Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Otter

Red Sox Owner Calls for Salary Cap

Recommended Posts

Probably never going to be another Pirate hall of famer as long as there is no salary cap because they'll be going into the hall for a team that can pay the most for them. Whoopie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Henry wants a cap. He has the best young GM in the game, with a great track record in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course Henry wants a cap. He has the best young GM in the game, with a great track record in the draft.

He got hosed by Ca$hman and Bora$ this offseason.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Henry wants to seem more credible when he moans for a salary cap, he should do it when he hasn't just lost out on a big player to the Yankees. 1st time he called for one was when they lost out on A-Rod, this time he calls for it after he lost out on Teixeira. Cry me a river.

Edited by Tyler Durden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He got hosed by Ca$hman and Bora$ this offseason.

He didn't get hosed, he got outspent. It happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't get hosed, he got outspent. It happens.

To some more than others. A lot more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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.

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....

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
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nomaas.org/

The Red Sox complaining about payroll is like Bill Gates complaining about his stock portfolio.

Larry Lucchino claiming that every team except the Yankees spends in the same range:

"I think there are 29 teams that exist within a certain band, and there has been, in the last several years, one outlier that has been much higher. (Source)

Boston's 2008 payroll was at least 2X greater than the following teams: Colorado, Texas, Baltimore, Arizona, Minnesota, Kansas City, Washington, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Tampa, & Florida.

But yes, Boston operates in the "same band" as the rest of baseball. I'm sure fans of those teams feel the same way.

sponsorachild.jpg

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.

A lot of teams spend money to pay down debt too. I'm not sure if that's the case with them though.

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
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:

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.

well everybody but yankees fans. btw, i was just showing those numbers as an example. if the marlins even spent 40% of their revenue that would be a major improvement. using it to sign on eplayer for one year might not be a great idea, but they shoudl be trying harder, imo. but i don't claim to have the right answer for regulation, just that my opinion is that there needs to be some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well everybody but yankees fans. btw, i was just showing those numbers as an example. if the marlins even spent 40% of their revenue that would be a major improvement. using it to sign on eplayer for one year might not be a great idea, but they shoudl be trying harder, imo. but i don't claim to have the right answer for regulation, just that my opinion is that there needs to be some.

Not I. I do think something needs to be done but how can you find a happy medium. The yankees already pay luxury tax, ok fine.

Do you go full bore hard cap? I don't think that'll ever happen and if it does I don't think it benefits baseball. Think about it like this. The NFL has a hard cap, everyone says there is "parity" and blah blah. But for the most part you have 5 teams that are always great, 5 teams that are always TERRIBLE, and then everyone else is meh, and once in a while an aberration makes the SB. The game is damn exciting though. My point is that for as much "parity" there is in the NFL it seems consistently great teams remain great.

The Yankees are in another echelon of cash. But at the same time it doesn't mean we have championships every year. Baseball is the epitomy of free-market, you can have all the money in the world if you make DUMB investments it won't make bring you any results. Unfortunately, that's been us. As much as it pains me to say this, the Red Sox have lots of money as well, and have spent VERY WELL, their results? 2 championships. Smart investments yield results.

When you work in another income class you need to make different investments. Work in things that could provide a profit in a few years from now. That profit could be a run at the playoffs which generates money or generate value from that PLAYER. Make one player worth 2, or 3. The A's and Twins are great examples of that.

When you make TERRIBLE mistakes and you dont' have much money what happens? Nothing, you get poorer. This speaks to real life, it's why lots of basebally teams are perennial losers. It's these guys who are then given help by the top but aren't smartly (although some have, see Rays) investing that money.

Regardless... where do we draw the line? A salary floor? Hard cap? I don't think you'll see any of this until baseball starts dying. Once the TV ratings plummet and people stop buying merch and stop going to games, that's when the action will come. But for now, having the Red Sox owner piss and moan is the boy who cried wolf. You have a fantastic managment team who works incredibly without a cap. If you want more money, build a new stadium, that's what we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But for now, having the Red Sox owner piss and moan is the boy who cried wolf.

More like the asset manager who cried poverty. John Henry doesn't want a happy medium. He wants the Yankees' payroll to be tied to the performance of the JWH strategic fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baseball does need a hard cap though....he is right.

I am all for a cap. I say it should be about 310 million per team.

Play ball!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no it doesn't. there's not really a level playing field. just cause the yankees have spent 200 million the last 5 years and haven't won doesn't make it parity...it just means the yankees did alot of choking. only fans that i know of who don't think there shoudl be a cap are yankees fans......and it's pretty obvious why.

I am ALL for a cap. Let's get rid of the welfare system that is in place now and put in a cap. I would love that, I have always said that.

The Yankees did much better when they were building teams instead of trying to sell out the stadium every day. Give the Yankees back their luxury tax dollars and they can get back to winning Championships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that you put in a cap and a floor. You put the floor at $125 mill and the cap at $175 million. You also get rid of all revenue sharing and luxury tax. All those small market teams pocketing Yankee money will love that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn't get hosed, he got outspent. It happens.

