written by Matt Lungariello
The New England Patroits won their third championship in four years. And we're supposed to be amazed that they accomplished this in a league that is restricted by a salary cap. So am I amazed? Not exactly. What is really amazing is that the arguments for a cap are getting as transparent as the mysterious cream in Jason Giambi's workout bag. The "Salary Cap" era hasn't made anything in the major sports more competitive except maybe a league minimum in the collective bargaining agreement.
THE NFL CAP:
This year, the Pats, one of two unargued "dynasties" in current sports, beat the Los Angeles Eagles of Philadelphia (Wait, that’s not their name yet, but check back in two weeks and maybe it will be). The Eagles, by the way, have been to the championship game four years in a row. Three Pats titles, and four Eagles attempts at Conference Championships show that in the NFL, the same teams are fighting over the Lombardi year in and year out. It's not a coincidence that the two teams in this past Super Bowl are the two teams with the most amount of wins over the last four years. Furthermore, this year’s other playoff teams aside from the Pats and Eagles (the Jets, Rams, Steelers, and Packers) have all had regular appearances in the playoffs recently.
THE NBA CAP:
The NBA is also restricted by a salary cap. Since 1998, a whopping three different teams have won championships. The Spurs have won twice, the LA Lakers three times, and the Pistons won last year. Further back before 98, the Bulls won three times, and the five years before that the Rockets won twice... and before that the Bulls won another three times. Thank goodness for the salary cap or else we may have had lopsided competition.
THE NHL CAP:
More of the same. Since 1995, the Devils have won three times. The Red Wings also won three times. The Avalanche won twice, and the Stars and the Lightning each won one Cup apiece. The teams that were the losers in the cup finals are, as expected, the usual suspects.
THE UNCOUTH UN-CAPPED MLB:
Since the salary cap has proven so effective in the other three major sports, baseball has been lacking in recent years because of their imperial monetary forces that unfairly put the teams above the rest of the league... right? Wrong.
The theory is that in Baseball, the same teams always lead the pack. The Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Mets, and any other big market team that you think of just has deeper pockets and therefore my trophy shelf space. Right? Wrong.
What people who talk about the necessity of a cap in baseball are really looking for is a “Yankee Cap.” They don't need a full cap, just one that restricts the amount of money the Yankees are able to spend. It's true, the Yankees salary budget has passed the "Out of Hand" exit on the payroll highway about ten exits ago. But, don't forget the Red Sox, who had the nation cheering for them, weren't exactly David to New York's Goliath. If a Yankee Cap is to be discussed, we must first hop on the back of the Red Sox bandwagon and see the rivalry for what it is: equal overspending making for some great baseball.
THOSE RED SOX MUST BE KNIT OUT OF ITALIAN SILK:
Fact is that the 2004 World Champion Red Sox had the highest payroll of any championship team in any sport. The anti-Yankees regime (large as they are) say that the Sox didn’t buy that title, they were just trying to compete with the Yankees. Oh really?
The only home grown players on the Sox were Nomar and Trot Nixon. Nomar was traded and was possibly the biggest reason the Sox went on to win it all. So Trot was the only home grown player on the team in the end. That means that everyone else were "bought" or "hired guns." The Yankees who “bought” all their championships had Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, and the duo of Ricky Ledee and Shane Spencer who were all brought through the system. The logic that supports so-called Red Sox Nation says that the Yankees “bought” their titles and the Red Sox earned theirs. This is garbage. The Yankees are forced to share revenues with all the other teams including the high-priced Red Sox, and the Yanks' payroll is taxed based on the amount of money they spend each year.
Perhaps the biggest defense for Yankees spending, and the one argument that will shut up any "our team doesn't have money like the Yankees" comment is what happens with the fees the Yanks are paying. t should be noted that there is no rule that forces the teams on the receiving end of this so called “revenue sharing” to actually use the money to improve their teams. Lets just say that George took the other owners out to lunch to a very expensive place 365 times last year. So right away, let's get the "Yankees Cap" out of the way and move on to MLB generally.
UNSCREW THE MLB NON-CAP SYSTEM:
Since 2000, the World Series winners are the Red Sox, Marlins, Angels, Diamondbacks, and the Yankees. That is five different winners in five different years. Now that is a true competitive balance. These are both big and small market teams.
