Not sure why but the word is that Jeter stays at short and A-rod plays 3rd. If I were Jeter I wouldn't expect that to last long. Jeter is by far a defensive liabilty when you have A-Rod. A-Rod has not hit .300 since 2001 and only 4 times in 10 years. George had to do something because Giambi has been a bust, considering the $$$ he signed for. The pitching certainly is suspect. Mussina has never faired well in #1 situation. That kid from Montreal still has to prove himself in NY. Cashman can cover up multimillion mistakes with a couple of more multimillion $$ deals. I still give the edge to Boston in the East with their starting rotation.

"Some see this as the rich getting richer yet again and some see this as a great deal for Texas."

Actually, I see this deal as being both of these things. Sadly, the rich are getting richer. If money was no object (as it seems to be for the Yankees) then getting the best player in baseball cannot be anything but a good trade. But, considering what a lot of teams have been stuck with just to get a big contract off their hands, the Rangers come out looking great by getting an all star on the relative cheap in return. I think they did better in getting Soriano, than they would have in getting an overpaid Manny. They now have a very impressive looking young lineup, and theoretically, they can use some money they have saved to get some decent pitching.

A couple of thoughts about this: I would say this trade still would have to rank behind the selling of Babe Ruth to the Yankees if that counts as a trade, but it's pretty close. However, could this trade spark a curse of the Bambino type scenario? Might the Rangers never win another world series? It would make for some fun baseball lore.

Does anyone else remember Ripken's last all star game where he started at 3rd and Arod started at short? Didn't Arod make a public gesture allowing Ripken to play at short? I can imagine history repeating itself and Jeter deciding to do what's best for the team and allow the switch. Of course, it probably won't occur in a game situation like Arod/Ripken but the Yankees will allow Jeter to make the decision. That way, everyone saves face.

I would have liked to have seen the Rangers pick up a pitcher in the deal as well. Alas, it is a good deal for both sides as long as the Rangers can make some smart financial decisions with the money that they are now saving. No more Chan Ho Park contracts would help. They have a great young core and seem to just be in need of pitching.

I think this deal brings very short term relief to Texas. They can step back and assess the dumb deal they made in the first place. Lets not forget the damage that Texas did to the economics of the game. Signing A-Rod to that deal drove up salaries. There are plenty of players including Jeter who will be eternally grateful to Alex. Delgado might well have enjoyed Alexian leverage in his fat deal. The time lines seem to coincide.

At the end of the day I don't think Texas has really escaped A-Rod salary, it would appear like they are on the hook for a lot of dough. Couple that to any sucess in re-signing Soriano for say $9 mil per-if the market falls-then they are still in essence shelling out something in the range of 17 million or so for a second baseman. If I were Texas I'd be moving him to centre just to reduce the chance of injury.

Yeah, Yankee's win this trade. Baseball fans lost the most,as was pointed out in the highjack thread by Mike D. If the Red Sox and Yanks are out in front by 10 games in mid to late July I want to know which fans will be turning out to the game in Tampa, Balt. and T.O. And which fans will be sitting in front of the TV on Friday, Saturday and Sunday's in July and August. For the life of me I don't see how this is good for baseball.

A month or so ago I was hoping Rodgers would throw in another few million for a bonafide closer. That would have been spit into the wind. Better to have saved the money as it seems baseball is unfortunatly a business not a sport. John Henry's gotta be savage today huh. But I wish the Red Sox the best of luck. Ugh.
All the best.
Pete

http://me.woot.net
Delgado couldn't have benefitted from A-Rod's contract unless the details of A-Rod's contract were decided upon months in advance. (For reference, Delgado's contract was signed on Oct 20, 2000; Alex Rodriguez signed his on December 12 of the same year.)

In fact, Delgado's contract probably pushed up A-Rod's contract; after all, for a brief amount of time, Delgado was the highest-paid player in baseball.

Joe,
Where do you find that kind of detailed contract signing dates?

I'd be interested to hear about the deal's impact on Godfrey's push for increasing the number of WCs, and Ricciardi's push for a balanced shedule.

Lefty, I believe it's all at baseball-reference.com

If the Yankees are willing to spend anything, why did Texas give them $67 million? (Because the Yankees are, mostly, pretty smart at how they spend their money.)

While A-Rod may be overpaid at $25m/year, he's probably not overpaid at $16m/year. i.e. Texas was overpaying probably by less than $9m/year. After this trade, they're definitely overpaying by $9m/year.

Texas gets Soriano for a few years at decent rates. That might mean Texas wins this trade for the first few years, but the Yankees probably win the years after Soriano is a free agent.

Soriano only has 2 good years on his resume; I'm less confident he'll retain his value. Wasn't Soriano benched in the playoffs? My feeling is that overall, Texas loses in this trade. They should have held out for more money.

The Yankees are getting A-Rod for less than the Jays are paying Delgado this year. Most teams could handle A-Rod at $16m/year.

I'm against a salary cap (it's a scam to rob the players). If you want to "equalize" things, the current playoff system of having to win 3 playoff series in a row already does that to a considerable extent. (Not to mention the draft and 3-6 years of getting players below market-value.)

As others have said, it would be a good thing to further dilute the wildcard (2 or 4 wildcard teams rather than 1, which have one-game playoffs against each other for the right to play with the division winners). While that would increase the importance of winning the division, it gives more teams hope of winning the lottery in October (and also more chance of either the Yanks or Red Sox having an early exit, tee hee). It would be a good compromise.

How about having 3 divisions based upon payroll. The 5 highest payroll teams in one division, the next 5 in another and the 4 lowest in the third. Divisions are based upon opening day payroll with a balanced schedule. Division winners and one wildcard make the playoffs. Teams furiously trying to manipulate payroll to drop down a division might be entertainment in itself.

While A-Rod may be overpaid at $25m/year, he's probably not overpaid at $16m/year...The Yankees are getting A-Rod for less than the Jays are paying Delgado this year.

The Yankees aren't getting ARod for $16MM/yr though, they're getting him for $16MM and the opportunity cost of not having Soriano for the next two years and whoever the unnamed player is. It's a cost few other teams could pay.

"I'm against a salary cap (it's a scam to rob the players). "

Not if the cap is adjusted based on the amount of revenue generated by MLB. At least I don't think this would rob the players (explain to me how it would if I am wrong). I realize that it's hard to get numbers that everyone agrees is accurate, but if such accurate economic information could be found (which should be possible in theory), wouldn't it be possible to have an appropriate cap level?

I am not saying a cap is necessary, but doesn't it make a lot of sense provided you're not robbing the players. Whenever there is some fantasy auction, people are given a cap. Whenever people play a board game, every player is given roughly equal opportunity to succeed. This is simply not the case in baseball. It seems silly to me that one team should be given an advantage over another team that has nothing to do with baseball. Oh well, me and my utopian ideals I suppose.

I would be ok simply with an appropriate amount of revenue sharing (with a salary floor so players do not get robbed), but obviously there is not an appropriate amount now. How about for every dollar spent on players a team has to put an equal amount of money into a fund that is split evenly amongst all the teams?

I guess it doesn't really matter because we're stuck with this system, but when fans start to think that their team actually has no hope of getting to the playoffs ever, doesn't something have to be wrong?

So is the deal finalized? I'd hate to comment until the exact money figures are announced, the ESPN report seems to be speculation still.

Hey, the rich getting richer is a media fabrication. What is really scary about the Yankees/BoSox is that they have the cash and they are smart. The Rangers are rich, look what stupidity has gotten them into. They are so desperate to get rid of Arod (why exactly?) that they are willing to give money to sweeten the deal... sigh...

http://me.woot.net
lefty, A:

Google! I searched for "Delgado contract" and "Alex Rodriguez contract." As far as I can tell Baseball Reference doesn't have the date information in that level of detail.

http://economics.about.com
Not if the cap is adjusted based on the amount of revenue generated by MLB. At least I don't think this would rob the players (explain to me how it would if I am wrong). I realize that it's hard to get numbers that everyone agrees is accurate, but if such accurate economic information could be found (which should be possible in theory), wouldn't it be possible to have an appropriate cap level?

In theory, yes, in practice, no.

There's no way the owners would ever agree to a system like that. Every time the owners have suggested a salary cap, their system would have caused the % of revenue going to the players to decrease. In 1990, the owners tried to get the players to agree to get 60% of revenue, when they were getting around 65% at the time. Obviously they told the owners where to go.

Considering that agreeing to any kind of cap would be a major consession by the union, the owners would have to give up something large in return, and there's no indication that they're ready to do so.

The other problem with a percentage system is that if it's set up too high, it leaves the owners with the potential to have a huge unfunded liability at the end of the season. If salaries drop, revenues don't, and the owners owe the players $300 million at the end of the season, where's that money going to come from? There's no way that the owners would risk owing the players hundreds of millions of dollars at the end of a season, but given a high enough percentage, there's the potential of that happening.

