the player gets but how much the local manager/agent gets And the teams seem to be active participants.

            • Old Ranger

              If one tampers with the draft to make small market teams able to sign some of the better players (by slotting money, perhaps) it would hurt the better teams drastically. The only way the Yanks get a good player is to sign them if they become FA or get very very lucky in the draft.
              I believe all the talk of a cap is just rhetoric anyhow. Put a cap on spending then you need a floor (as was mentioned).

            • steve (different one)

              just saying there could be some unintended consequences.

              that’s all.

              agree with most of what you are saying.

              • Steve S

                I know I was being a little snarky, sorry. Just the issue is so annoying it gets me…

        • Mike A.

          I think perhaps the best possible change to the draft would be forcing players to declare themselves eligible, as they do in the NBA and NFL. The players would loose leverage because they would forfeit their college eligibility by declaring.

          Bonuses would come down and there wouldn’t be any Gerrit Cole situations. The only downside is that the player would have to think long and hard about declaring, so that might not happen. It’s just not in the best interest of the players.

          • Old Ranger

            I really like this one.
            The union will not except it, just like they wouldn’t except a salary cap but, it’s a good idea.

  • Steve S

    I cant believe how greedy the owners are. This is a $6B a year business and this salary cap argument has nothing to do with parity but just a method of controlling players salaries and getting more into their pockets. The results are simple, small market teams that are run well can compete, granted they cant have the longevity of a bigger market team but if they are run well the valleys will not be as low and they can “rebuild” rather quickly.

    Its offensive, they want the Yankees and the other large market teams to help subsidize the rest of the league through revenue sharing and on top of that they want the Yankees to tell their fans we have to spend the same amount as every other team, but we still expect to charge you more than any other team in the league.

    And this comparison with all the other sports. There are no parallels with the NFL, its easy for the NFL because the bulk of the money comes from TV and the TV contracts are made with the league. Even if you could fantasize such a thing in MLB, it wouldn’t have the same effect. No major network would televise all 161 games. And not for nothing, parity in the NFL, in the last two years you had one team win all 16 games in the regular season and another lose all 16. For the past five years, prior to this one, it as all about the Patriots and Colts who were the premier teams in the league and the ratings supported that.

    The NHL, I love hockey, but its not a major sport anymore and the salary cap was necessitated because half the teams in the league were about to go under. Look at the Coyotes, they are still losing money and if you ask Charles Wang he would readily admit the Islanders consistently lose money for him.

    The NBA, thats a great situation, you have a premier franchise in New York who hasnt been competitive in years, and there newest strategy, based on the salary cap, is to stink for two years so they can sign the best player in the league when he could potentially be a free agent. And people congratulate them for that. I wonder how the guys who pay x amount of dollars for seats feel about this now and how they will feel about it when lebron comes and they raise ticket prices. Theyll pay but its doesnt change the fact thats its offensive to fans and doesnt increase parity in anyway.

  • A.D.

    If they’re going to put in a salary cap, put in a salary floor and stop sharing revenues & no luxury tax. Lets see how the owners in Miami, Pitt, etc like having a salary cap when they have to raise their payroll 20M and no longer get Yankee luxury dollars.

    On top of that salary cap probably means the players union looks for a better deal of when players start getting paid…. which means no more 4 years at league min.

    Putting in a salary cap might hurt the Yankees (though their stars now would have to be grandfathered), but it will hurt the business plans of small teams ever more.

    • Mike A.

      Right, I think the floor would have to be instituted. That way the money that is being shaved off the top (from the Yankees, mostly) is being redistributed back to the players via the lesser teams.

      The Pirates’ owner said MLB needs a cap, how the hell does it affect him? What, was he going to make a run at Teixeira?

    • Sweet Dick Willie

      and no longer get Yankee luxury dollars.

      Does the Yankee Tax (aka Luxury Tax) get shared? I thought that went to MLB to pay their collusion fines. I was unaware that it was shared amongst the other teams (but I’m unaware of quite a few things, so it could be).