MEMBERSHIP TO RED SOX NATION DON'T COME CHEAP:
The salary cap petition posterboy Yankees' payroll only sky-rocketed after all their championships in the late 1990s. And if the Red Sox offseason taught us anything, it’s that once a team goes all the way, the players' pricetags go up. For instance, Derek Lowe’s value went up after his amazing preformance in the playoffs, despite a mediocre (at best) season. Pedro’s price tag stayed up, Jason Varitek’s grew, and even Cabrera’s started looking like Donald Trump's wig bill. If the Sox tried to keep all of their championship players, their payroll would be up near where the Yankee’s stands right now. That shows the obvious, that it costs a lot of money to keep winning players around. The teams have two choices, either you can give the players outrageous contracts that they probably don’t deserve, or you can let them walk. In the Yankee’s case, they tried to keep them all around, and in the Sox case, they let a few walk.
The point is that the salary cap is not what won the Yankees the championships in the late 90's, the cap has not shown to put the Yankees in any unattainable league out of reach to their league mates, and it has not proven that the Yankees have the ability to "steal" more talent away from their competitors, only that the Yankees tried to stick with their winning formula. The Yankees have done nothing but prove that a salary cap is unnecessary.
YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT HOW DO YOU FIX THE BALANCE WITHOUT A CAP?
If they want to fix the competitive balance problem in Basball, the answer is simple: Like in every other sport, allow teams the right to trade their draft picks. It's a common practice in all sports. In the NFL, the Chargers traded the number one overall pick to the Giants and were a playoff factor the following year.
There's a rule restricting teams from trading their draft picks in Baseball, so if a team team doesn’t think that they have enough money in their budget to sign the best player in the draft, then they have no real option but to pass on him. Basically, it would be a bad team investing millions that they don’t have on a player that make never play for them. We all know that prospects are suspects until proven overwise. It's not like other sports that a player can be picked first overall and come in to help the team immediately (Lebron, Rothlisberger). Sometimes it can take years of development They don’t get a top notch player, which they could’ve traded, and in turn don’t get any better. Dumb rule if you ask me or any of the other major sports. The rich get richer. The best player in last year’s draft was picked 13th overall by the now-wealthy Angels. Twelve teams thought that they didn’t have enough money to sign him, so they passed. The team with the most money and the highest pick got him. How can the bad teams get better when they were the worst team, get the number one pick, and cant even pick the best player? If my rules were practiced, they still wouldn’t be able to sign him, but they would be able to trade him to a team that can put that amount of money into the minor leagues and wait it out. If the Devil Rays(who had the first pick) were able to pick the best player, they may have been able to get involved in the two trades that sent Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder packing. Don’t you think that the Devils would be a different team next year with one of those pitchers on their squads?
If it didn’t help them and they’re doomed to another season in the cellar, they would have the number one overall pick again, and may be able to get another front line starter or a power bat. Now, they are a contender. Imagine that promising young group of hitters two years older with Tim Hudson and Rch Harden (who is due to leave Oakland once he gets his contract) anchoring the staff. That is a quality team. After all, the 2001 Diamondbacks won the title with two picthers and a sack of tomatoes as their rotation. I figured all this out without even sitting in a board room for five seconds. Makes sense, don’t it?
SOLUTION 2 - SHOW THESE MLBPA PEOPLE WHAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING'S ALL ABOUT:
It would make more sense to me to have a player’s salary cap in effect. We’ll say that no player can make more than $10 million a year. No minor leaguer can make more than the league minimum until they actually make the professional team. Don’t allow draft picks to hire agents, after all, this isn’t Basketball or Football where a player is picked to play immediately. These kids are getting $3 million to learn how to play in the busch leagues.
In the end, the salary cap has proven ineffective, and really is just an easy way to make excuses for consistent mediocrity. That silly Curse of the Bambino myth is over, and now it's time, Mr. Commisioner to once and for all end this silly "salary cap" myth. The salary cap is for the owners' piggy banks, NOT for competitive baseball. Just check the ratings on the season opening Sox/Yanks game and their 500 million dollar combined payroll. And if a non-capped MLB is still uncompetitive for you, I recommend not watching TV until next year when the Pats, Eagles, and Jets are all in contention again.