Look, the commisioner can step in and stop these deals at any time. He chooses not to. Asking the union to make concessions because management is negligent is absurd. This is Selig's mess and he has the tools at his disposal to fix the problem, but he chooses not to.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Got some of the details RE: past salary cap negotiations wrong. Doug Pappas in an ESPN.com article has a great piece on this history of labor-management relations in baseball:

In June 1994 the owners proposed a salary cap that would have limited the players to 50 percent of total industry revenues. The players, who were then receiving about 58 percent of revenues, had no interest in accepting a collective 15 percent pay cut.

That's a lot worse than the 65 to 60 that I thought.

Cheers,

Mike

This is a pretty good deal for the Rangers. They'll still finish last, but for a lot less money, and they can at least begin to address their pitching problems. It's a fine deal for the Yankees, who add the game's best player and already scoffed at the luxury tax. It's a great deal for Alex Rodriguez, in terms of exposure, endorsements and his best chance yet to win a ring or two.

It's rotten for Texas fans, who must feel betrayed by their owner, GM and captain, but they'll get over it eventually, if their team ever gets back into the pennant race. It has to be a devastating blow to the Red Sox, who spent all that money adding Schilling and Foulke, and must have felt, briefly, like it bought them the AL favourite's role. Knowing how close they came to landing A-Rod must make this reality pill even harder to swallow for the Boston players, front office and fans.

It's also a downer for the rest of the AL East. An uphill climb to respectability for Baltimore and Tampa just got that much steeper. For the "Cinderella" 2004 Jays, it looks like midnight may have come six months early. Still, I think they should go ahead and play the games. Anything can happen on the field, and it quite often does.

My initial reaction was that this deal would be good for baseball, because of all the added publicity and attention it's sure to generate. In the short run, that's still true, but only until the perception of a tilted playing field becomes reality. If the Yankees do win this year, many fans of all other teams will be turned off by the "unfair" competition. If they should win again in 2005, that trend will become even worse. On the other hand, if the Bronx Bombers continue to lose, as they have in the last three postseason tournaments, think of how many baseball fans will be jumping for joy. It hardly matters which one of 29 Davids defeats Goliath, as long as people believe the underdog has a chance.

I actually like George Steinbrenner, and A-Rod remains my favourite player. I don't blame either of them for wanting to win, and this union makes perfect sense to both of them. I've never rooted against the Yankees before, and really admired the 1998 club, but now, for the first time, I want them to fail, for the good of the game. Here's hoping that Lofton and Williams are equally bad in center field, that Kevin Brown's back acts up, that Jon Lieber's comeback is disappointing, whatever it takes. A shortstop controversy would be nice; when Jeter boots a grounder or two, the Boss can threaten to take his job away.

You know what? I think I'm going to enjoy this Yankee-bashing.

There's only one team that would exceed a salary cap set at 2 times the median payroll. In practice, the only effect of such a cap would be to decrease the amount of money a half-dozen players (Yankees) would receive. It might not affect them at all, as these players might never have been traded to the Yankees and still might be making the same cash on some other team.

The Union could negotiate precise cap limits in 5 year CBA blocks if they felt more comfortable using solid numbers instead of 2 times median. They've already accepted luxury tax thresholds and only one team is brazen enough to thumb their noses at those.

In exchange for earlier free-agency or a higher minimum salary, I think the Union would be getting a good deal if it agreed to these types of cap systems.

When it comes time to negotiate the next CBA, I'd rather see baseball shut down for 2 years over the salary cap issue than to see the Yankees continue to make a mockery of fair competition.

Coach,

Unfair should probably have the quotation marks dropped. If we've studied our baseball history, we know that the Yankee revenue machine is the result of a virtuous circle of success founded on the cartel's guarantee of territorial protection for the Yankees in an area with not only more baseball fans than anywhere else, but also wealthier ones.

There's no question but that the Yankees have an unfair advantage.

I'll only be satistified if/when the Yanks fail to make the playoffs at least 2 of 3 years. It'd be much better for baseball if some of those Yankee playoff berths were earned by other teams.

Yankee Third Baseman Contest:
#139545 Posted 01/28/2004 03:27 PM by Mark:
A-Rod, all the games. Hey, they're the yankees.

Someone give this man a trophy.

Robert, a lot of us have enjoyed mocking the Yankees the last 3 years (maybe you could have won if you'd been willing to spend more, tee hee). It wouldn't be as much fun if we changed the rules specifically to hurt them. (And shutting down baseball the last 2 years definitely wouldn't have been as much fun.)

The Mets just won 66 games last year (in the same market as the Yanks). Their Opening Day payroll was $117m.

http://economics.about.com
In exchange for earlier free-agency or a higher minimum salary

With a salary cap, these are absolutely useless to the union, since you've already limited the amount of money that can be spent on players. All you're doing is spreading the money around a bit differently among the players. So this isn't at all a concession by management, and the union wouldn't be swayed by them.

I do agree with you that the Yankees missing the playoffs for two out of three years would be great for baseball. I hope it happens.

Cheers,

Mike

Saying the Mets play "in the same market" as the Yankees is like saying the Islanders and Rangers draw on the same fan base. Territorially, and (more important) demographically, there are key differences between the fan bases.

In the '80s, the Mets outspent the Yankees. But the scale was completely different. The Mets weren't spending, and didn't have the ability to spend, $200M in 2004 dollars back in '86.

argh. Based on the ESPN report, I think the Yankees clearly win this one. A fair trade would be Soriano and Navarro for A-Rod, with the Rangers paying somewhere between $0 and $30 million to the Yanks.

If I'm the Rangers GM, there are two reasons to trade A-Rod: (i) drastically reduce payroll, to enable the team to rebuild around its good young players; (ii) obtain one or more excellent young players, preferably pitching.

How well does this trade achieve these objectives? First, the Rangers are paying a huge chunk of A-Rod's salary. They will also have to pay a substantial amount to Soriano over the next few years. Second, although Soriano is a good player, his BB/K ratio is awful (38/130). In light of his increased vulnerability at the plate last fall, I think Soriano carries some risk.

I would have liked to see the Rangers address their needs directly. Perhaps through a three-way trade (eg Soriano to another team, A-Rod to Yanks, blue-chip young player(s) to Rangers). Easier said than done, I realize, but that's my view.

Same market maybe, but far from the same history.

The Mets were a pathetic expansion team for most of the '60s, while the Yankees had a market that could have supported 4 major league teams at the time to themselves (after the Dodgers and Giants fled).

Even if we split the market in half (that's far too generous to the Mets), the Yankees' market size/wealth has more potential than any of the 28 teams, with the Red Sox and Dodgers probably in 3rd and 4th place.

The Union ought to be swayed. There are many more guys making less than 5 million in the Union than more than 5 million - why shouldn't the Union be concerned primarily with the needs of the majority of its members?

Earlier free-agency is a good in itself, irrespective of money. It represents the ability to more quickly decide for yourself where you want to play baseball, live and raise a family etc.

http://economics.about.com
Earlier free-agency is a good in itself, irrespective of money. It represents the ability to more quickly decide for yourself where you want to play baseball, live and raise a family etc.

If we were really concerned about the ability of allowing people to decide where to live and work, we'd eliminate the draft. I would imagine that the union would want this instead. Of course, this would rather defeat the purpose of a salary cap.

You mentioned "shutting baseball down for 2 years". If you think this is the minimum of what it would take for the union to accept a hard cap, I agree with you 100% that it would take at least that. There is absolutely no reason why the union should accept such a cap, particularly when ownership has shown no other interest in competitive balance whatsoever.

Cheers,

Mike

Coach, welcome to the Yankee-bashing club! I grew up the only Jays fan in a family of Yankee fans, so I've been hating for quite some time. It's pretty fun stuff, although now it's taken to a new level and can claim "for the good of the game" as my reason instead of pure, unadulterated spite. :=)

It's not a disastrous trade for the Rangers but I don't understand why they're throwing in a single dollar to help out the Yankees. It's not like Soriano represents a "free player". Once you account for the fact that this is his first year of arbitration where he's already making over $5 million and in two years he may be a free agent. ARod gives you the offence and gold glove defence at short; Soriano may not be able to stay in the infield.

Is that difference worth $15 to $20 million in payroll for the next couple of years? Probably not. The only way that money will help the Rangers is though is if it's plowed back into pitchers who actually produce. Their problem was NEVER that ARod earning $25 million prevented them from being able to afford good pitchers. It was that Chan Ho Park was/is earning $15 million. And a lot of old middle relievers were earning way too much. And zero young pitching was produced by the farm team.

Yes, ARod was overpaid by at least six or eight million; but the reason the Rangers were bad was really the management of the rest of the payroll and roster. But then, so was Delgado. However, if you had the Blue Jays current $50 million roster and added ARod at $25 million a year, you'd have a dang good team.

