Today in the Journal News
Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Jan 07, 2009 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Sam Borden writes that Mark Teixeira is the polar opposite of Jason Giambi.
————
I haven’t posted anything about Sergio Mitre being suspended for 50 games for PED use. There has been other stuff going on and Mitre is a rehab case signed to a minor-league deal.
But Jason from It Is About The Money Stupid broke the whole thing down in his blog and has quotes from the key players.
If you’re interested in the drug-testing system, it’s a good read.
————
There was a time I passionately defended the Baseball Writers’ Association of America and how we go about choosing award winners and members of the Hall of Fame. Then you read stories like this and you realize it’s a waste of time.
This guy voted for Matt Williams for the Hall of Fame and not Rickey Henderson. He voted for Tommy John and not Rickey Henderson. Oh, and he didn’t vote for Mark McGwire because of the steroids issue. Never mind that Williams was in the Mitchell Report.
This comes on the heels of three (three!) people voting for Edinson Volquez for National League rookie of the year despite his not being a rookie. That is the stupidity equivalent of trying to vote for George Bush again in November.
It’s time the whole thing got blown up. People join the BBWAA because that’s the easiest way to get a credential to cover games. That shouldn’t make them eligible to vote for awards or the Hall of Fame. Let MLB issue credentials and have the BBWAA be an organization of people who actually know and care about baseball.
Oakland has a lot of fun heading their way though:
http://thesportshernia.typepad.....kland.html
….but the same Uniform Number (25)….How can life be like that ?
Don’t the A’s fans hate Big G?
If this means he doesn’t take steroids; he isn’t a clown; and he can actually throw a baseball to 2nd base on a double-play; I say AMEN.
It’s not like Giambi had a legacy, the Giants gave up 21 and 80 already.. No difference..
Teixeira certainly is the opposite of Giambi – Teixeira can play defense and will be a huge asset defensively at 1st base.
Man that Borden can write.
I may be in the minority here, but Giambi played way better than expected last year, minus his RISP%. Especially in the field. I ahve to admit, reading up on Tex’s stats and seeing him yesterday, i believe he was a very very good pick up.
Everything has changed, absolutely nothings changed.
/Pearl Jam’d
“If this means he doesn’t take steroids; he isn’t a clown; and he can actually throw a baseball to 2nd base on a double-play; I say AMEN.”
Maybe he can hit the ball to left field too.
Hey Hey Hey, i think i saw Giambi go to left field once last season.
“I may be in the minority here, but Giambi played way better than expected last year, minus his RISP%. Especially in the field.”
Giambi was a very productive player last season and his ability to spend most of the season at 1B, freeing up the sorely-needed DH spot, was miraculous.
He also had two very obvious and substantial limitations. His defense at 1B was bad, and he could not take advantage of the shift by hitting singles the opposite way, which took a big toll on his RISP numbers.
He will be a bargain for Oakland. If he can finally learn to hit to left field again, he will be one of the best signings of the year.
“I ahve to admit, reading up on Tex’s stats and seeing him yesterday, i believe he was a very very good pick up.”
I doubt anyone would disagree with you.
Cb – I respect your opinion, and perhaps the nature of the printed word has masked what I thought were tempered comments. Obviously not …
In today’s discussion, I’m lumping the Sox in with the Yankees. I think the historical references are useful in showing how the “have-nots” think, and react.
Historically, the “haves” take their “having” for granted. It’s just the way it is …. and inertia (and power) does indeed tend to maintain the status quo.
But sometimes, things change, and there’s nothing more violent than a revolutionary “have-not.”
I’m not predicting anything. I’m just saying that there’s a disquietung sense of entitlement, buttressed by self-serving arguments (remember “The Divine Right of Kings?”)
I’m glad for free agency – it helps the Sox. But if I was a fan of one of the 20 or so teams that are moderate revenue producers (and location IS a factor), I’d be parroting their argument, and aggravation.
I’m not bashing the Yankees or the Sox, but a little empathy for the Wshington Generals isn’t a bad thing. We can’t just play each other.