  • Ace

    — Over the past 10 years, eight different teams have won the World Series. In all, 15 teams made the World Series — half of the teams in baseball.

    — Over the past 20 years, 14 different teams have won the World Series. In all 22 teams made the World Series. Now, we’re at more than two-thirds who have reached the Series.

    — Over the last 30 years, 20 different teams have won the World Series, and only four — Cubs, Mariners, Rangers and the Expos/Nationals — have failed to get there.

    • Jake H

      That’s right. Football you don’t have that. The NBA certainly doesn’t have that.

      • Sweet Dick Willie

        Well, one of the reasons is that a higher percentage of teams in those leagues are eligible for the playoffs, thus making it easier to repeat.

        Not saying that’s the only reason, but it’s certainly one of them.

  • THE KID (WI)

    Excellent point Ortforshort about a “salary basement” as well. Is a cap really going to make the game more competitive when if there was no basement team owners who didn’t care about winning as long as their making money just line their pockets?

    Living an hour north of Milwaukee I will call out Attanasio. The Brewers traded arguably their best prospect (LaPorta) for a rent-a-player they knew they had no chance of retaining once he hit free agency and now they’re crying about it…

    And (living here especially) i’m so tired of the Yankee hate and salary cap crap when there is exactly one thing keeping that from happening and it’s not the big bad Yankees, it’s the Players Union. They will NEVER agree to cap the earning potential of their members, plain and simple.

    • JohnnyC

      Attanasio’s problem is clearcut: Milwaukee is the smallest media market in the major leagues. And, frankly, there ain’t no cure for that. Sorry.

      • Ace

        Serious question: How do you know they are the smallest media market team in the league? Can you link me to that data?

        • JohnnyC
          • Ace

            Thanks man. Looks like Milwaukee just edges out Cincinnati.

            It’s funny because I was in Milwaukee last summer for a Saturday Brewers game and I couldn’t get the friday night game on TV in the hotel I was staying at.

      • Chris

        Actually, they’re larger than Cincinnati, but they’re still 29th out of 30.

      • Ban Bud

        The Brewers were the most profitable team in all the major leagues in 2001.

        Crying all the way to the bank, these poormouth plutocrats. Yes, more free money please.

    • tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      Living an hour north of Milwaukee I will call out Attanasio. The Brewers traded arguably their best prospect (LaPorta) for a rent-a-player they knew they had no chance of retaining once he hit free agency and now they’re crying about it…

      In Attanasio/Melvin’s defense, they were going all-in to try and win a title for their fans.

      It’s a choice we’re never forced to make. Going all in doesn’t hurt us because we have the big stack of chips at the table.

  • Ace

    My problem is the luxury tax system (unless I just don’t understand it). The teams receiving the luxury tax dollars should be forced to reinvest in players. My understanding is they can do whatever they want with the money to “improve the team” Am I wrong here? Wouldn’t forcing them to use that money to invest in players help solve the problem?

    • Mike A.

      Revenue sharing goes to the teams, luxury tax goes into MLB’s Central Fund, which they use however they choose (buy advertising, sponsor programs like RBI, etc).

  • JohnnyC

    Thank you Bud Selig for shepherding in the era of the short-term bottom-line team owner who sees owning a baseball franchise as a capital investment rather than the culmination of a lifelong passion for the game. Thanks a lot you carpetbagging used car shyster.

    • huuz


      selig is a spineless weasel.

    • Ben K.

      This is a bit of an overblown assessment. For the most part, as bad as Selig looks, his moves have increased the popularity of the game. Baseball has never been stronger. That could be because of or in spite of Selig.

      That said, how has he made this an era of short-term bottom-line owners? Study up your baseball history. It’s always a business, and it’s always been about making money rather than some phony nostalgic “lifelong passion for the game.” You’re glorifying an era that never existed.

      • Sweet Dick Willie

        That could be because of or in spite of Selig.

        I’m going with “in spite of.” Final answer.

      • tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

        It’s always a business, and it’s always been about making money rather than some phony nostalgic “lifelong passion for the game.” You’re glorifying an era that never existed.


  • Jake H

    No way this ever happens. Even if all the owners agreed, the union will fight to the death to stop it. All your doing is shifting more money to the owners then to the players. I mean come on the Marlins opening day payroll last year was less then they got from revenue sharing and luxury tax. That is just pathetic.

    • Mike A.

      Yep. If the MLBPA gives in to a salary cap, they’ll go down in a blaze of glory.

  • Patrick

    Warning: I’ve got no evidence to back this up.

    Before a salary cap is in place, I think the practice of pocketing the revenue sharing money has to go under the microscope. What happens if there is a salary cap? I hate to break it to the rest of the league, but you’re not going to stop the Yankees from making money. All you’re going to do is prevent them from reinvesting it into the system. With a cap comes reduced revenue sharing and reduced luxury tax income. Teams that receive those benefits now don’t appear to be using the money that they get. You’ll still have the teams that are the haves and the have nots. What are they going to do next? Force all of the teams to sell their regional networks to MLB?

    I understand the cap and it’s a nice thing to say, but I think that there are ramificiations that will modify the system that owners just don’t talk about. Sure, if you assume that all of the numbers stay (revenue sharing and luxury) and the only thing that goes down is the amount teams can spend, then a cap would be fine for the small markets. If the other numbers change than either smaller teams will be losing out on the money they already get or you’re going to ask for an even bigger piece of the pie via a higher tax rate, which will only upset the big boys who will then become limited in what they can spend.

    The parity argument is so bogus. Go look at the NBA. I think 9 teams have won in the last 30 years or so. 9 teams? Maybe a few more, but something like that.

    Oh well, in the end, unless you’re were going out of business like the NHL a few years back and have to rework the whole system, I’m not sure how (barring the current economic climate) you’re going to tell guys like Ryan Howard and Han-Ram that they can’t get contracts like A-Rod, when the Yankees are the only ones giving them out. I’m sure the Players’ Union is just going to roll over and die, just like Scott Boras on Varitek’s contract.

  • jsbrendog

    every yankees tshirt you buy should come with a placard that says profits from thsi tshirt helped jeffrey loria buy a new yacht.

    • Andy In Sunny Daytona

      Mike, Ben and Joe the shirt the jsbrendog suggests would make a great addition to the RAB Collection.

      A little box in the corner of each shirt.

  • Rebecca-Optimist Prime

    Over the past ten years, Major League Baseball has had more variety in its World Series winners and World Series contenders than either the NBA or NFL-which have also been salary-capped for all this time.

    Dude, I mean, if the Phillies and RAYS can make the World Series, we don’t need a salary cap.

    ‘Nuff said.

    • Mike A.

      Baseball doesn’t need a salary cap, it just needs to get rid of incompetent front offices. I have a hard time feeling sorry for the Royals when they have $26.3M tied up for the next two years for Kyle Farnsworth, Willie Bloomquist, Ross Gload, Coco Crisp and Horacio Ramirez.

      • Rebecca-Optimist Prime

        You and me both.

      • Should be working

        You forget Farnsworth moonlights as a bodyguard after games. Trust me, he’s worth the money.

  • hal

    There is a good chance that the Yankees will have a higher payroll this year than last. Regardless, its a deceptive number as it doesn’t include player costs like Sabathia’s bonus or buyouts of last year’s players. Its a meaningless argument as well. I keep hearing it as if it has some powerful meaning.

    I also repeatedly hear references to the revenue generated by the Yankees without mention of the enormous money amounts shoveled by taxpayers. No mention of the corruption involved in generating those flows either. Is there a list of sales of luxury suites so that companies receiving welfare from federal taxpayers can be pointed out. Only the Yankees would think that the whole country owes them free money because they are so awesome.

    I look forward to the public trial of Bloomberg who is prohibited from receiving gifts – oh wait, being wealthy and powerful and engaging in corruption to help the Yankees is by definition not a crime because its the Yankees.