Citing examples of large-salaried crappy teams really proves nothing. Obviously it's a huge advantage to a team that can pay almost twice the payroll of any other team - it makes it twice as easy for them to build a good team. Compare them to a smaller market like the Twins, and it becomes 4 times as easy. The fact that some rich teams have made huge mistakes doesn't really change the fact that they have a ton more money in the first place.

After skipping around Primer and Yankee & RedSox's blogs the last two days, it's actually a little comforting (man that sounds weird?) to see those that populate this site are still holding to their initial views on this trade. Views that are tempered and rational and not oblivious to the fact that the American League, believe it or not, doesn't just exist to keep Yankee and Red Sox fans enthralled, while the rest of us are supposed to thank them for the privilge of being able to watch their mythic duels. It's kinda felt that way by times the last 48hrs.

My father's been a Yankee fan for decades. On the phone the other day he told me he thought the Yankees were going to finish fourth this year, with or without Rodriguez. He doesn't trust the rotation after Mussina and Vazquez, he doesn't like the outfield defence, he can't stand Sheffield and he thinks age and injuries are going to hit the team hard.

From his lips to God's ears.

What we've been waiting for, approximately since Luis Gonzalez's dying quail completed its trajectory, is George Steinbrenner to do something excitingly and stupidly destructive. He hasn't. He's done a pretty effective job of turning up the heat on everyone else. Not everything the Yankees have done over the last two and a half years has worked, but New York is in a pretty good position going into this season. The American League has to keep pushing back. Eventually either the Yankees will crack or Steinbrenner will. Or both. I hope.

I'm not a Yankee hater, but I view the Brown/Weaver and Rodriguez/Soriano deals as displays of hubris that must bring the worst and severest punishments possible from the gods onto the Yankee franchise. And none of this postseason stuff, either: I want them to lose big in the regular season. If the Jays can be the instruments of this chastisement, so much the better, not only because I like them but because of drama (i.e. they play each other in the last series of the season).

Matthew E., your post reminded me of something. You mentioned God...I just saw Bruce Almighty recently (eh, was a tad disappointing), but I loved that Morgan Freeman (God for those who haven't seen it) was wearing a Yankee hat. What a subtle throw in of the old saying that God's a Yankee fan. Sorry for the random thought.

Anyway, boy I hope Matthew's dad is right about the Yanks finishing 4th (although I don't think there's any chance that the Jays AND O's will beat them out).

Mike,

You sure seem to know a lot about what's good for the MLBPA members. For "us" (the fans) earlier free agency is neither here nor there.

The Union would want that. The clubs would want an iron-clad reserve clause, binding players to their teams forever. That's where negotiation comes in. Believe it or not, some people are willing to compromise to get something in return. Free-agency a year earlier would be a tangible good to roughly 40-80 players a year. As such, it is possible to bargain something you have (no salary cap) to get that. And it would appeal to a lot of players, I think, many of whom in direct competition for baseball accolades with a club with a 200+ million dollar payroll.

If both sides were reasonable, it might take no more than an hour to strike a balance between the clubs' needs and the players' needs. But if I have to watch and listen to minor league games for 2 or 3 years to ensure that what comes out of it is a system where one club can't spend over 3 times what a typical team does, then I'm all for it.

I think out of all the big 4, the nfl has to be the sanest. I'm no business-expert at all, but they do have an extremely competitive game... there is no quadrupling the payroll of your division foes... no signing shaq/kobe/malone/payton to the same starting 5 (even though a championship isn't cliched yet...)... no using the entire rest of the league as the "minors" to stack the deck for 5 or 6 clubs in a series of draft day-like deadline deals as is with the nhl...

In the nfl, I stick to the colts as I have been mesmerized with the abilities of manning since I first laid eyes on the guy... but I gotta admire the pats establishment of a modern day dynasty... It is the only dominant team that I see in the big 4 right now that is winning titles and doing so without simply buying said titles... Forgive me for sounding naive and idealistic, bit I think those 2 lobardi trophies that the pats won are truly earned... from the top of the organization down... Those guys actually won 2 of 3 titles on a level playing field...

Yes there was the marlins... I know... The devils have lou lamariello who has beaten the odds 3 times in nine years... Those're basically the product of brilliant spending and gameplans on the winning teams, and poor spending and complacency on some of the richer teams that are busts... but in the nfl there really is the closest thing to a fair game then anything else that we ever may see... We don't have to see a complete collapse in the decisions of management or a rash of injuries in order to see the overwhelming financial juggernauts of the game get upset because the nfl seems to have none....

Go ahead and prick holes into whatever intricacy I may have missed... but my general point is that baseball, the greatest sport in the world is completely and utterly fuct.... Really I could've left my entire post to that one last sentance and thats all that really anyone needs to know...

So, Ive been looking but so far not seen any debate on the next big question.

The skankees have filed their 3rd base problem... what do they do about 2nd now they've lost Soriano ?

I saw a projected line up on ESPN with Miguel Cairo as 2b... can't see him really being good enough, altough given the bats in thelineup I guess they don't really need a bat at 2b...

http://economics.about.com
You sure seem to know a lot about what's good for the MLBPA members.

Well, you know a lot about, well, everything. Some of us have to specialize. :)

If both sides were reasonable, it might take no more than an hour to strike a balance between the clubs' needs and the players' needs.

Which side isn't being reasonable? The players or the owners or both?

Cheers,

Mike

but in the nfl there really is the closest thing to a fair game then anything else that we ever may see...

It's stupid, it's boring. There are no good teams in the NFL anymore. Bill Belichick is the league's Most Valuable Player. It's "competitive balance" reductio ad absurdum. I no longer know anything about the NFL, and I no longer care. It's a great league for gamblers, and a terrible one for fans.

I have a column coming on this soon, but essentially my feelings on luxury taxes, salary caps, and all the rest can be boiled down into one sentence:

Everything worthwhile that people want to accomplish through a salary cap can be accomplished just as easily by expanding the playoffs.

I think (hope) this is the beginning of the end of the modern Yankee dynasty. The Yanks don't have enough pitching to win it all, and they don't have any prospects or young players left to trade for pitching. When they lose in the playoffs or series, George will fire Torre and (more importantly) Cashman. Internal turmoil, no farm system, a new GM and a new manager could knock the Yanks out of the running for the next 5 years.

Here's hoping!

Now that the Yankees have traded away Soriano, Nick Johnson and (hopefully) Dioner Navarro, how about a re-naming contest? Bronx Bombers begone. I'll lead off with the New York Old Farts or OFs for short, or the Geritol Gang. More creative suggestions are welcome.

First time poster and I'm loving the site and discussions.

Bottom line for me, when the majority of teams start the season with no real hope of winning anything fan interest declines. How many fans do the Jays have? Fans that will watch games, go to games no matter how far back the Jays are. Numbers suggest about 200 000 on TV, 13 000 for games. Its fortunate that so many tourists take in a game when they are in town. Any chance of a Jay resurgence is dependent on winning and the increased casual fan interest that comes with it. It's not good that teams spend $140 million more on payroll. Let the seven plagues curse the Yankees.

P.S. What are the seven plagues? I think boils are one.

Bottom line for me, when the majority of teams start the season with no real hope of winning anything fan interest declines.

The only way of dealing with this, though, is to expand the playoffs. The NBA has a salary cap structure which has forced teams into a *much* narrower salary band than MLB. But if the NBA had only 8 teams make the playoffs (and a reasonable balance of power between conferences, like MLB has) about half of the teams would indeed begin the season with "no realistic shot" at making it.

Of course, we say all this despite the fact that the Florida Marlins just won the damn World Series. I'm not going to get into that, though.

I like this deal from the Rangers perspective. Now they have Blalock, Teixeira, M. Young to anchor their infield, they can move Nivar back to second if Soriano moves to center, and prospect Drew Meyer is coming up thru the system. If Soriano moves to centerfield it also allows the Rangers to possibly move Kevin Mench for some more pitching help. They can add pitching now by trading Mench plus they have gained some payroll flexibility. The rumor has the PTBNL as Sean Henn who is another young arm the Rangers desperately need. They also have Adrian Gonzalez who was stolen in the Urbina deal and if he developes as expected then Teixeira can move to rightfield to replace Brian Jordan next year. Not a bad young lineup at all.

Expanding the playoffs - I hate that. It just makes the regular season increasingly meaningless.

And I wish people would stop using the NBA and its "salary cap" as a comparison. In actuality, NBA payroll is only a little bit narrower, and wouldn't be at all if you took the Yankees out of the equation. That cap is a joke.

Collect 2 star players in the NBA and you've got a playoff team. Any and all comparisons between competitive balance in the NBA and MLB are void.

However, could this trade spark a curse of the Bambino type scenario? Might the Rangers never win another world series?

That's funny. The Rangers have one exactly one post-season game in the team's history, and the honoured winner of that game -- John Burkett -- just retired over the weekend.

