What color
do you bleed?
< Back to front page Text size +

Salary cap talk rings hollow

Posted by Eric Wilbur, Boston.com Staff February 26, 2009 05:59 AM

I have yet to catch Sean Penn's Best Actor Oscar performance in Milk, but it has certainly already been far better received than John Henry’s last week in what we can only catalog as “sour milk.”

The Red Sox want a salary cap? How convenient. It seems like only a half-decade ago that Henry was shoveling the same line after losing out on Alex Rodriguez, a knee-jerk call to control the liberal spending ways of Boston’s rival to the south. Five years later, the Yankees are coming off the biggest free-agent spending frenzy in baseball history — including, most notably, swiping Boston’s desired prize first baseman right from under its collective nose — and the Red Sox respond with another disingenuous call to implement some sort of salary structure.

It’s plainly obvious that if Mark Teixeira had accepted the Red Sox’ offer of $170 million over eight years in December instead of signing with the Yankees for $10 million more, the Red Sox hierarchy would have never broached the topic. But once again, the Sox lost out on what they believed was the franchise player of their future, once again to their hated rivals. And their petty response, in lieu of chalking it up to being wildly duped during the negotiations, is to call for a cap on spending. That’s rich.

It’s nice of Henry to try to play Robin Hood, but if I want a serious discourse on the benefits of a salary cap in baseball, I’m probably not going to go to the owner of the team with the game’s fourth-highest payroll as my No. 1 source. Yet there were Henry and Larry Lucchino last week in Fort Myers, Fla., trying to tell the assembled media with straight faces how a salary cap is for the good of the game.

“I think we all agree that competitive balance is an issue, and if there was a way to put together an enlightened form of a salary cap, I think everybody among the ownership parties would support it,” Henry said. “I think it’s quite possible to put together a partnership between the players and owners going forward. ... I think it’s something that should be at least explored.”

Competitive balance? Is Henry aware that the Tampa Bay Rays, they of the second-lowest payroll in the game last year, head into 2009 as defending American League champions? Does he forget that the 2004 Red Sox, the team universally praised for breaking the “curse,” albeit with one (one) full-time homegrown player (Trot Nixon) probably would never have materialized if some sort of structured system were in place? And he obviously can’t recall that it was his team that bid the ungodly sum of $51 million for the right to negotiate with Daisuke Matsuzaka, beating out, among others, the New York Yankees.

Money changes everything
Red Sox fans would like everybody to believe that after free agency and shrewd trading contributed to the ’04 title, the “homegrown kids” led Boston to its second World Series championship of the decade in ’07. Sure. Although that team featured key contributions from youngsters Jonathan Papelbon, Jon Lester, and Jacoby Ellsbury, it was also the richest roster to ever win a world title. The $134.5 million payroll tops only the — lo and behold — 2004 Red Sox as the best-paid roster to bring home the trophy. You still want to talk salary cap?

Although it’s true that five of last October’s eight postseason participants spent $100 million or more to get there, must we forget that the Twins, a perennial threat in the AL Central, finished just a game behind Chicago with the game’s seventh-lowest payroll? Arizona ended up two games in back of the Manny-fueled Dodgers with the eighth-lowest. Even the Florida Marlins, with far and away the lowest payroll in the game ($21.86 million vs. the $43.8 million of runner-up Tampa Bay) finished the season with the seventh-best record in the National League. They had the same number of wins as the NL West-winning Dodgers and spent almost $100 million less.

But that also, in itself, conveys one major problem with any sort of proposed cap in baseball: the need for a floor. It would serve to discourage the Kansas Citys of the baseball world from pocketing even more than they already are in the current form of revenue sharing. With 11 teams below the $70 million spending threshold in 2008, four below $50 million, and the country in the midst of a recession with no certain light at the end of the tunnel, where do you set that? Presumably, this is why Larry Lucchino used the term “payroll zone” instead of “cap,” which probably would only affect about one-third of major league teams. Besides, it might be easier to propose a zone instead of a cap when the collective bargaining agreement is up for renewal after 2010. Buzzwords, people.