    • steve (different one)

      well, this post had absolutely nothing to do with anything, but at least your spelling was acceptable.

    • steve (different one)

      Only the Yankees would think that the whole country owes them free money because they are so awesome.

      yes, ONLY the Yankees.

      if only there were another example of a team SOMEWHERE else in America with $20M of naming rights from CitiBank.

      i don’t pay attention to much outside of New York, so the identity of this team escapes me.

      • Steve S

        zing….seriously it took me a while to figure out what he was talking about and Im still not sure the relevance. Its a mixture of yankee and bloomberg hate, mostly Yankee. It must have something to do with the salary cap, most likely because of Chewbacca.

    • Ben K.

      I also repeatedly hear references to the revenue generated by the Yankees without mention of the enormous money amounts shoveled by taxpayers. No mention of the corruption involved in generating those flows either.

      You’re new around here, right? RAB’s covered the stadium deal extensively, and I’ve harped on corruption and tax issues. See here for more.

  • keith

    a must read on the ramifications of a salary cap:

    • Ben K.

      Check out the hyperlinked phrase in the last paragraph of this post. This thing that says “last week” goes to my examination of the BP piece.

      • keith

        ah, sweet. thanks

    • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      Ha. I didn’t see you’d linked to that article when I wrote my post below. My bad.

      • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

        Nor did I see Ben’s response. I’m batting 1.000 today, huh.

  • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

    I think the best way to argue against a cap is to discuss whether a cap-system would even benefit MLB or not, and to not bother touching upon any issues like fairness etc. (since that tends to be a much more emotional issue that people just won’t come around on). If anyone didn’t check out this article by Shawn Hoffman, please do. I think it does a pretty good job with this discussion.

    • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

      Also… Just my two-cents… But I think the owners of these small market teams probably know that a cap is not the best thing for MLB or for their organizations in particular. I think this is all just a PR game and it gets people worked up every couple of years but won’t lead to them actually implementing a cap.

  • barry

    Every team in the East has to spend to be competitive. IN a few years, the Rays had better hope that they can start filling seats on a nightly basis, because some of the guys they have, the youngsters, are going to cost top dollar. And with success the Rays will loose their strong farm.

  • Old Ranger

    Rev sharing and lux tax is a lot like taking from one group and giving to another! You college guys (gals) should know what that is the definition of.
    Besides, having dealt (and won) with a union once, there is no way they would even consider a step back.
    Actually all this discusion is a moot point, neither the union nor the owners will come up with any of the deals we have been discussing.

    • tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

      It’s the definition of redistribution. Communism/Socialism and redistribution are not the same thing. I know they get confused for one another, but they’re not the same thing.

  • Rich M.

    If this document is correct and if I am reading it correctly, it looks like the Yanks can subtract 181 Million off there revenue sharing bill.

  • jim

    every day , this salary cap things comes up.

    I am tired of it , being a yankee fan. But since it won’t stop I would like to tie and idea to it.

    That idea is that we need to get rid of seperate rules for national league.

    one of the things that goes into yankee player moves is the AL/NL split.
    1) CC will need a NY surcharge because he would like to play NL
    2) AJ is worh more because he can pitch in AL EAST
    3) peavy won’t come to yanks because he likes NL only
    4) can’t trade matsui because NL don’t have DH

    So an AL team needs a DH which cost more , and they need better pitching.
    So if we want to talk about a salary cap, it should immediately be brought up that we need one set of rules

    I see the argument that “if the other 3 leagues have a salary cap”

    The other 3 leagues also have one set of rules
    can you imagine the NHL if only the east allowed fighting? Goons would only have jobs in the east. then in the finals they could have some games were the goons on the east team beat the crap out of the other team

    how about NBA with only the western conference having 3 point shot. All the players that can’t shoot outside can play in the east ..