I am confident there will be no, what would we call it, "Curse of Toby Harrah."

so the fan590 rumours the ptbnl in the a-rod trade to be contreras... that'd explain why texas agreed to take so much of a hit...

Here in Toronto, this trade means we have two more teams to root for: the Mets and Rangers, both of whom now seem to be set on a similar course to the Jays. If the Mets win, the Yankees seemingly limitless revenue stream will suffer, and that would be the best news of all.

I believe Rotoworld said the PTBNL is Sean Henn

One thing - not the only thing - that I don't like about expanding the playoffs is that it's like surrendering. You're basically guaranteeing that the Yankees will be in the playoffs every year. Well, I don't want them in the playoffs every year. I want them to have to work for it.

Mike Wilner's going to be on the FAN at noon. He and Hogan are going to be taking calls.

http://economics.about.com
You're basically guaranteeing that the Yankees will be in the playoffs every year.

Kind of like the Leafs. :)

Cheers,

Mike

"That's funny. The Rangers have one exactly one post-season game in the team's history, and the honoured winner of that game -- John Burkett -- just retired over the weekend.

I am confident there will be no, what would we call it, "Curse of Toby Harrah."

Good point. Perhaps in this case, trading away the best player in baseball in his prime, will have the reverse effect that the Ruth deal did. Maybe now the Rangers will win the world series every year. Or maybe, the Yankees will simply never win another world series. Only time will tell.

My problem with this trade is this. I wrote the first comment on the Aaron Boone injury thread and the gist of the comment was that this injury would hurt the Jays because the Yankees would just go out and get someone better. Exactly what happened. I take no pride in prognostication and that's what's so depressing. The absolute inevitability of all of this is just debilitating. As I sit here today before the season even starts I know that if Kevin Brown goes down in the first month due to age/back problems/lightening bolt it doesn't matter. The Yankees will go and get someone else, usually someone better and if that means adding another $10 million to the payroll well then so what. It doesn't matter if they empty their system of prospects the way it does for any other team. Oh well what are you going to do?

"I'm tired of hearing that 'it doesn't matter how much you spend but how well you spend'. What skill is there in saying 'we need a closer, let's outbid the a's for Keith Foulke'?"

True. Basically, people give them all this credit simply for not being stupid enough to spend their money on Chan Ho Park or Mo Vaughn. It's absurd.

"It's stupid, it's boring. There are no good teams in the NFL anymore. Bill Belichick is the league's Most Valuable Player. It's "competitive balance" reductio ad absurdum. I no longer know anything about the NFL, and I no longer care. It's a great league for gamblers, and a terrible one for fans.

I have a column coming on this soon, but essentially my feelings on luxury taxes, salary caps, and all the rest can be boiled down into one sentence:

Everything worthwhile that people want to accomplish through a salary cap can be accomplished just as easily by expanding the playoffs."

First of all, expanding the playoffs suck. I rarely ever watch hockey or basketball during the season, because their seasons feel so meaningless. This would have an even worse effect on baseball given the massive amount of games they play. (By the way I actually love the idea of adding one more wild card team and having a one game playoff between the two wild cards, but that's really the only way I would approve of expanding the playoffs). But, secondly expanding the playoffs doesn't accomplish everything worthwhile that a cap does. Both solutions give all teams a relatively good shot at the postseason dance, but only a cap puts teams on a (nearly) even playing field. Playoffs involve more luck than a 162 game season, but they're not completely random. The best team still has the best chance to win. Further, the best team should win. More playoff teams makes it more difficult for the best teams to win. A cap makes it more difficult for the current high payroll teams to win. That is a big difference.

Finally, the NFL is not terrible for fans and it's not even really close to being so. It maybe bad for the occasional fan who is simply a fan of the game because there is a perception that there will be no more dynasties (something I think will prove to be debatable). However, for fans in indvidual cities it's great. A fan in any city can reasonably expect his team to become a contender quickly if the team is run well. There is no feeling of hopelessness for fans of any team. Even the Bungles managed to win 8 games this year. The NFL has always been a coaches league. The cap did not make it so.

http://somecalzoneforderek.blogspot.com/
A-Rod to the Yankees strangely annoys me considerably less than when A-Rod was supposed to be going to Boston.

First, even before Boone's injury, adding A-Rod to the Yankee infield makes more sense to New York given their (defensive) woes at SS and (offensive) woes at 3B.

But in Boston, they already have Garciaparra at SS and Mueller at 3B. Both players are well above average for their position. And I never really understood the proposed trade, and how it was beneficial to either club. The fact that Boston was willing to give up their best hitter to get A-Rod also seemed ridiculous. Sure, Manny's making a lot of money, maybe too much considering he can't really do anything but hit the bejesus out of the ball, but he and A-Rod would be the best 3-4 hitters Boston has ever seen. The logical deal to me would have been for Boston to take A-Rod, and then deal $25M worth of players back to Texas whose contracts all expire in a year or two (say, a package of Garciaparra, Lowe, and Damon). That way, Boston doesn't end up paying any more money, and by 2004-2005 Texas would be completely free of the financial burden. (And a Texas team with Garciaparra, Lowe, and Damon might actually make some noise in the AL West in 2004.)

Lastly, I admire Big Stein that he just doesn't give a damn about the salary tax. Boston tried nickle and diming Texas and A-Rod, and when the Union didn't like the smell of it, they stopped the trade. I'm sure Selig is fuming at this, but I doubt the Union will object to the terms the parties agree to.

Even as a Jays fan, looking up against what should be one of the greatest pitching staffs of all time in Boston and now one of the greatest offenses of all time in New York, frankly, I don't understand Robert's outrage.

JKCL-Interesting about Maddux to the Yanks. Here in Chicago the local media all seem to think Maddux is close (within a day or two) to signing with the Cubs, who apparently upped their deal to 2 yrs/14-15 mil due to Boras feigning interesting from the Giants and/or Dodgers.
Argh...I already wasn't looking forward to Maddux with the Cubs, but I guess now I should be rooting for it to keep him off the damn Yankees.

Maddux to the Yankees doesn't particularly concern me. In the unlikely event Greg is ready to switch leagues, stay on the east coast and join a team he specifically rejected a decade ago, he's still just a #3 starter, especially on that team. His ERA+ last year (105) was his worst since 1987, his HRs allowed (24) his highest ever, and he'll be 38 starting this season. He hasn't been truly great since 1998, and this extreme groundball pitcher would not enjoy a middle infield duo of Derek Jeter and Miguel Cairo.

This sounds like Scott Boras doing his usual job of planting stories to raise his client's apparent leverage in the marketplace. The Giants were supposedly interested last week; the week before, it was the Dodgers. I've been wrong before -- it was yesterday, in fact -- but Maddux the Yankee doesn't make sense.

Jurgen,

Let me try to explain ...

I don't care much that A-Rod will be a Yankee and I don't care about how many great players Boston and New York have. What I care about is the ability and willingness of one team to spend over 3 times what a typical team does WITH NO END IN SIGHT, and nothing, absolutely nothing that can stop them (at the moment).

The Sox are relatively blameless here, since they are FAR, FAR behind the Yankees in spending and would probably be spending 10-15 million less if not for the desperate pressure their foes are putting on them.

This has been building since the Mussina signing, and it's finally reached a point where I, personally, can't swallow it.

Until there is some structural change that curtails this obscenity, I'm boycotting the Yankees. I won't watch an inning of any of their games, including those against the Jays.

I'm sure this deal makes Selig very happy, as it makes his job of telling everyone the sky is falling that much easier. We can only hope that the Yankees get smacked hard by the injury bug.

This trade, the $200 million dollar payroll, the massive financial advantage the Yankees enjoy over all other teams... these are all bad for baseball fans. Well, great for Yankee fans, but it sucks for the rest of us. The ability of the Yankees to outbid anyone for available talent without doing appreciable damage to their bottom line represents a clear and present danger to the long-term health of the sport. We've been lucky to have non-Yankee teams win the World Series the last few years, but the thing about luck is that it eventually runs out. The Yankee advantage is not fair, and everyone from the die-hard stathead to the casual sports fan knows it. Jimmy Key's Christmas Lights made the best comparison when he talked about how a fantasy baseball league would be set up. Why would you allow one team owner to spend far more than any other owner? How in the world would anyone consider that to be fair? I don't care how smart you are, how good your scouts and analysts are, if you're being outspent 4 to 1 every season, you're going to get beat most of the time. I have all the admiration in the world for J.P., but let's face it - a heckuva lot of things have to go right for us and wrong for the Yankees in order for the Jays to sneak in there.

I don't know what the solution is. I understand why the players don't like the idea of the salary cap, and I certainly wouldn't want baseball to devolve into the competitive balance nightmare that is the NFL. I do think, however, that the buck stops with the commissioner, and he's part of the problem, not part of the solution. We need a commissioner who can bring both sides together, who can inspire the principals to set aside their terminal self-interest and work to the common good of all. We need a commissioner who wants only what's best for baseball, who is non-partisan and has a history of mending fences and creating cooperation out of divisiveness.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present... Bill Clinton.

