Posted by Kevin Jacobs, Sun Staff
“Baseball” and “salary cap.” The two just don't seem to fit very well together.
After raking in $420 million in salary from the Yankees alone this off-season, I'm sure the Players' Association despises the idea. However, Red Sox ownership isn't on the same page.
Wednesday, team president/CEO Larry Lucchino and owner John Henry revealed that they're in favor of a salary cap for Major League teams. Initially I was shocked to hear that the Red Sox, who last year possessed the fourth largest payroll in the Majors, wanted to limit their spending.
Why pull yourself down towards teams like the Kansas City Royals, Minnesota Twins, Florida Marlins, and Tampa Bay Rays? Boston's ability to throw $100 million-plus at top free agents, in any given year, is an advantage few teams can boast. With a salary cap, there'd be significantly less money to spend.
In 2008, the average MLB team's salary was about $87.6 million, compared to Boston's $133,440,037. If a salary cap was instituted, I'm guessing it would be somewhere near the league average (maybe $90 million for 2008).
Using this example, that's almost $45 million that the Sox could have saved in one year alone. No matter what the exact cap number, in the long run it would likely save ownership hundreds of millions of dollars.
But not being able to splurge on top free agents will hurt though, right?
While having deep pockets has been one of Boston's big advantages, it is far from their most important asset. The reason the Red Sox broke “The Curse,” and have since had success is because they are smart. Wicked smart.
The more I think about it, the more sense it makes for Lucchino and Henry. Together with GM Theo Epstein, the three have formed one of the most potent and efficiently run franchises in the game.
Unlike the impatient organizations in New York, the Sox have built their core using the draft and minor league development. Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Jonathan Papelbon, Jed Lowrie, Clay Buchholz, and Justin Masterson have all been developed by the Sox's system, with most of them traveling through Lowell.
Not only have the Sox been able to find and develop the talent, they've been able to keep it, by signing young players like Youkilis and Pedroia to long-term deals. (And word from Fort Myers is that Papelbon may be the next to sign a long-term deal).
Believe it or not, a salary cap could be an advantage for the Sox. Money that formerly was spent on payroll could be used to improve their already impressive scouting and player research departments. I'd be willing to bet anything, that the guys upstairs at Fenway are salivating at the prospect.
As a Red Sox fan, I'd place my trust in Lucchino, Henry, and Epstein. I have no doubt that they will continue to outwit the other MLB franchises, and put a potential winner on the field every year.
A salary cap would enable the Red Sox to become an even more efficient team, and therefore more dangerous, every single year. We'd all be getting richer, especially John Henry.
What do you think about the potential for a salary cap and its good/bad effects?
Comments (2)
The problem with a salary cap in baseball is that it's much more complex than other sports.
For example, how much are you allowed to spend on minor league players? How about on draft picks? How are Japanese players out for bid (like Dice-K) going to be counted? The 50-million the Sox actually pay Dice-K, or the 50-million plus the other 50-milliion they bid to secure his rights?
You see, if the Yankees are capped in what they can spend in the majors, what's to stop them from creating bidding wars with draft picks, where an agent knows that if he overpirces his high school or college kid, then only the Yankees and maybe the Sox or a few other teams can afford to draft him. Will this in essence create bidding wars with high schoolers and college kids?
Lot of interesting questions.
Personally, I'd rather see the Sox owners stop whining about payroll. Very unbecoming of a team that spends as much money as it does in it's overall system. Not to mention, an ownership group that invests in a NASCAR team instead of a new stadium.
Posted by Teddy P. | February 20, 2009 7:37 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 07:37
I think every sport needs some level of fiscal responsibility whether it is forced on them or not. The problem with the current system is that the luxury tax money does go to teams that can use it but those teams tend to pocket the $$$ and not use it to make their team better. Any money that gets kicked back to the lower teams should have to go back into the team (or maybe some percentage like 80%).
Baseball, because of the lack of salary cap, is going to continue to reward the big spenders with success on a much more predictable schedule than the small market teams (even those that are as smart as the Red Sox when it comes to the draft). Once those teams get really good all of their players go to arbitration and the teams can't afford them. If they choose to lock up the young guys early and pick the wrong one/ones to sign it can throw them into a tailspin that takes years to fix while the Sox and Yankees can spend to compensate for a bad (Julio Lugo, Carl Pavano, etc) decision.
The players union will never go for a hard cap but maybe they can set some kind of threshold on how high the #1 team can go beyond the #2 team or how high #1 can be relative to the bottom of the league. Eventually they may have to push all of the small market teams to playing AAA ball and leave themselves with 20 or so franchises in the majors because, honestly, if you are a Royals or Nationals fan your team is likely out of the running only weeks into the season...
All GMs/owners need to apply some restraint. Just because the Yankees have oodles of $$$ and want to buy every player on the market it doesn't look so good to even their own fans if they are watching Yankee games while standing in the unemployment line.
Posted by dboisver | February 20, 2009 2:18 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 14:18