After all, it’s been 15 years since the serious notion to implement a salary cap in Major League Baseball prompted players to up and quit on the game in a strike that nearly debilitated the American pastime. It took the steroid-induced home run chase of 1998 to revive the sport, a “see no evil” summer that baseball is still trying to wriggle out of.

The road not taken
For all we know, if an agreement had been made that summer, a World Series banner could be hanging limply in the stagnant air of Le Stade Olympique, touting the Montreal Expos as world champs. There very well might not be two of them at Fenway Park.

Oh, a salary cap may yet work in baseball, despite the major hurdles it would take to get there. It’s just that when it comes up in the future, I’d much rather hear a serious proposal from someone who doesn’t have an ax to grind. Even better, I’d like to hear about it from someone who hasn’t benefited directly from the clear lack of a salary structure over the years.

Give Pirates chairman Bob Nutting the floor. The hypocritical campaign of Henry and Lucchino is about as transparent as the proverbial glass house. And yet, they continue to throw stones in the direction of the Bronx, where the Yankees have nothing to show for their free-agent bonanzas of the decade, while the Red Sox have a pair of trophies, secured precisely by doing what they criticize their rivals for doing. Maybe it would have come off as more genuine if they hadn’t spent the winter dangling $170 million out there for a player they didn’t necessarily need.

For now, it looks to be no better than a grudge crusade. But hey, what else is new?

Eric Wilbur writes the Boston Sports Blog on Boston.com (www.boston.com/sports/ columnists/wilbur/)

8 comments so far...
  1. When the CBA expires, lock the players out, bring in non union players, and impose these rules: no more guaranteed contracts (a F.A. can get his $ security via a signing bonus), impose a salary cap in the "zone" of 75m-125m (seriously, do you think K.C. and Pitt. can spend 100m every year, maybe once every 5 yrs) develop revenue sharing amongst teams (we need the T.B.'s, Balt's and Pitt.'s, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore's great baseball legacies have just about become extinct, but there is still a sliver of fan base that remembers). This will hurt baseball in the short run (that season, maybe the following, maybe for three or four), and thats not a bad thing. Baseball survived for decades with 3-4,000 people in the stands in St.L., for games in May and June. Baseball survived for decades without the need for the great "popularity" that it has now. MLB, baseball, has a dependence issue, like a crack addiction, towards it's own largesses.
    If ownership seized control over salaries, then they could control the direction of their teams, they could hold the players accountable (If your investing into a pitcher, like Barry Zito, and he's stinking up the joint, should a team not have the option of sending him to AAA to work out his issues? They did it for decades before free agency.) A manager needs to tell someone like a Manny Ramirez, "Wise up kid, or YOU will be at Pawtucket for the next month". Ownership has to show that, while yes this is a business, and we will want to fill seats, and generate marketing revenue, but we also will do whatever it takes to get control over this situation, whatever it may be (think how effectively they could control drug testing). That ownership is willing to take a financial hit, hey I'll do my part as a fan, and watch double A lifers, just like I watch the prima donas. And me as a fan, will stop drooling over the "40 hr, 120rbi, .320 stat line. Anyway, just a few thoughts, gotta do some homework

    Posted by PMANPATSFAN February 26, 09 12:28 PM
  1. Yes, they TB rays won the AL last year... because they had 12 years of # 1 picks, and controll of them through payment control structure. Wait until they get to Free agency and see how many of them they can keep. Just because the Red So can spend more than mostly eveyone doesnt mean they see that path as the best for MLB going forward.

    Posted by dja February 26, 09 12:33 PM
  1. So...what should the Sox do, not take advantage of the rules that are currently in their favor? I think one of the richer teams being on the side of a salary cap is actually a good thing.