COMN for Rob Neyer's take. Neyer lists the best six second basemen in the majors in his opinion: Soriano, Vidro, Giles, Boone, Kent, and Orlando Hudson. I know not everyone feels this way about O-Dog, but it's nice to hear it from a non-local.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=neyer_rob&id=1736410
Sorry, here's the link.

Dumb question:

Why has there been no talk of A-Rod at SS and Jeter at second? Assuming that Jeter, a SS, would convert nicely to a 2B, this would compensate for Giambi at first and whoever at 3rd. No?

In this senario, the Yankees will just rape someone else at midseason for a third baseman.

Put me down in the salary cap camp. I cannot understand the criticism of the NFL system. It must come from fans of teams who are limited by the cap and on the downside of the boom bust cycle that the cap causes.

All of us grew up cheering for our teams hoping and believing that they could win the championship. This is the myth that surrounds sports - otherwise why watch the games? The behaviour of fans in paying money for sports is not purely rational - which accounts for the fact someone actually cheered for the Tigers last year. We believe in tradition, the home team and share some responsibility to support the team even in down years in the hope they will do better next year. The NFL has tied into this better than anyone with their cap and as a result are the most dominant sport in America. Baseball will continue to lose fans who realise they should not pay their hard earned money because there never will be a next year.

Wilner on the fan. Nothing earth-shaking. Here's a synopsis of what he said:

-Figures Red Sox are still the team to beat.

-While ARod is a good deal for the Yanks,he feels it was not highway robbery as Soriano is a legit 40/40 guy.

-Thinks moving Alex to third is utterly stupid.

-An insightfull listner (Bauxite perhaps?)felt the Rangers were clearing salary room in 2005 to pursue Texas boy Kerry Wood.

Jeff Blair of the Globe and Mail weighs in:

But this is more about the Red Sox than it is the Blue Jays, and the Red Sox do not have Rodriguez. Instead, they are left with an unhappy Ramirez and a one-time franchise cornerstone (Nomar Garciaparra) who will need to be coddled after hearing all December how he was going to be sent out of town to make room for Rodriguez and how the Red Sox were upset that he would not do enough public relations work for them.

They have Schilling, a pitcher of immense ego who is on his own program and is buddy-buddy with new manager Terry Francona — in short, a pitcher who is on a collision course with the quick-to-anger Martinez.

This is the hope of all Blue Jays fans. Gigantic contracts and enormous egos can disrupt a clubhouse. In Pedro's case, if he demands a multi-year extension for more money than Schilling makes, the Sox might have to turn him down, for the same reason they let A-Rod slip away. I'm not saying he'd go into the tank, but especially if he decides he's going to test the free agent waters, Martinez might refuse to pitch when his shoulder hurts.

The all-star teams in New York and Boston could easily become dysfunctional. Their depth is non-existent. Sure, GMS III can afford to add a Jose Vidro, either now or at at the deadline, if needed, but as Neyer points out, he's rapidly running out of trading chips.

Meanwhile, the Fighting Jays will be a cohesive, united group, embracing their underdog status, with no internal jealousy or pouting superstars. There are replacements a phone call away who could be the next Frankie Rodriguez, Dontrelle Willis or Miguel Cabrera. It ain't over 'til it's over.

Amen, Coach. I suggest that the slingshot be the symbol of choice for Jay marketers.

Meanwhile, the Fighting Jays will be a cohesive, united group, embracing their underdog status, with no internal jealousy or pouting superstars...It ain't over 'til it's over.

So, does this mean we won't be passing around the cyanide capsules after all? :)

I have a serious question to ask a knowledgeable Yankees fan. The question may seem ill conceived but I would be interested to know the answer. Will this transaction and the related salary discrepancy affect your love for the Yankees and affect how you will feel if the Yankees win? I ask this seriously in that I work with a number of people who have become very rich and unanimously they all comment on how their attitudes towards money and the joy of making money at the beginning disappears when you have a great amount of it. I know the anology is not perfect but I look at it like this - one of the great joys of sports is the risk of not winning (i.e. the knowledge of loss makes winning sweeter). I know that the Yankees have had post season disappointments but intelligent Yankees fans know that by and large this has been pure bad luck (not always of course). Frankly, the chances of the Yankees not making the playoffs for the foreseable future seem to me to be about the same (i.e. they will make the playoffs absent bad luck). If you start every year knowing your team should win and should win handily - absent bad luck - does this make it any less sweet? I know that the casual Yankees fan will not like it any less but I'm interested in the diehard Yankees fan's perspective.

Sure, GMS III can afford to add a Jose Vidro, either now or at at the deadline, if needed, but as Neyer points out, he's rapidly running out of trading chips.

Further to that ... the Yankees can't simply pillage the Expos anymore. Whatever can be said about the previous dealings between the two clubs, the Expos acquired solid talent in the Javier Vazquez trade; combined with the financial aspects of the deal, it was almost fair. If Steinbrenner wants Vidro, he's going to have to offer substantial value, and he just doesn't have it to give.

Plus, Expos trades have to be signed off on by the other 29 owners -- you think there'll be much enthusiasm for making the Yankees even better than they are now?

I like the sling shot idea as the logo and to draw on Canadian roots may I suggest: "It just doesn't matter" as the slogan. It's a reference pulled from Bill Murray's rousing speach at the end of Meatballs. (I can't believe that I found anything rousing about Meatballs but I'm trying to make myselft feel better).

That would be sweet, a packed Sky Dome chanting "It Just Doesn't Matter" for that final out against the Yankees, denying them a postseason spot.

Will this transaction and the related salary discrepancy affect your love for the Yankees and affect how you will feel if the Yankees win?

Yes, it will.

Watch for more details in the Yankees season preview I am either honoured or forced to write at this point.

Dad grew up watching Joe D. at The Stadium. His dad was around during the '19-'20 offseason when the Sox and Yanks completed a somewhat notorious transaction. Me? Hey, I spend most of my growing-up years in Northwest Ohio, closer to Al Kaline and Johnny Bench than Bobby Murcer and Thurman Munson, pre-Internet, pre-Cable-TV, but ... well, maybe it's like the kid of those friends of yours, who grew up around the embarrassment of riches, but a bit removed from it. Success was de rigeur. If you grow up rich, do you keep buying lottery tickets?

Thanks Mick. I have a feeling that the ultimate decline of the Yankees will have nothing to do with what anyone else does but rather as a result of a sort of malaise arising from the Yankee fan base. I call it "The Braves effect". A general decline in interest as a result of an inevitablility of winning was ultimately the reason that the Roman Coliseum fell into disuse! :)

Salt in the Boston wounds from Peter Gammons:

What the Yankees privately say they learned from the Red Sox-Rodriguez negotiations was how not to handle them. "Those negotiations were all public, on both sides," says one New York official. "When a deal like this is negotiated publicly, it has too many ways for it to fail. So we tried to keep it under the radar screen, and work it privately, and nothing came out until the last 48 hours."

Gammons also says, "no one in New York can forecast what could be an insane summer," which I thought was an annual event. With the stakes now higher than ever, Steinbrenner's wrath may also reach new heights if anything goes wrong. In addition to my new enthusiasm for Yankee-hating, I can hardly wait for the sideshow.

Press conference to announce the trade set for 5pm today.

I wonder if the ptbnl will be named today... thefan first said contreras, then mike wilner casually blurted out the name of navarro... I doubt they'll mention it anytime soon, and when they do I also doubt that it'll be contreras or the remaining prospect...

Maybe there's a 40 man roster issue to be sorted out before the PTBNL is announced.

I highly doubt the PTBNL is Contreras. First the report was the Rangers would have their choice from a group of 5 players, then rotoworld via the New York Post reported it was going to be lefty Sean Henn. If the Rangers managed to squeeze Contreras in the deal then good for them but more likely it will be a prospect and I dont think it will be Navarro either.

Paul Godfrey was pretty candid in this interview with Fordin. Godfrey's not convinced A-Rod will guarantee the pennant: "Now he's going to a team where the dressing room is going to have 25 egos -- and big egos. That team didn't win last year, or the year before, or the year before that. It's a huge mistake to think you can automatically give it to them..." And answering the question about possible indirect effects of the trade on hopes for an expanded playoffs, Godfrey quips, "I've always beat the drums for expanded playoffs, and I think this will indirectly help the cause."

Yes, Paul,

But when the sample size increases to 162 games, the New Band of Merceneries won the AL East last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and the year before that ...

ooohh the press conference is on theScore any second now.... as for expanded playoffs, sure I'm for it... I think 2 or 3 wc's per league would make a helluva lot more sense in a 30 team league.... why play 162 if the majority of teams know that they're done from opening day... ok here goes I'm going to watch the press conference....