The mediots are out and about again:
Newsday/Ken Davidoff – an article about whether the Yankees spending will pay off again (I only skimmed this, but he didn’t love the move in his blog and this article fleshes this out) – ** In essence, wrong move
Newsday/Wallace Matthews: Tex Signing has Hollow Ring (like Giambi signing) – this is also a close approximation of the headline – I also didn’t bother reading the article
Daily News: Filip Bondy – No Guarantee Tex will put $$ in bank (or something to that effect – that’s the approximate headline of the article. I didn’t read it – the headline says it all)
I eagerly await the arrival of the NY Post in our office to see what they have to say.
This is really amazing. The Yankees lock up a genuinely excellent-in all respects ballplayer, a genuinely likeable, humble guy – and this is the crap we are treated to. There hasn’t been ONE positive article on Tex. As Diogynes looked in vain for an honest man, I’m searching myself for a decent sportswriter…….and I’ve been found wanting. They don’t exist. If anyone can find ANY thing positive on the Tex signing, please post it because I’d like hug that person.
Continuing the competitive advantage discussion from the last thread:
I suspect it’s easy for Yankee fans to like the present system. It does work to our advantage and there’s no denying it. On the other hand, its not a guarantee – Exhibit A: the Mets.
But a salary cap would be bad. Yes, it allows different teams to bubble up from time to time, but overall it makes improving your team a very slow and painful process and from season to season not much changes. Plus, in baseball it would just succeed in transferring wealth from the players to ownership. I would not like to see that and I doubt the players’ union would look kindly on it either.
The real way to achieve more parity would be to reduce the territorial protections the franchises have. A major league team in the Meadowlands would in the long run reduce the Yankees’ competitive advantage without the distortions a salary cap imposes.
But that’s academic, as I don’t think by vote the MLB owners would have the right to do that. I don’t think the haves would agree to cut their own revenue, so I suspect the system we have is the system we will keep.
Betsy…
I’m perfectly content ignoring those “mediots”…and just looking at the pictures from the press conference
Don’ be a masochist..
“In today’s discussion, I’m lumping the Sox in with the Yankees. ”
I’m simply not buying it. You wrote hundreds of words on that topic and made one parenthetical statement which included the Sox. That’s the kind of reference someone make as a cya move – nothing more. You were talking about the Yankees – let’s save it.
I’ve defended you many times on this board and outright said I enjoy your comments (which in general I do) but when people say that you’re being passive aggressive this is the kind of thing they are referring to.
I wonder how empathetic you were towards the masses after the 2006 season when the Sox colluded to steal JD Drew from the dodgers and then spent inordinate amounts of money to assure they would be back in the post season in 2007. Were you feeling the same kind of angst for the “masses” back then?
It’s pretty clear when you’re on a yankees board making hyperbolic, completely over the top statements who they are intended, particularly when your evidence for also referring to your team is one parenthetical statement.
And I fully acknowledge that the yanks have a large financial advantage over every other team – including the sox.
Though it’s not as big as the Sox management would have you believe.
Betsy, a very good point. The problem is that most of these guys only get attention when they create dissension.
Write something nice about somebody and how many readers do you get, how many folks getting into the argument?
You and I are exceptions, but a lot of folks read articles with negative headlines. In spite of his infamy on this blog, how many of our fellow readers/bloggers will read an outrageous article by the Mets Mini-Mite Motor Mouth Lupica? I dare say quite a few and then, incensed, they pass along their unhappiness to others who then have to read that stupid article, etc., etc.
Brian,
Following up on our conversation yesterday – you agreed with Gammons and said over and over that Tex’s own words yesterday indicated that the Sox had “no chance” of signing him.
Don’t know if you read Masserotti’s column today but if you haven’t you should.
Here are direct quotes from Tex:
“”Every team did [have a chance],” said Teixeira. “I told my agent, ‘This is the pecking order,’ and I gave him my idea of who was going to be near the top.
“At the same time, I’m not going to lie to you guys. Contract was important. I wasn’t going to take half as much money to play in New York. But when a team like New York steps up and is very competitive with their contract, it was an easy decision for me.
“I’m sure there could have been [a deal with Boston], but like I said, contract is important. When everyone was kind of around the same contract, there was no rush for me to make a decision, so that’s kind of the way I went about that meeting with Boston.”
