Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Otter

Red Sox Owner Calls for Salary Cap

Recommended Posts

What a communist....

Salary caps don't do anything for the fans. They hurt the players. The only ones who benefit are owners.

Yeah, it kills the NFL. :rolleyes:

If they made a max say 150 million and a minimum of 75.

Going by the ESPN salary tracker:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=bos

57+ million would need to be cut from salaries. All from the Yankees.

My rough math has 235 million needing to be cut. That puts a net amount of +178 million that needs to be added.

Maybe the 150/75 is not economically feasible for all teams if that is the case, then team moves to a market that can support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS. i saw some numbers thast say the marlins revenue is over 100 million, and that was a couplf of years ago. and i believe they were the lowest. you force them to spend more than the 25 million/year they spend on their payroll. you also level the playing field where the top team isn't spending 100 million more than almost every other team in the sport....

That number (i.e. 100) is probably close to their gross revenue. It does not mean they can spend it all on player salaries.

They have to subsidize every aspect of their operation with that money. Coaches, FO, scouts, stadium workers, team expenses (travel/lodging), stadium payments, etc.

It is not like the Marlins owner is pocketing 75 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they make over 100m a year. And spend what 25 mill on the payroll. The coaches and airplane tickets don't cost 75 million a year.

What about rent at the stadium? Upkeep of the stadium? Minor Leagues? Player Acquisitions? Taxes and Fees to State and Local Governments? Loans? Or any other of 1000 things a team has to spend money on? :rolleyes:

this is from 2007. yeah it's 2 years old but it's still gonna be pretty close and it will give you a good idea of revenue/payroll comparisons. i don't know how completely accurate this is......but i'd bet it's damn close. i also read somewhere that the marlins got 25 million in revenue sharing in a year where their payroll was 22 million...which means that loria got a free team that year. so, while i think it's a problem when a team can spend 2 percent more than the number 2 team on the list and still have 100 million dollatrs more to work with......it's also a problem, imo, when a team is allowed to spend only 17% of it's revenue on actually putting a competitive product on the field. imo, baseball payroll issues need to be regulated.....exactly how, i don't know.

http://blogs.chron.com/unofficialscorer/2009/01/another_way_to_look_at_mlb_pay_1.html

Let's say your numbers are right. The Problem with the smaller teams and I am not saying regulation is wrong. If the Marlins were to take that 25 million and say sign Manny for one year. He would help the team and increase interest and make more money. Not enough to put them on the same playing field with a mid-market team year in and year out, but it would increase revenue. Then the following year they might only qualify for $15 million. What to do then? No Manny.

I think we can all agree something needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. If he really, really, really wanted to play for the Yanks, why didn't he sign for $10 million a year?

That will never ever ever happen.

The Union will and has interfered on behalf of the player when it comes to taken less. Look at A-Roid when Boston tried to get him. He was deferring money to make it happen and they said no.

In this economy it's not out of the realm of possibilty that some sports franchises are going to fold. You cannot make someone stay in business if they can no longer make a go of it.

In the NHL, Phoenix and Nashville are on the brink. The Isles may be too if they don't get a new arena or move.

In the NBA, the Nets move to Brooklyn is pretty much dead. There are at least 10 teasm running deficits to the point they need assistance form the league office.

So all this happytalk about the wonders of hard caps is just nonsense. And enough pity parties; go out of business. So you have a AAA team instead of MLB in Pittsburgh. The sun will come up; it still does in Brooklyn and Hartford and Winnipeg.

I agree with Scott. Those are bad examples.

The NBA does not have a hard salary cap and their soft cap is a joke. They have a salary cap (around 58 million), that only Memphis is under. They also have a luxury tax which sits at 71+ million. 11 teams are north of this.

The NHL which finally does have a hard cap is just reaping what they sowed when they over expanded in the 90s as a means to generate cash for the NHL.

I agree with your point that teams could go out of business. If you check some of the minor league standings on the lower hockey leagues. Teams have ceased to exist. I imagine if you look at basketball and independent baseball that will hold true.

I do not think a pro-league will allow that to happen. Bad juju trying to get sponsors especially in these trying times. They will move or subsidize that team to keep it afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is 100% true.

I would support a salary cap. And in large part for what Sharrow said.

But he needs to lobby for it every season, not only when he's outspent in the offseason. He also shouldn't spend 50mil to talk to player.

While his idea may be on point, it reeks of bitterness due to his timing.

That is the crux of the matter.

While Henry does seem disingenuous calling for a salary cap only when he loses out on a player, what would the reaction be if he called for a salary cap after signing Dice-K for over a 100 million?

He would have been ripped to shreds by the media and Steinbrenner.

The economic downturn is the best opportunity to do it since A-Rod was lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And he would tell you, 'well, until there is one, it's just keeping up with the jones's'.

But, if you want to affect change, then you've got to practice what you preach first. And you shouldn't be #2 in spending.

I simply don't buy the comparisons to football going on in this thread however. I'm not saying one sport is better than the other, but I think it's harder to be successful in football than it is in baseball. From a team, not a player, standpoint.

There are no systems to fit into, there's no playbook to learn. Sure, there are some basics in baseball, but at the end of the day, if you're a good hitter, you're a good hitter, and it doesn't matter as much what goes on around you. Unlike a CB, who will get roasted if there is no passrush, a hitter still has far more control. Same goes for a pitcher. There's a reason they call football the consummate team sport. Outside of your Brady's and your Mannings, there are far less players in the NFL that can control the outcome of a game nearly on their own as there are in MLB.

And to whose benefit? The Yankees?

You cannot make a 700 million investment and then lead that cause and watch your investment devalue. I am sure the lenders would be cool with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...