Are the majority of the teams done before opening day? I highly doubt that. Were the Marlins done before opening day 2003?

I do find it ironic that the Rangers believe that they are closer to a world championship by trading away Alex Rodriguez. This is a money deal afterall and they can't say that it is because of PR.

Go figures

No expanded playoffs (unless they only allow one more playoff team for each league). Please, I'm begging now. Most teams actually think they have a chance at the playoffs. There's probably only like 6-8 teams that think they have little to no chance. Besides, the problem is not the amount of teams in the playoffs, it's the system which doesn't allow for competitive balance. Fix the real problem.

still... there's more than 4 playoff teams in each league, regardless of what kind of financial hubbub the league is currently engulfed in... the cards, stros, m's, jays, etc. would've been very interesting additions if they were to go to a 2/3 wc system...

This way the playoff teams who were just not in it because of a lack of playoff spots would be in... Plus, the dominant div. champs would still have the first round bye that they would have earned... The regular season would not have much of its importance stripped at all...

Even if there was a level playing field I'd still love it... I just do not understand why this 1 wc system or even worse the old 4 team playoff system seem to be so popular...

Maybe you don't remember some of the 3 or 4 team pennant races all fighting it out for ONE SPOT. If there were 3 wild card teams, who would care if the Red Sox finish ahead of the Yankees or vice versa. But if only one of them makes it no matter what, it makes every game mean that much more.

That was some AL East race last year wasn't it? The loser had to start the playoffs on the road.

As I see it, the Yankees aren't the problem (as much as I dislike Steinbrenner and the Yankees). The problem is that several other franchises are either undercapitalized, stupid, or both. If all the teams in the league were properly run, the Yankees wouldn't be able to acquire superstars, as the other teams would be keeping them. The Rangers are the villain here.

Having said that, my gut feeling tells me that the Yankees are heading for a fall. A-Rod is a great player, but he's going to be playing out of position. Most of the other acquisitions are geriatric cases (and this goes double if they snare Maddux as well). The team defense is shoddy: the only good infielder is playing out of position, and the centre field candidates were good defenders in the last millennium but not this one. Plus, Steinbrenner is this close to going postal.

As depressed as I've been all day with this turn of events, count me strongly against expanding the post-season (given the way MLB works these days that will pretty much guarantee its expansion). Expansion of the playoffs does nothing but mask the real problem. Sure you will have the fluke playoff victories (like last two year's World Series), which will convince the average fan that "more teams have a chance under this format than ever". But the truth will still be out there. The Yankees will have an unfair advantage and no amount of playoff losses can change that. The Yankees will know before a season starts that absent a fluke season they will make it to the playoffs. If the Yankees played the Marlins 20 times instead of once the Yankees will win a huge percentage of those series and that's not going to change with more teams involved. Based on payrolls of $200 million versus $50 million the Yankees will be better than the Blue Jays almost all the time and no amount of good GM work will overcome that other than in the odd year or two.

Today on 590, McGown and Cox, two puckheads at the best of times, were strongly in favour of having 16 playoff teams in MLB. I don't know why I listen to these two when it comes to baseball -- give me Wilner's DBR, thank you -- but it's just another example of people in Toronto thinking you can improve things by making them more like hockey. If this happened, not only would the World Series go until January, these would have been the AL matchups last year:
8 KC at 1 NY, 7 TOR at 2 OAK, 6 CHI at 3 MIN, 5 SEA at 4 BOS.
As tempting as that Jays/A's battle is, it's still a stupid idea to expand the playoffs by this much.
I've said before to add one extra wildcard team and reseed the 5 playoff teams based on record, so Minny doesn't get the automatic 3. 4th and 5th-place teams play a one game series on the Monday after the season starts. What's wrong with that? It's better than 16/30.

If there were 3 wild card teams, who would care if the Red Sox finish ahead of the Yankees or vice versa.

If the wildcard teams had to play one or two must-win games in a row (against other wildcard teams) to advance to the division series, while the division leaders got a couple extra days to set up their rotations, they would care a lot.

Okay, which teams don't have a hope next year?

In the AL East, NY, BOS, TOR and BALT all think they can compete. So you're left with TB.
In the Central, KC, CHI, MIN and probably CLE think they can win if things go right. So only DET is out.
In the West, you've got OAK, ANA and SEA that can compete. So TEX is out.
In the NL East you've got ATL, PHI, NY, FLO, MTL that all think they have a shot.
In the Central you've got HOU, STL, CHI. So you've got three teams in trouble here.
In the West you've got SD, SF, LA and ARI that can all compete, with only COL looking in.

In the American league there are 3 (5 if you want to count CLE and BALT) teams that cant' compete. In the NL there are 4 teams. So out of 30 MLB teams there's a maxium of 9 teams going into the season thinking they don't have a shot. I don't think that's so bad, and I don't think it's that bad compared to the other leagues.

http://economics.about.com
Okay, which teams don't have a hope next year?

I'm sure everyone defines this differently. I'd say that any team that is 100/1 or worse odds to win the World Series is a no hope team. So according to BoDog.com, here are the no-hope teams:

Colorado Rockies 100/1
Detroit Tigers 100/1
Tampa Bay Devil Rays 120/1
Cincinnati Reds 120/1
Cleveland Indians 125/1
Pittsburgh Pirates 200/1
Milwaukee Brewers 250/1

Note that the next worst team is Montreal at 65/1. So this looks like a pretty good rule of thumb if BoDog is representive of the gambling industry as a whole.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm sure everyone defines this differently.

They sure do. I'm acquainted with someone who believes that competitive balance means that, every year, every team has the same chance to win as every other team. Sounds terrible to me.

http://economics.about.com
I'm acquainted with someone who believes that competitive balance means that, every year, every team has the same chance to win as every other team.

He must hate every sport, then, since that doesn't apply in any professional league. Unless ESPN2 is showing The World Series of Flipping Coins. I wouldn't know, though; I don't get that channel on cable. :)

I was looking through the BoDog odds. They have 3 teams in the NFL at 100/1 or worse odds for the next Superbowl, compared to the 7 that MLB has for the World Series. Given the general level of competitive balance between the sports, that sounds about right.

If you increase the no-hope teams to 50/1 or worse, baseball doesn't look so bad, as it has 9 teams (7 + Texas + Montreal) to football's 7. Of course, the Yankees are front runners at 5/2, slightly ahead of the Red Sox 11/4, while the Pats are merely 5/1.

Cheers,

Mike

"He must hate every sport, then, since that doesn't apply in any professional league. Unless ESPN2 is showing The World Series of Flipping Coins. I wouldn't know, though; I don't get that channel on cable. :)"

Actually, I remember hearing about the World Championships of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I don't think they were covered on ESPN2 or anything. Perhaps he would like that sport.

Robert,

There's only one team that would exceed a salary cap set at 2 times the median payroll. In practice, the only effect of such a cap would be to decrease the amount of money a half-dozen players (Yankees) would receive. It might not affect them at all, as these players might never have been traded to the Yankees and still might be making the same cash on some other team.

If a cap causes the Yankees to be out of the running for top-dollar free agents, then that would be a definite reduction in demand and would have to show up in the prices. Still, as you point out, the effect would have to be limited to only a handful of players (i.e. any set of FA's that might conceivably have been signed by the pre-cap Yankees), so the amount of salary affected would be probably in the $10-20M/year range. The main uncertainty would come if other franchises started getting closer to the cap. In considering a cap the MLBPA will let their minds run wild with future scenarios of a cap-free world in which 3, 4, 5 franchises go over whatever the proposed cap might be; all of a sudden $20M of salary off the table becomes $100M of salary off the table. So, I doubt they would agree to one.

In exchange for earlier free-agency or a higher minimum salary, I think the Union would be getting a good deal if it agreed to these types of cap systems.

In the case of earlier free-agency, I would think the players would be getting too good of a deal, i.e. the teams would never agree to it (or anyway most of them wouldn't). Most of the teams are at best only slightly affected by the Yankees payroll (e.g. the National League, and to a lesser extent the AL except for the East), but all teams want to hold onto their drafted talent as long as they can. Even the Jays, the team arguably most affected by the Yankees payroll (i.e. to the extent that it diminishes their chances to make the playoffs), would probably prefer to hold onto all their home-grown talent for an additional year than they would prefer to have a cap that hits only the Yankees.

But, I'll grant that there could be some hypothetical concession that the union could make in order to get a 2X-median-targeted-at-Yankees cap in place. Supposing an agreement is made, then what? How do you bring the 2004 Yankees back into the fold -- do you give them what, 2, 3, 4 years to trade away or run out their legacy contracts?

I believe Rotoworld said the PTBNL is Sean Henn.


Ugh. Memories of Scott Wiggins.