The Washington Post had the exact same quotes from Tex and they concluded the same thing – Tex wasn’t just stringing the Nats along but simply preferred to play for a winning team.
Seems pretty clear to me. He had a preference – it was the Yankees but he wasn’t going to take an under market contract to play for the yankees.
That’s worlds different than “no chance” and it’s implication of negotiating in bad faith.
http://www.boston.com/sports/c.....xeira.html
Any word on Cash’s trip to Houston?
“Plus, in baseball it would just succeed in transferring wealth from the players to ownership.”
Yes and no. In baseball players get less of the net industry revenues than they do in football and I believe in basketball as well.
The reason why that’s true is because not having a cap allows teams to simply not spend money.
Baseball players get a little over 50% of industry revenues. In football it’s over 60%.
If you have a cap you generally will have to have a salary floor and the small market teams will hate that.
Thanks for the mention, Pete. Good to have you back!
“Giambi was a very productive player last season and his ability to spend most of the season at 1B, freeing up the sorely-needed DH spot, was miraculous.”
The miracle has a name: IMPENDING FREE AGENCY.
He had to post numbers, show durability, and play a lot of 1st base to maximize his value in the market. He didn’t want to be labeled a part-timer, DH-only type.
CB – my comments were (admittedly) more directed towards the Yankees because their 2008 signings are the catalyst for all of the negative media commentary, as well as the call for a salary cap from other MLB owners.
And the comment of “I’m not losing sleep over it” is every bit as dismissive as Marie Antoinette’s “Let then eat cake.”
Will anything come of this? Probably not. But for now, talk of systemic change is on the table, and I think that my allusions to the French and Russian revolutions are instructive.
But, seriously, yesterday I was somewhat bitter. Today I’m just musing.
CB-
What I like about these comments is that there’s always something new to learn. I had no idea the players got a smaller cut of the revenue pie in baseball.
How would a salary cap work when individual team revenues vary as much as they do in baseball? I may be wrong on this as well but I always thought revenues are fairly constant from team to team in basketball and football.
More nonsensical salary cap talk.
As was pointed out in the other thread, no sport has had more competitive balance over the last 20 years than baseball.
90% of their teams have made the playoffs at least once in that time span, compared to 1/3 of the NFL.
As I pointed out in the other thread, NFL Players get 63% of total revenues in constructing their salary cap.
If that occurred in baseball, the salary cap would be at 155 million dollars per team.
That means the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, etc, would have to pay 155 million in payroll annually.
You think they want to do that?
The problem is, the industry is NOT hurting. The Marlins and Royals for example, make profits exceeding 20 million annually.
Its all about running your business effectively. Its been proven time and time again in sports that the most effectively run businesses succeed. Its not just about spending money.
No amount of spending guarantees any success in sports. That’s even true in the NFL. The Raiders, Redskins and Cowboys had the highest payrolls in the league and none of those teams made the playoffs.
Whiny Red Sox fans complaining about the Yankees spending ways is an annual rite of passage.
Funny though….when they spent over 200 million dollars in the off-season following their non-playoff run in 2006, there was no wringing of hands by Red Sox Nation about all the money they spent. They welcomed it.
When they offer Tex 173 million dollars, there wasn’t a single post from Brian, or any other Red Sox fan on this blog, complaining about the offer.
There isn’t going to be a “revolution” in baseball because the entire industry is thriving.
Even the NFL has not had their annual revenues go up five fold, as baseball has, since 1994.
Its a strawman argument that the industry is “hurting” brought about by whiny fans and uninformed members of the media.
Baseball has NEVER been healthier, financially and competitively, than it has been since 1994.
CB – That Teixeira quote qualifies what was said at the press conference …. or was it said at the press conference? It certainly puts a different light on who was playing who (if anybody).
The one quantifiable thing that he said was about making up his mind two weeks before Christmas (and one week before John Henry’s fly-by). If that’s true, then the time line is at variance with that quote (sounds like the OJ trial).
Basically, he was probably always strongly leaning towards the Yankees, but could possibly be talked out of it (with the help of a little dinero). It’s the danger of not reading off prepared notes.
