Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

Pertinent link:

2009 MLB team payrolls | GetListy!!!

Its not a question of haves and have-nots anymore. Half the MLB spends over $80 now, and a third of it spends over $100. There are some teams that simply do not spend, but it is no longer a huge gap between the Sox & other teams. The fact of the matter is the Yankees have a $90 milli advantage over the Sox, and in another thread, I said that's akin to about 5-7 All Star players (Derek Jeter (21 Mill) + Mark Teixeira (20 mill) + CC Sabathia (15 mil) + Johnny Damon (13 mil) + Mariano Rivera (15 mil) + Robinson Cano (6 mil) to be exact).

5 years ago, MAYBE it would've been hypocritical for Sox fans to complain about Yankee spending (still, I'd argue the gap was so wide its still an unfair advantage). But NOW, the gap in spending across MLB has narrowed, and the playing field is leveling - except for ONE team, the New York Yankees.

Originally Posted by BradyManny2344

It's not about the Sox, though - it's about baseball in general. And things have changed dramatically in the last 5 years or so.

If you want to argue the 2004 Sox bought the World Series, I'll listen. There's an argument there. But I think what the Yankees did this offseason has to make the victory feel a little cheaper. That's just me. You could very well take the approach of - "these are the rules, the Yankees are playing within the rules, they have the money to spend, why not spend it?"

Originally Posted by Tunescribe

I don't see how anyone can take MLB seriously without a salary cap. And it should be a cap low enough to be within reach of the poorest teams. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore, which I loved as a kid. It's a joke as a pro sport. I hope the Yankees win it every year until the owners realize something's got to give.

Originally Posted by Real World

You're such a weenie cry baby. Waaaaaaa, my sox can't compete, waaaaa....Yeah, I'm sure you were complaining in 2004, and in 2007 too. If the sox were a small market team, I'd agree with you. the sox are not. The Yankees have an advantage in total dollars over the sox, but it's not as severe as it is for the smaller market teams, who cannot afford to retain their own players, nevermind sign JD Drew to $70 million deals. Look at Cleveland for example. CC, and Lee were the two best pitchers in the World Series, and Victor Martinez secured Boston's spot in the playoffs. Who do you think has a beef? You, a Phillies fan, or a fan from Cleveland? Exactly.



The Yankees shared $100 million dollars with other teams in the league. The Yankees didn't pull a Pirates, and invest less, to ensure a larger profit. They spend money to make money, and every dollar they spend, is only worth about 66 cents because of revenue sharing. Furthermore, the Sox had every opportunity to sign Text, and they blew it. You have John Henry to thank for that. Again, if you were a Royals fan, or from Tampa, I'd agree with your personal disdain for the disparity in salary. That's not the case though.

A salary cap, a hard cap that is, will never happen. As I stated previously, a cap limit, means a cap bottom, and too many teams do not want to be forced to spend whatever that bottom is, year in, and year out. On top of that, the Union wants nothing to do with a limit on compensation. That's why a luxury tax is the only way to go. Taxing dollars after a maximum threshhold, allows owners who are willing to invest the extra dollar for a chance at a championship, the opportunity to do so, while simultanesouly extending added capital to bottom salaried teams. The NBA does this to an extent through their cap system, that has a salary cap threshhold, and a luxury tax limit after that. The Knicks for example spend well over $100 million per season on salary & tax, while other teams may spend $40-50 overall. Dolan, the owner of the Knicks doesn't care, cuz he wants to win. Mark Cuban does the same. Why penalize owners who want to invest in their team. As a Bruins fan, I could only wish that Jeremy Jacobs were that way. Prior to the cap years, he had a core groups of cup quality players, but he would never invest the extra dollars to bring in the 1, 2 or 3 players that would have made the difference. Screw that. As Mike Singletary says, I WANT WINNERS! Carl Pohlad of the Twins is a billionaire. He could easily add a marque player at the deadline, but he won't part with the cash. I can't pity those people. I can pity Tampa, Washington, Cleveland, Oakland, etc.

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Actually ... in place of a cap they could tweek the draft and achieve greater parity. Take away sandwhich picks for top teams ... take away 1st round picks for top teams. The top teams will still survive by going harder after the players who don't have to enter the draft. In any case ... tweaking the draft would make a huge change in parity and it won't affect salaries at all.

Top talent could still drop to later rounds by demanding more signing bonus. But if they tiered the selections and tweaked the draft the have nots would improve greatly vs the haves.

Originally Posted by Real World

That's never going to happen. The union would never sign off on that. Why would the union take a pay cut, which is what such a set up would ealisly mean. That's why the luxury tax is the way it's gone.