Maybe it's Eric Duncan? There's a chance the PTBNL is a 2003 draftee, in which case he can't be named until sometime this summer.

jc

Scott Wiggins is no Sean Henn. One, he never had a year plus lost to TommyJohn elbow surgery and second, he never had any chance of being an impact pitcher. Henn may never come back to fulfill his "potential", but outside of having the necessary amount of limbs, that's where Wiggins and Henn's talents comparisons end.

The actual five players the Texas Rangers can choose one of come from this group:

RH Pedro Arias
INF Robinson Cano
OF Rudy Guillen
INF Bronson Sardinha
RH Jose Valdez

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/040216rodriguez.html
COMN for Baseball America's take on four of the five possible PTBNLs. The absence of Navarro is a disappointment. Robinson Cano is the "name" on the list, but he's not a great prospect at this stage.

Good talent costs a lot of money in the final year of arbitration(e.g. Kevin Millwood last year). The mediocre talent is going to be non-tenedered anyway (as is already happening), and the smart organisations are going to lock up their best players at reasonable cost through that year. The earlier free-agency takes away the most expensive year of arbitration, so its hard for me to see a net loss for the owners.

If they can't sign the players they want, then they'll know that they have a fair shot (because of the cap) of getting decent talent at a fair price in the open market.

If the union is really worried about a 2Xmedian cap, they can negociate specific dollar caps for each year in each successive CBA, such that they'll be nearly certain that not more than a handful of teams will come close to the limit.

Robert, I might be slow, but explain to me why modified revenue sharing would not solve the problem. As I understand it, the NFL has full revenue sharing, and this may be too much parity for the tastes of some. On the other hand, the luxury tax is obviously inadequate for the purpose of assuring reasonable competition.

If some percentage of local TV/cable revenues, including advertising during the games, were paid to the league (somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent?) and shared, would this not help? It seems to me that there is a measure of justice in this; the game is providing the content that generates the local TV revenue, and the team provides the some of the marketing power. What is wrong with sharing some or even most of the revenue?

I suspect that the union would have no issue with this.

Finally, let me say that I agree with you that increasing the number of playoff spots is a poor idea for baseball. It has not helped hockey, and it would be even worse for baseball. The 162 game season must mean something, and making the playoffs in itself should be an achievement.

http://me.woot.net
Of course the union wouldn't have an issue with revenue sharing. The owners, on the other hand, are fully against it, and that's why nobody has ever been able to introduce it wrt television revenue. (Internet-related revenue is totally shared, which may end up being a boon to smaller-market teams, but that's probably at least 10 years off from doing much for anybody.)

The biggest problem is that it's not really a benefit to the union so it doesn't come up in the CBA, and the league has a tough time of trying to force it on ownership.

They do share a lot of it (local revenue).

I think the main problem is enforcement. With all the media-club crossholdings, it becomes difficult to untangle what is worth what. Short of sharing nearly all local and broadcast revenue, I don't see how it could achieve the goal of limiting Steinbrenner's spending.

I don't think we want to increase the disincentive to generate local revenues to try to tackle a problem that is only tangentially related to it. I say this as someone who used to support increased revenue-sharing (based on objectively-determined market size factors).

I now think that any such system would be unnecessarily complex and potentially damaging to overall revenues if it had real teeth.

Let Stein keep the money his Yankees earn, let him donate it to charity or build a new staidum or periodically throw some of it into the streets of New York. But don't let him buy a juggernaught with it. None of the former actions hurt the other clubs' competitiveness in any way - only buying great ballplayers does.

Getting back to another issue,

Here's how I would handle the implementation of a new salary cap in the next CBA, assumin:

1) Yankees are barred from signing any free-agent or acquiring in trade any player earning more than twice the MLB average salary, until they are under the cap.

2) Yankees must reduce payroll by at least 15 million per year, or face a 150% tax on the difference between their payroll and the cap, until they are under the cap.

I hope they sign Maddux, trade for Vidro, win 120 games each year this year and next and win the World Series both years. That would almost guarantee a salary cap in the next CBA.

One of the more interesting solutions I've heard to the revenue-disparity situation came from the FAN's Bob McCown. His idea is that there be no local TV deals. At all. All TV deals have to go through MLB.

I can see where he's coming from, but there are also problems with it. Such as, why would Rogers want to own the Jays if this went through? What would be in it for them?

I don't get that argument. Why not let him do whatever he wants with his own money?

Here's the salient point: baseball is a business. If you don't agree with that point, take your argument somewhere else, because that is an un-concede-able point.

But here's the followup question, which I've never really heard addressed "officially" ...

Is baseball a business ... or is baseball a collection of 30 businesses?

Basically, this argument boils down to an extreme right-wing take on whether or not, to use my own industry as an analogy, airlines should be regulated. They used to be. They are not. That's why the LCCs (their spin: "Low Cost Carriers" -- ours: "Limited Choice Carriers") like jetBlue are succeeding. So why shouldn't United and Delta be allowed to spend as much as they are legally allowed to to acquire new planes, bid on new routes, get the best pilots, flight attendants, ramp workers, mechanics (all unionized), inflight amenities, etc.?

It might not actually work ... but why shouldn't they spend themselves out of business however they want?

Is the airline industry a business? Or a collection of businesses?

Disclaimer: "Deregulation" of airlines based on U.S. laws circa 1978-1984. No non-U.S. airlines are affected by deregulatory laws except when flying into the United States. This may or may not be something to consider when viewing Toronto's and Montreal's participation in the "business of baseball."

http://economics.about.com
Is baseball a business ... or is baseball a collection of 30 businesses?

The industry cartel of 30 businesses, that is allowed to act in a way that would get my ass thrown in jail if I tried to implement their policies in the car rental industry (the industry I do research on).

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Err.. that should be "The industry is a cartel"

What a difference a headline writer makes: Here is the same article by Bob Elliott, as it appears in Winnipeg, and as it appears in Toronto.

Clearly, MLB is meant to be run centrally, with a lot of freedom of action given to the individual clubs. In that way, it's like a conglomerate that allows its divisions plenty of autonomy.

It isn't at all like the airline industry. Teams are not allowed to move into another team's market, as various airlines are free to compete with the others on the same routes.

As such, the needs of maintaining an attractive product (a series of baseball games) supercedes the rights of individual teams.

the post has the yanks denying that they are going to make any more moves... they say that they're done... I saw the WABC report on the score ticker of the yanks going for him too and I did a double take... So I had to check and they are indeed going with the 5 they've got now...

at this time I would like to post the onion article from last yr. on the yankees just in case people haven't seen it yet... I think it's appropriate here...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html

http://economics.about.com
One thing I forgot to mention:

It's often been stated that baseball is built on the franchise model, where there's one core business, and a number of autonomous owners (30) who pay a franchise fee and agree to certain conditions, similar to a Tim Hortons franchise. Hence teams are called "franchises". I think there's problems with this line of thinking, but I definately see the point.

The major reason that baseball is different than say, the airline or car rental industry, is the fact that it's immune to anti-trust law. There's no way that Hertz, Avis, Alamo, Dollar and Thrifty would be allowed to merge into a single MegaCarRental Co., but the American, National, Pacific Coast etc., league are all allowed to operate under a single umbrella of "baseball", and thus can engage in all kinds of monopoly like tactics that would normally be illegal.

Cheers,

Mike

as various airlines are free to compete with the others on the same routes.

Well ... not a bad point, but the argument you present is flawed. Just as Les Expos need seven thousand layers of permission to play their home games in Teaneck, NJ next year, it's not like Southwest Airlines can suddenly decide "OK, time to start that Minneapolis-Seattle" route." The FAA, not to mention the municipalities, the airports, the Department of Transportation and any number of other political bodies need to sign off on it. And gates and airport slots need to actually be available, leading to expansion, contraction, bidding, sales of assets ... you get the idea.

Yes, but that regulation is external to the companies. If a committee of major airlines had the power to approve or reject proposed routes for its members, that would be analogous to MLB.

Mick, Major league baseball operates in fact as a hybrid of the two, but the structure of the industry lends itself to recognition that the whole industry is a monopoly business. The barriers to entry are obvious and large. This fact has been recognized by the US Supreme Court many years ago, but permitted to continue despite American anti-trust legislation because of the characterization of the business as a sport.

So, when will the operation of major league baseball reflect its' structural reality, in the absence of a real Commissioner? One suspects that at some point further anti-trust litigation will be the impetus. It would be lovely if it were small-market fans with the support of the Consumers' Union who started it. If the union and congressional Republicans supported the litigation, this would be even better.

Anyone want to be a Plaintiff?

Best,

Mike G

Though the Yankees are saying they won't make any more moves, they're still scheduled to sign Travis Lee to a $2M contract to be the league's most expensive backup first baseman.

What a difference a headline writer makes: Here is the same article by Bob Elliott, as it appears in Winnipeg, and as it appears in Toronto.

What a bizarre headline from Winnipeg ... contraction isn't even mentioned in the column, not that I'd have put it past Elliott to suggest it.