Time for my daily Manny blog:
Article from Mazz on the Rays.
http://www.boston.com/sports/c.....etter.html
While I looove the Tex move and the AJ?CC signings, we are still not over the top.
I am still not sold on Posada,Matsui and Cano having bounce back years to make up for the loss of Giambi and Abreus production. Plus Matsui and Nady are gone next year anyway.
Tex definitely takes the edge off there but the Rays are still the team to beat with their pitching and team speed.
Sigining Tex was finalized when his wife said “I want you to be a Yankee” and when Boras called Cash and said “Tex really wants to be a Yankee”.
So what does Cash say when Boras calls him and says Manny really wants to be a Yankee? We know that will happen because Manny probably does want to be a Yankee and he absolutely belongs in the AL for obvious reasons.
Lets go for the kill and put Manny in the 5 spot. Trade Nady and Matsui and live with Melk/Gard in CF. Manny can occasionally play LF against lefties while Posad DH’s and Molina catches. This gives Damon a chance to rest as well as Posada. Manny DH’s the majority of the time and we score enough runs to carry a youngster in the 5th rotation spot.
I know I know, it won’t happen, but thats what many said about getting Tex. Getting rid of Matsui and Nady can be done and is inevitable anyway.
Damon LF
Jeter SS
Tex 1B
Arod 3B
Manny DH
Posada C
Cano 2B
Swisher RF
Melk/Gard CF
Think we would win with that? Please !!!!
Yankeeray…aside from the fact that selling low on Matsui and making him primarily a salary dump isn’t exactly a smart way to do business, if you had your way where would you send him?
Same question for Xavier Nady as well….
Ray,
Forget Manny. You can post it everyday, they aren’t signing him.
Not a single team discussion has taken place re: Manny.
Its not happening.
SJ
(1) I never would, and never have, supported a salary cap. I root for a ‘Have” also.
(2) If MLB were to set a salary cap as a % of league revenue, obviously the revenue would be distributed in a way ensuring that the payroll obligation would be met. The Marlins, Pirates, etc. would be as solvent (from shared revenues) as the Bills in football.
(3) Why would small market teams object to a salary floor? The bean counters would ensure that the negotiated settlement would redistribute revenue to protect their profits.
MLB owners will be winners whether we stay with the current “trickle down” mentality, or move towards socialism. The interesting point is that the discussion has commenced.
StandingO’Neill
January 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Yankeeray…aside from the fact that selling low on Matsui and making him primarily a salary dump isn’t exactly a smart way to do business, if you had your way where would you send him?
Same question for Xavier Nady as well….
SJ44
January 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Ray,
Forget Manny. You can post it everyday, they aren’t signing him.
Not a single team discussion has taken place re: Manny.
Its not happening.
——
I would trade Matsui to the Giants or Seattle and take back a low level prospect and pay as little of his salary as possible.
I would trade Nady to Texas or anyone else that is looking for a bat and take back an IF or OF for some bench depth.
These would obviously both be salary dumps to make room for Manny’s salary.
I like the Berroa and Rodriguez signings for bench depth competition.
If we are not sigining Manny then I would trade Nady and try and get more back as I don’t think that he or Swish will want to sit at this point of their careers.
I know this is a dream but the reality is that Cash will get that call if you saw Boras reaction yesterday to that question.
And the reality is also that Manny fits with us it’s just a matter of the financials. I think the Manny attitude issue is a non issue right now. I know Arod would want this.
And as far as the rest of the baseball world goes, too bad as reading the game 7 article makes me want to do whatever it takes to remove that bad taste and get #27.
JMO
“How would a salary cap work when individual team revenues vary as much as they do in baseball? I may be wrong on this as well but I always thought revenues are fairly constant from team to team in basketball and football.”
Wave,
Well SJ just quantified the numbers above – baseball players don’t get nearly the revenues that football players do. Now there are far more football players but from the binary revenues flowing to the owners vs. players per capita salary is very secondary.
The essential difference between baseball and football – and why a cap is unlikely to work in baseball – is that ultimately most revenue in the NFL is derived nationally from television contracts while most revenue from baseball is derived locally (attendance, local tv, etc).