    Posted by J-Bone February 26, 09 01:00 PM
  1. Maybe I missed something, but the press gathering video I saw on Boston.com with John Henry, Larry Luchino and Tom Werner, the subject of a salary cap was brought up by a reporter, not John Henry. His answer was simply he thought it would be a good idea, but he didn't sound like someone out there "calling" for a salary cap. It might be a good idea to actually watch the videos on your own web site before you write your next diatribe against John Henry.

    Posted by Vermonter17032 February 27, 09 12:02 PM
  1. I agree with J-bone. I believe the Red Sox realize they HAVE to spend to be competitive against the nyyankees, et al not because they want to dish out big bucks. Their philosophy is to build the Red Sox through their farm system unlike nyy who builds their teams through free agency. We have to remember that the Henry group paid a lot of money to buy the Sox and they have to be competitive in order to protect their investment. I applaud Henry for initiating the conversation about a salary cap. Salaries are out of control and ultimately it's the fans who pay for the players salaries.

    Posted by jingle_ballz February 27, 09 02:28 PM
  1. The reporter of this article is absolutely the only one who is making any sense here. First of all to hear john Henry talk salary cap after offering Texeira the kind of contract he did is NOTHING but sour grapes for having lost said player to the "hated rivals." Also he's right about the salary floor. What that means is some of these so called small market teams would actually have to put their revenue sharing into players instead of into the pockets of the owners. No they won't like that. What will their excuse be then? What problem will they bring up then when they can no longer blame the lack of a salary cap for the fact that they can't compete. But to me as a fan, most importantly, why would you rather have the money stay with the billionaire owners that we don't give a rat's a-- about instead of going to the millionaire players that WE LOVE TO GO SEE PLAY! Makes no sense at all. Do you honestly believe the owners will decrease ticket prices if there's a salary cap? Do you believe that somehow someway this will benefit the fans? If so, I have some "prime" swamp land in Florida to sell you. Just leave your numbers and I will call ASAP to make that deal with you.

    Posted by elccpa24 February 28, 09 11:42 PM
  1. Baseball spending has been out of control for years. The Yankees are the worst offenders and they set an example of greed and gluttony for all of MLB. Sure John Henry and the Red Sox are no saints either, but common it's not even close. A salary cap fixed football and made in more competitive for all teams, and it would do the same for baseball. I'm sure if you ask a Pirates fan or a Royals fan they would agree.

    Posted by Sonny Erickson March 3, 09 08:27 AM
  1. Dead wrong Mr. Wilbur. So you John Henry is so petty, that solely on the basis And, why wouldn't you want the top payroll teams on board with a salary cap? If anything, that is where you want to start. John Henry just recognizes that the playing field is not fair and competitve balance is suffering severely. Sure, the Sox have capitalized on their competitive advantage over most of the have nots, but I think it completely genuine and sincere that J. Henry thinks baseball and the league as whole would benefit from a salary cap. Quit dispensing such tripe, Mr. Wilbur or take your axe and axe-grinder elsewhere.

    Posted by pete22 March 4, 09 01:48 PM
add your comment
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

This week's OT cover

OT cover image

OT Columnists

Charles P. Pierce writes for the Boston Globe Magazine. A long-time sportswriter and columnist, Pierce is a frequent guest on national TV and radio.
Tony Massarotti is a Boston Globe sportswriter and has been writing about sports in Boston for the last 19 years. He is currently spotlighted as a featured columnist on Boston.com.
Tom Caron serves as studio host for NESN's Boston Red Sox coverage.
Bob Lobel was a WBZ-TV sportscaster for 29 years, anchoring more than 10,000 sports reports.
Chad Finn is a sports reporter at the Globe and founder of the Touching All The Bases blog. Before joining the Globe, he was an award winning columnist at the Concord Monitor.

OT beat writers

Maureen Mullen brings you Red Sox information and insights.

Tom Wilcox covers the Patriots.

Scott Souza is all over the Celtics.

Danny Picard is on the ice with the Bruins.

Mike McDonald takes a look at the humorous side of Boston sports


Browse this blog