I love how Bob gives Jeter the edge in the shortstop battle by saying, "Just look at the post-season numbers." Okay:

Nomar
25 G, 96 AB, 7 HR, 21 RBI, .323/.391/.625
Derek
99 G, 392 AB, 13 HR, 33 RBI, .314/.385/.469

Look at the numbers, Bob.

Oh, and by the way:

A-Rod
15 G, 53 AB, 3 HR, 8 RBI, .340/.375/.566

You're right Jordan. Elliott could have cited their 3-year road stats for the proposition that Jeter is a better offensive player right now:

Jeter: .309/.377/.431
Garciaparra: .266/.314/.459

However, that offensive advantage is basically negated by his defensive incompetence. Neither is really a great player at this point, although both were at their peak. Jeter could be again if he were moved to centerfield, a la Robin Yount.

Though the Yankees are saying they won't make any more moves, they're still scheduled to sign Travis Lee to a $2M contract to be the league's most expensive backup first baseman.

More than any other move the Yanks have made, I don't get THIS one. They have Giambi, who has to play 1B in order to keep Lofton in the lineup with Bernie not-so-happily in CF. And they signed Tony Clark (career OPS+112 to Lee's 97 and with a nearly identical career range factor at 1B) .... does ANYONE believe Lee would play 1B if something happened to Giambi, Williams or Lofton?

Range Factor is 1B is utterly meaningless. Utterly.

Oh I would. Lee is by far a better defensive first baseman than Clark. Clark's career OPSs is deceptive because he's stunk up the joint the last two years, and will soon be 32, an age when mediocre 1Bs often hit a wall.

Let's face it, the over/under for the combined number of games missed by Lofton/Bernie/Giambi is probably 90.

But Clark has, at least on the face of it, "the big stick." If any of those guys go down, Clark will get the playing time.

I don't doubt that you would play Lee, Robert. I just don't think the Yankees will.

I'll take the over.

For what it's worth, Seattle's sports-talk world loved the trade, saying what many others have -- that overall dynasties are good for baseball. That may or may not be true, but it can't take away that visceral disgust the average non-Yankees fan feels. You can't deny that it's got people, talking, though; there's nothing like controversy to generate increased interest.

Some of the talk-show hosts also mentioned the usual stuff about the Yankees now having a "toxic" mix in the clubhouse. Probably, but Sheffield is the only real known malcontent; Brown is just intense, and A-Rod is a media villain, but the rest of the gang are still the same group of professionals they've had -- just better. We'll see. So they now win 9-4 instead of 8-4. Big deal. This move really has no effect on the standings, as many here on Da Box have pointed out.

Finally, the Seattle shows pointed out repeatedly that Jeter was not a good defensive shortstop, so not everyone is blind. I'd argue that a majority of baseball "experts" realize Jeter is not sound defensively, and the perception that he's been lionized in the general press has been exaggerated by bloggers, BP, and bp (baseball primer). OK, so he's crappy defensively and he's not "clutch," and his contract is ridiculous. Lots of people know this know, and I don't think it's because they're surfing blogs; just mute McCarver and deal with it.

Good talent costs a lot of money in the final year of arbitration(e.g. Kevin Millwood last year). The mediocre talent is going to be non-tenedered anyway (as is already happening), and the smart organisations are going to lock up their best players at reasonable cost through that year. The earlier free-agency takes away the most expensive year of arbitration, so its hard for me to see a net loss for the owners.


A year less of arbitration means that the owners wouldn't be able to continue to "lock up" their talent for one more year (at low rates). The expensive last-year might well continue to occur except now it'll be from what previously was the (presumably formerly less expensive) second-to-last year. Overall I don't see how this could end up not increasing prices for good players sooner. I'm not saying it's good or bad for the game, I'm just saying it'll happen.

If they can't sign the players they want, then they'll know that they have a fair shot (because of the cap) of getting decent talent at a fair price in the open market.

That may well happen, but it's hard to square that with your prediction above that only a half-dozen players would be affected. How could teams in general be prepared to think that they can get "decent talent at a fair price" because of the cap, if the cap affects only a half-dozen players. I think your argument should be that the main benefit to the teams is that they have a better shot of getting into the World Series (AL) and of winning the World Series (NL). A side benefit to the few teams able to afford expensive free agents is that the Yankees may be out of the running in that part of the market.

Actually I think it's nearly impossible that only a half-dozen players would be affected by any hard cap. Suppose the Yankees need a starting pitcher and are forced by the cap to find one for under $5M/year or less. Prices for pitchers above that mark would come down a lot or a little (due to reduced demand; the actual change would depend on how many other teams are looking in that part of the market) and prices for pitchers in the $4M range would presumably go up. If this happened in the last off-season, maybe Batista would be a Yankee instead. Who knows.

In any case I'm not for or against a cap, I'm just trying to figure out what the effects would be.

Because more players in the free-agent pool means better prices. It especially means more bargain opportunities for the smart teams. If there is a cap that EVERYONE has to respect, it mitigrates a little against all-out bidding wars.

Everyone can afford an expensive talent, but few teams can afford 7 or 8 of them. Since there are only about 25-30 players who are really worth huge money at any given time, it's not a disaster if you can only afford one of them (as long as no team is able to buy 6 or 7 of them). The Jays have two elite players making huge cash and they are in the bottom half of payroll.

My basic point is that earlier free-agency won't lead to a massive increase in price for the top players and should have no effect at all on the earnings of every other player. It's not something that will really hurt any of the owners, and it IS something the players would want, so why not bargain it away if it can help get you a salary cap.

MLB poll: Who should play shortstop for the Yankees? (A-Rod or Jeter)

75% have picked Mr. Clutch. *chuckle*

Because more players in the free-agent pool means better prices. It especially means more bargain opportunities for the smart teams.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To a smart team with an average budget I would think the negative affect of losing one's talent a year sooner (or having to pay them more, faster) outweighs the benefit of an enhanced free agent market. The wealthy teams other than the Yankees are the ones who would substantially benefit from an enhanced free agent market. E.g. Boston and Baltimore could continue to sign away Oakland's free agents, except a year sooner.

Ultimately our opinions on this don't matter. Somebody should ask Ricciardi or someone above him what they think of this tradeoff.

To a smart team with an average budget I would think the negative affect of losing one's talent a year sooner (or having to pay them more, faster) outweighs the benefit of an enhanced free agent market.

Especially since the year you'd be losing is probably one of the peak years, which is precisely what you want to keep.

Baseball is the most boring tiresome sport on tv. Blah blah blah.
Play it, or even go and watch it in person. But why anyone would
want to spend their days watching it on tv I have yet to figure out.
Yep.. I'll watch the sport if I have to, but I assure you, I am not looking at the plays, I'm looking at the Players' butts.

P.S.
The Toronto Jays suycjk

I still say the smart teams will sign their key guys through the 6th year and perhaps beyond. As long as the player is happy in the organisation, security is always a nice thing to have and most will be happy to sign for guaranteed money.

COMN for a link to the rock paper scisors official sight. It is to laugh.

I hate this trade and not just for the reasons cited above. Firstly, I once fancied that the BB Gods had devined a cruel punishment for A Rod - lots of money but no chance for the fame that comes from winning, a fitting sentence for one who had made Scott Boras so much bling bling. Secondly, I was sure the the God of Baseball Economics was catching up to the team that Stien built. After all, for how long can you pay increasing amounts of $ for players whose value is decreasing. How will George be able to get out from the contract of a Derek Jeter when his defence becomes only adequate for first base. How can you remove the effects of these contracts - yes even A Rod's - with no capital other than money. I think this Cruel and capricious God (economic) will still exact his revenge but this deal has delayed the effects a year, at least.

I believe the Yankee model of the Cashman years was feasable and, with expected and accepted setbacks, self perpetuating; call it Braves plus. But the George model of success at any price, rabid intollerance of failure, impatience and a loutish corporate culture is a recipe for failure. Don't forget twenty years ago these same arguments and panaceas as the ones cited above were being used to deride the same owner and the same team. This was followed by ten years in the wilderness for the Yankees until the fateful day when George was bounced from baseball operations and Cashman was allowed to bring the team back to respectability.

As to expanding the playoffs, last year with two weaks left in the season, I think 18 teams still had a shot at the playoffs. For most of these cities that was two weaks of baseball with playoff like intensity and the drama that goes with it. Lets say we add a wild card team, do we take into account strength of schedule? What does a wildcard mean if only nets you another team from the AL Central.

And the Blue Jays... I hope these three teams beat the crap out of each other. I hope the Jays take a certain pride in playing this team tough. A .500 record would be acceptable if the games are played like the playoffs. If the rest of the league can get into this mindset, we can really do some damage. Make the rallying cry NO WILDCARD FROM THE AL EAST.

http://www.worldrps.com/
Heres hoping i got a link right this time.