There’s simply no way around that unless the internet just takes over all baseball broadcasts (mlb.com is shared jointly – bad planning by the yankees…)
So as long as there is large variation in local revenues a salary cap/floor is problematic and small market teams may do worse.
There’s simply no way the yankees, sox, dodgers are going to support some kind of national revenue sharing plan when it’s those teams that generate so much of the revenue in the first place.
So what will happen if there is a cap put in place is that the yankees will still have way more revenue than the small market teams and won’t be able to spend in on the 25 man roster. So they’ll massively plow that money back into the draft, international signings, and minor league system.
The yankees will sign international amateurs for however much money it takes. Guys at the top of the draft won’t sign with smaller teams as they’d know the yanks would pay several fold over slot to sign them.
If there was a hard cap, do you think there’s any chance the A’s sign Michael Inoa while the yankees and sox have hundreds of millions of dollars burning a hole in their pocket?
And at the same time teams like Tampa would be forced to increase spending on their 25 man roster which would prevent them from spending on the draft.
The fundamental economic inequality in baseball isn’t due to salaray cap vs. no salary cap. It’s do to the local nature of revenue generation.
There’s simply no straightforward solution to that. The salary tax/ revenue sharing is likely the best solution possible. If they want to raise the marginal salary tax rate so it hurts the yankees mor to be over the cap they could do that I guess, but then no other team will want to go over the cap.
Lot’s of unintended consequences.
“That Teixeira quote qualifies what was said at the press conference …. or was it said at the press conference? It certainly puts a different light on who was playing who (if anybody).”
As Pete explained yesterday – the print journalists don’t ask questions during the press conference – they meet with the player afterwards to get their questions answered.
There were baseball writers from boston and washington there yesterday and all of them were interested in why tex didn’t go to their respective teams.
I believe those quotes were from after the press conference when the print journalists/baseball writers met with Tex.
Again – a baseball player and his family having a simple preference on where to play doesn’t mean a whole lot and in no way suggests bad faith negotiations. Nor does it mean that another team in the mix has “no chance.”
CC Sabathia most likely wanted to play for the angels. Adam Dunn publicly stated that he wants to play for the Cubs. Tough luck – the cubs wanted Milton Bradley.
Everyone has a preference for where they’d most like to work – doesn’t mean that you can know that that ideal situation would work out.
So all of these allegations of bad faith negotiations by Gammons, etc. are ridiculous.
Brian, wasn’t it Boston that requested the Texas conference? Teixeira gave them the courtesy of ltting Boston make their pitch, Teixeira mad he counter-roposal, and the conference was over. Henry sent his emails to the media, I suppose just to shake Boras up…I’m not sure of the purpose, but, it backfired. The only one that tried to play anybody was Henry, and he ended up playing himself.
The next time that Boston tries to sign a player, leave Luccino at home. It appears that every time he opens his mouth or gets involved, he screws up. It’s like the like from “Bang The Drum Slowly” when pitcher Henry Wiggen is negotiating his contract and tells the team owner’s assistant/gofer, (not gopher) Bradley, that every time he opens his mouth, it’ll cost another $10,000. He’s clearly a detriment. It was reported that he said sthing to Teixeira that annoyed him. What was said wasn’t eported, but that came from a Boston reporer.
CORRECTON: courtesy of ***letting*** Boston
1 more thing and then I’m done for the day on this.
4 of our 9 batters would still be home grown players. 3 of our 5 starters would still be home grown and the majority of our bullpen as well. Say what you will but we would still be doing pretty good with all of the young hitting and pitching prospects down on the farm. They can all say that we are trying to buy a world series but it would be smart purchases mixed with home grown players just like it always was in the 90′s, just a little bit more payroll now as times have changed.
Damon LF
Jeter SS
Tex 1B
Arod 3B
Manny DH
Posada C
Cano 2B
Swisher RF
Melk/Gard CF
CC,AJ,CMW,Joba,Hughes
Mo,Coke,Marte,Bruney,Ramirez,Veras,Aceves/Robertson/Melancon
GreenBeret7
January 7th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Brian, wasn’t it Boston that requested the Texas conference? Teixeira gave them the courtesy of ltting Boston make their pitch, Teixeira mad he counter-roposal, and the conference was over. Henry sent his emails to the media, I suppose just to shake Boras up…I’m not sure of the purpose, but, it backfired. The only one that tried to play anybody was Henry, and he ended up playing himself.