Tex wanted to be a Yankee plain and simple

Had the Sawx outbid the Yanks, he;s still be wearing pinstripes

It happens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it funny that Henry is calling for a salary cap then goes on to state that you cannot buy Pennants.

THEN WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU CRYING ABOUT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say that you put in a cap and a floor. You put the floor at $125 mill and the cap at $175 million. You also get rid of all revenue sharing and luxury tax. All those small market teams pocketing Yankee money will love that.

you can't put the floor at 125 million. alot of teams would be in the red with a floor that high. something like 65/130 makes a hell of alot more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can't put the floor at 125 million. alot of teams would be in the red with a floor that high. something like 65/130 makes a hell of alot more sense.

Says who. That is too low. Put the floor at $125 and all teams that can't make it fold. They are dead weight anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tex wanted to be a Yankee plain and simple

Had the Sawx outbid the Yanks, he;s still be wearing pinstripes

It happens

Yawn, every player claims he truly wanted to be on the team he signed for after the fact. If you're taking him at his word there then you're rather gullible. In the end, it almost always comes down to money and of the competitive teams in the picture, the Yankees offered the most. It's one thing to turn down more money from the Nationals because their perceived as a losing franchise, but I highly doubt he would have done so from the Red Sox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yawn, every player claims he truly wanted to be on the team he signed for after the fact. If you're taking him at his word there then you're rather gullible. In the end, it almost always comes down to money and of the competitive teams in the picture, the Yankees offered the most. It's one thing to turn down more money from the Nationals because their perceived as a losing franchise, but I highly doubt he would have done so from the Red Sox.

Exactly. If he really, really, really wanted to play for the Yanks, why didn't he sign for $10 million a year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not that both leagues with hard caps-the NBA and NHL-have 10+ teams each losing money and borrowing money from their respective league's treasuries.And does anyone enjoy watching the Knicks piss away 2 years in hopes of being under the cap in hopes that Lebron James or Dwyane Wade or Chris Bosh might sign with them? Oh, the fun of expiring contracts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Says who. That is too low. Put the floor at $125 and all teams that can't make it fold. They are dead weight anyway.

it's only too low for the yankees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you can get to a cap, you have to institute true revenue sharing.

It is like putting a cart before the horse.

The NBA and NHL model that is closest to what you guys propose doesn't really work. Why should the Rangers subsidize the Preds, or the Knicks the Thunder? And why should the Knicks spend the next 2 seasons in the possibly pointless hope that they can sign Lebron James?Whay do I have to watch Wade Redden and Michael Rosival give up the puck every power play because of they play strictly because they have high salaries? And they do all this to protect franshise owners who are supposedly good businessmen from the evils of accessing their checkbooks. Nonsense on stilts.

You guys act like a cap is just peachy;it's not. There are going to be unequal chances and opportunites. Caps don't really solve that. It's window dressing. And if you like stories about cap management over the actual games, good for you. All these "Knicks may get Lebron in 2010!" msut be wonderful.

You cannot compare it to the NFL because every NFL team makes money from TV before they sell a single ticket. If they didn't have any crowds at NFL games they would still all make money.

If the Pirates, Royals, Marlins et al can't make a go of it, move or fold. Obviously they would have to fold an even number of teams. But enough whining. Tough titties already.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The NBA and NHL model that is closest to what you guys propose doesn't really work. Why should the Rangers subsidize the Preds, or the Knicks the Thunder? And why should the Knicks spend the next 2 seasons in the possibly pointless hope that they can sign Lebron James?Whay do I have to watch Wade Redden and Michael Rosival give up the puck every power play because of they play strictly because they have high salaries? And they do all this to protect franshise owners who are supposedly good businessmen from the evils of accessing their checkbooks. Nonsense on stilts.

You guys act like a cap is just peachy;it's not. There are going to be unequal chances and opportunites. Caps don't really solve that. It's window dressing. And if you like stories about cap management over the actual games, good for you. All these "Knicks may get Lebron in 2010!" msut be wonderful.

You cannot compare it to the NFL because every NFL team makes money from TV before they sell a single ticket. If they didn't have any crowds at NFL games they would still all make money.

If the Pirates, Royals, Marlins et al can't make a go of it, move or fold. Obviously they would have to fold an even number of teams. But enough whining. Tough titties already.

What you say is even LESS likely.

The players union will NEVER allow teams to fold and there are not any available markets that can support the current structure long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What you say is even LESS likely.

The players union will NEVER allow teams to fold and there are not any available markets that can support the current structure long term.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

MLB is very different than the 2 leagues you just spoke of.

Look at the backlash that just suggestion of contraction brought. They will share more revenue before they allow one of their own to fold.

The players union will see to that. Too many jobs and $$$ at stake.

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
He didn't get hosed, he got outspent. It happens.

Bro he got hosed. The Yankees weren't even part of the discussion. It was basically announced that Tex was on the Red Sox. Then he was a Yankee.

When you are offering somebody 943 million and the other team gets him for 951 million, money should be the reason you lost him. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

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