Word: caps
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...that they finished tied for the worst record in baseball last year. They have money to spend, they just don't do it wisely. This is an organization that shelled out more than six million clams per year for Jose Mesa and Rheal Cormier last month. Surely a salary cap would not prevent that kind of stupidity...
Which is why a salary cap is the wrong way to go. Institute one, and all you do is shift the balance of power between the players and owners in favor of the owners. Is that really preferable? Personally, I would rather see the players make their money than the fat-cat owners. The athletes, after all, are the ones we all pay to go see, and we have already witnessed what happens when owners are afforded too much power. You need only look to the retired hockey old-timers who were taken advantage of during their playing days...
...make clear another point about salary caps: they do not necessarily guarantee parity. While spending limits may seem to put all teams on an even plane, it has been proven that there is always plenty of wiggle room for the smart teams to use to an unfair advantage. Contracts containing deferred money, for example, allow for softening of the cap. The wealthier teams can still secure the frontline players by simply promising more money at a future date. Take a glance at the NBA. You can count the number of teams who are actually under the cap on one hand...
...even if a salary cap did ensure parity, it does it in the wrong way. That is, it balances the playing field by bringing the better teams down to the lesser teams' level, as opposed to the other way around. A salary cap doesn't give the poorer teams any more money to play with. Assuming they are spending as much as they possibly can already, their payrolls will stay virtually the same. Thus, a spending cap does nothing to make the Minnesota Twins any better; it serves only to make them less worse relative to the rest...
...make some improvements to baseball, just don't impose a salary cap. For even in the absence of any substantive solutions, you should never underestimate the power of owners' greed as a restraint on limitless spending. As rich as the Yankees are, George Steinbrenner will forever be more inclined to pocket some profits before he spends everything he has on player payroll. Don't believe me? Why, then, did Georgie Porgie not go after Manny this winter? If New York wanted him, he was theirs for the taking. And it's not as if the Yankees couldn't afford both...