The next time that Boston tries to sign a player, leave Luccino at home. It appears that every time he opens his mouth or gets involved, he screws up. It’s like the like from “Bang The Drum Slowly” when pitcher Henry Wiggen is negotiating his contract and tells the team owner’s assistant/gofer, (not gopher) Bradley, that every time he opens his mouth, it’ll cost another $10,000. He’s clearly a detriment. It was reported that he said sthing to Teixeira that annoyed him. What was said wasn’t eported, but that came from a Boston reporer.
——-
He supposedly asked Tex if Boras had even showed him their proposal which probably irked Boras more than Tex. Either way Lucchinos big mouth didn’t help them at all.
Long live the Evil Empire
YRay, why are you so sure that Matsui, Posada and Cano won’t have bounce back years, but, you’re sure that Ramirez will continue to produce numbers at age 37 and will actually try to show some sort of hustle?
Ray…that wouldn’t make a lot of sense if Cashman dealt Nady, a guy who cost the organization one of its top prospects (Tabata) and 3 serviceable MLB arms for a bench player or a low A minor leaguer.
I understand that you want Manny, but there just isn’t a place for him. If we have to weaken our team (and imo trading away a valueable player like Nady or Matsui for nothing does weaken the team, as well as future moves that could be made) to acquire Manny, is it really worth it? A platoon of Nady & Swisher gives the yankees at least average production out of a corner outfield spot as well as strengthens the bench.
Also I read that article posted by Pete, Corky Simpson should be ashamed of himself. It now appears the writers aren’t using their “privledge” of voting for the HOF to honor the game, but to instead create controversey, thus promoting themselves. It’s sad, and I wish they could find a way to modify it, especially since I know there are a lot of smart baseball writers out there.
I am convinced that Tex really wants to be here. I am not a person who is fooled by guys who claim they liked the Yankees as a kid, because there are people who are phonies(See Gerrit Cole). But the main thing that convinces me is that there were no demands for opt out clauses by Scott Boras, which is unusual (See Alex Rodriguez).
I really like the way Cashman handled this situation. He was a total professional. I go back to the Cole debacle and instead of complaining, and trashing Boras, he went out of his way to let people know that he did not blame Boras for Cole not signing. I am sure that Boras appreciated that, and that certainly did not hurt when dealing with Tex (Because Boras seems to be a friend, as well as an agent of Tex’s). One of the complaints I heard about the Cole situation is that Cashman & Co. did not make him seem wanted. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not (I don’t believe it, See Garrison Lassiter as exhibit A of why not). But the main point is he went the extra mile with Tex and that video presentation featuring Twisted Sister. I am sure it helped.
GreenBeret7
January 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
YRay, why are you so sure that Matsui, Posada and Cano won’t have bounce back years, but, you’re sure that Ramirez will continue to produce numbers at age 37 and will actually try to show some sort of hustle?
——-
Im not so sure but not willing to bet the bank just yet. I love Cano but think that Matsui who is gone anyway next year can be moved. I think Manny is a better fit in that he hits both lefties and righties and believe that he will hit for 2-3 more years as a DH.
StandingO’Neill
January 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Ray…that wouldn’t make a lot of sense if Cashman dealt Nady, a guy who cost the organization one of its top prospects (Tabata) and 3 serviceable MLB arms for a bench player or a low A minor leaguer.
I understand that you want Manny, but there just isn’t a place for him. If we have to weaken our team (and imo trading away a valueable player like Nady or Matsui for nothing does weaken the team, as well as future moves that could be made) to acquire Manny, is it really worth it? A platoon of Nady & Swisher gives the yankees at least average production out of a corner outfield spot as well as strengthens the bench.
——
It is inevitable that Nady will be dealt now or later as he is a FA next year so the fact that we gave up tabata can’t be a factor in any moves for him. I don’t think a platoon with Swish is what either player wants but I agree that it would be good for the yanks.
