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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.