    Or how about the NFL with only the AFC having pass interfence rules? so all of the small and fast wr and cb can play in the afc but the nfc will have size over speed.

    another thing “all 3 leagues have” is the ability to trade draft picks and identical statium dimensions”

    anyways .. the AL/NL split is something special about baseball that a lot of people don’t want to lose… but it really is riduculous

    but if every time the salary cap came up it springboarded into adding the DH to the NL clubs then salary cap talk would dry up

  • tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

    “I would ask, if it’s such a bad idea, what sport doesn’t have a salary cap other than us?” he said.

    The most watched sports league in the world, the English Premier League, says hello.

    In fact, most every soccer league across the world has no cap and little “parity” and yet remains hugely popular in not only their own countries but all over the globe, despite residing in nations often lacking the dominant economical ideology of the Washington Consensus (fervently pro-market and socially Darwinistic) that would tamper public calls for the type of leveling economic justice that a cap provides…

  • Moshe Mandel

    BTW, notice that it is the middle of the road teams, the ones willing to spend 70M dollars or so, that are complaining. This is bc if MLB had the same cap rules as the NFL did last season, the salary floor, not ceiling but floor, would have been 90 million dollars. The Marlins and Rays have no plans to come close to that, and therefore dont complain about it. Its the middle teams that would be willing to approach that number given some NFL style revenue sharing and abolition of the luxury tax. But it will never happen, bc the teams at the top and the teams at the bottom dont want it.

  • Micah

    Baseball does not need a salary cap. The very idea that this has been brought up again and again is a complete waste of time and breath because it will never happen. It will never be a majority vote by the owners nor the players union would ever allow it so get over it. The Yankees bring in money which all the other teams get, whether through luxary tax or when they come to your town to play. All of baseball thrives through them. So why bite the hand that feeds them?

    If anything 2 things need to happen more then anything. 1. Owners of the Brewers and Pittsburgh need to open their wallet and spend just like other teams do. These owners are insanely rich so claiming they need a cap is really their way of saying “We’re cheap and want to not spend to get results.” Well guess what if they were that way towards the business they own you better believe they wouldn’t have much of a business afterwards. That lazy, give me a handout mentality is whats wrong with this sport, and instead of taking their own faults as why they don’t get a player they use the Yankees as a scapegoat which is BS since there are many other teams like the Sox Mets Cubs and etc that spend a lot as well. So in other words to Attanasio and the rest of the lazy owners Grow Up and take responsibilty for your lack of actions rather then blame someone else. You wouldn’t accept it in your own business why would you do it in baseball. Theres no crying in baseball!

    2. There are way too many teams as it is. I say we get rid of a few. If Attanasio cant spend then I think they either find a owner who can or get rid of them altogether. Too many teams and too many “small markets” So time to contract a few.

    Honestly socialism whoops I mean Salary Cap is not the answer. Owners need to realize that it takes money to make money. Don’t go saying location and other teams spending as an excuse. Suck it up and be a man, quit complaining because its not going to happen so why talk about it?

  • Pingback: Some smart post-season rule changes | River Avenue Blues

  • Andrew

    It certainly is sour grapes. Ask the Brewers owner exactly who is helped by a salary cap? All the cap would do is move the $$$ from the pockets of the players to the owners. Want me to care? Tell me how it helps the fan? I paid $23 a ticket for my season tickets at Yankee Stadium in 1997; the same seat is $135+. Guess what? I cannot afford that. Want me to care about a salary cap? Rollback prices on tickets. The owners will react to that the same way the players react to a salary cap….LOL. Stop whining owners, it is what it is…

  • Jesse

    So a Yankee fanboy site doesn’t think a salary cap is a good idea – what a surprise! Its really amazing how far your heads are up your own a..

    Owners and GMs from Houston, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Boston, and Milwaukee have all recently said a cap would be good for baseball. Its coming – wait for it. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be simple, but some sort of salary cap is coming in 2011.


    • Ben K.

      Your rigorous analysis and fair assessment of my point has me convinced.

      Oh wait. Nope. You just resorted to blanket name-calling and think you know something that the rest of us don’t. Nevermind then.