My bottom line is that I think Manny is a great fit for the next 2-3 yrs as we have that window to win with Jeter/Mo/maybe CC/Posada etc..
I can obviously live with what we have but I see moves as inevitable and think Manny takes us over the top.
Good talk with you guys on this.
“The fundamental economic inequality in baseball isn’t due to salaray cap vs. no salary cap. It’s do to the local nature of revenue generation.
There’s simply no straightforward solution to that. The salary tax/ revenue sharing is likely the best solution possible. If they want to raise the marginal salary tax rate so it hurts the yankees mor to be over the cap they could do that I guess, but then no other team will want to go over the cap.”
Well there is a straightforward solution, but one that would be greatly resisted by large market teams and small market fans.
End territorial restrictions. That’s what causes the distortions in the first place. If there were no territorial restrictions, then clubs in lower revenue areas would have an incentive to move to higher revenue areas until an equilibrium is reached where all clubs had access to the same approximately the same level of local revenues.
That would be preferable to taxing as a way to distribute income, because in a tax scenario a small market team without competition in its area always has an incentive not to spend the redistributed revenue – it has a captive audience.
Whereas, if there were three or four teams in the New York region, they would all have an incentive to compete and spend because the worst team in the multiple team region would draw fewer fans, have lower TV ratings and make less money generally.
But, as I said in an earlier post, it is a highly unlikely scenario as large market clubs like the Yanks would never agree.
“End territorial restrictions. That’s what causes the distortions in the first place. If there were no territorial restrictions, then clubs in lower revenue areas would have an incentive to move to higher revenue areas until an equilibrium is reached where all clubs had access to the same approximately the same level of local revenues.”
I agree with that completely. But that’s not going to solve the ostensible problem advocates of the cap are bringing it up for.
People advocating for the cap are saying that the cap is needed in order for “small market” teams to compete with “big market teams.”
Ending territorial exclusivity would simply take teams away from small market locations and turn more teams into “big market.”
I agree that ending territorial exclusivity would be the fairest thing for the owners of those small teams – but that would simply be the worst case scenario for the fans of those small market teams – and it’s always in the name of the fans and competitive balance that the cap is brought up in the first place.
Interesting read from the Green Valley News and Sun reporter. (Pete’s link above) All I can say is – WOW!
The writer declined to vote for McGwire. His reasoning –
“there is doubt about whether McGwire’s career was chemically enhanced and unless — and until — that matter is taken care of, this voter won’t mark the ballot for Mark.”
BUT – he votes for Matt Williams. Not only is Matt NOT a HOF player – but the writer obviously had his head in the sand when this report came out –
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3096834
“I agree that ending territorial exclusivity would be the fairest thing for the owners of those small teams – but that would simply be the worst case scenario for the fans of those small market teams – and it’s always in the name of the fans and competitive balance that the cap is brought up in the first place.”
I did say ending territorial exclusivity would be greatly resisted by small town fans.
But presumably not all – there would be winners and losers among small town fans, as not all small markets would lose their teams, just enough so that the large market advantage is reduced to equilibrium.
There’s plenty of precedent for that if you go back far enough in baseball history, although historical precedent would be pretty cold comfort for a fan of a team departing from a smaller market for greener pastures.
Actually, despite all this talk about competitive imbalance today, there’s never been a golden age of competitive balance. You could have been a Senators fan, or a Boston Braves fan, or a St. Louis Browns fan, or a fan of a host of other teams who seldom won and finally decamped for greener pastures.
Plus, despite the whining, people seem to love to have consistent winners. The Yanks resurgence has been a rising tide lifting all boats.
This is like the guy that voted for Keith Rivers instead of Jerod Mayo for defensive rookie of the year in the NFL. He admitted to voting for the wrong guy and simply mixed up his linebackers. What is going on in voting when you vote for a guy who didn’t play half the year?
Hey Pete!
I just clicked over to Corky Simpson’s column that you mentioned (about his HOF ballot). He’s getting royally hammered in the comments section on his omission of Rickey Henderson from the ballot. My laptop almost caught fire from the heat of the flames his column has generated. Good call and thanks for the link.