So, I'm in the minority, and I know it. I don't like Derek Jeter. Yet, I'll be honest, I had mixed feelings when I heard that he announced that he'll retire after the 2014 season. Here's what I'll concede: Jeter is one of the top shortstops to have played in the Major Leagues over the past 20 years. Jeter is an asset for the New York Yankees - whether it be statistically proven or merely "intangibly". Jeter is destined for the Hall of Fame. Now, here's where I disagree with the common baseball fan: Derek Jeter is not one of the 10 or 20 greatest players in the history of the game of baseball. Derek Jeter is not the greatest shortstop to play between 1996 and today. Derek Jeter is not responsible for 5 World Series titles.
That all said, here's why I'm happy about his announcement. Needless to say, I will not lose any sleep, nor will I shed a tear when Derek Jeter leaves the field for the final time in 2014. I will not miss him, nor will I miss his sense of entitlement that comes with being the captain of the Yankees. I will be happy in a few years, when all the talk about Jeter subsides. Granted, the next conversations will be about who replaces Jeter at short for the Yankees, who replaces Jeter as the face of the Yankees, and most "importantly" who replaces him as the ambassador for Major League Baseball. After those questions go away, the big conversation is whether he will be MLB's first ever unanimous Hall of Famer. Let's put that to rest. No, he will not. He's no more a Hall of Famer than Greg Maddux, no more than Tom Glavine, and as I mentioned before, he's not even the best player at his position who played during his career. But, on a less biased level, I'm glad that he's decided to leave before he disgraces himself, his team, and the league by staying around past his usefulness. I just hope, purely from a baseball standpoint, that he can stick to his decision, and that this year plays out healthily, and moderately (not too) successfully. No, that's not a jab at Jeter. I just think if he can put up a .330, 25 HR, 20 SB, 80 RBI, 100R season, he might reconsider his retirement. I want him to have the conviction that someone of his stature should. The other thing that, as a Red Sox fan, I enjoy about this decision is that this announcement will exemplify the situation that the Yankees are in. I read today, and I can't remember where, that Jeter's heir apparent is not currently in the New York Yankees' system. They need a fix, and, perhaps, this will open their eyes.
So, I'm clearly anti-Jeter, anti-Yankees, you might say at this point. What would I possibly be upset by about Jeter's retirement? Well, I briefly touched on this earlier. This is going to open a season-long love fest for a player who I could live without. I wasn't a big fan of the Rivera farewell tour last year, and I have nothing against Mariano Rivera, and can agree with the argument that he's at least one of the two best closers of all time. My biggest beef comes with the way in which the Captain announced this - Facebook. I won't get into why I'm not a fan of, or even on, it. I just think that, despite the day in age that we live, it is lazy, and classless to make an impactful announcement like this on Facebook. I also look at this announcement as a plea for attention. Now, I've been told by Yankee fans that this is not the case, but Jeter's human, and he saw the lovefest that Rivera received last year. He knows that he's one of the more popular players in the league, and that he's got his coming. The announcing that he's retiring at the end of this season is a not so subtle cry for attention. He could have waited until September to announce it, or at least make the announcement at the All-Star game, that he's now a lock to start - even if he breaks every bone in his body in spring training and another AL shortstop has 50 HR and 100 RBI by July.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Why a Baseball Cap?
With MLB Free Agency in full swing, I've been thinking about how to level the playing field. First, let me get a few things out of the way. Yes, I'm a Red Sox fan, and I'm elated that they've just won the World Series for the third time in 10 seasons. Yes, I adamantly hate the Yankees, mostly because I am a Red Sox fan, but also because they are so not the Red Sox. But, I am a baseball fan first, and I am all for competition, and the game.
That all said, what's the biggest problem prohibiting Major League Baseball from having a level playing field? It's not a secret, and the 16 or so teams at the wrong end of the stick will let everyone know. It's the money. If you want to be on an even playing field in MLB, you need to be able to pay the players. What's the solution? It's easy. A salary cap. I know, the players don't want it because their salaries keep growing - Clayton Kershaw just signed a 7-year, $180mil contract extension, and he's only 25! A-Rod is in the middle of a 10-year, $275mil contract. The problem with that is that he's not the best player in baseball - he wasn't even the best on his team last year. If A-Rod is worth $27,500,000 a year, what is Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout worth? So, that's the player's argument - no salary cap means their wallets get fatter. I'll counter this later. From what I've read, there is one team vehemently opposed to a salary cap, too. It's the Yankees, who spend what they want when they want. Wait! I know, the Dodgers and Red Sox can spend with the best of them, too. But, from what I've read, only the Yankees are opposed to the cap.
So, how do we fix this? Let's look at the NFL. They do it right, I think. They have a salary cap, and you can pay any player as much as you want - but you better stay under the cap, or you get penalized. But, wait, you say. The NBA has a salary cap, and a pay scale for its players. Why not use them as an example? Well, it's because of the other end of the salary structure. The NFL has a salary floor, as well. Each team must have a salary within a certain range. What if MLB did this? According to deadspin.com, the New York Yankees had a team salary of $228,995,945 in 2013, and the Houston Astros had a team salary of $24,328,538. The other 28 teams fell somewhere in between. Keep in mind that the luxury tax threshold is $189,000,000 this offseason. Let's use the midway point of these numbers as a starting point - $126,662,242, Let's set a hypothetical cap at $170mil and a floor at $80mil. There were only two teams above that cap in 2013, and in the interest of competitive fairness, we won't penalize the Yankees or Dodgers for 5 years. There were eight teams below the $80mil threshold last season, though. Of those 8 teams, three of them made the playoffs.
I want to focus on two of the teams who made the playoffs for this argument. Let's look at the Tampa Bay Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Oakland A's were the other team, but we all know their story. I'm considering Pittsburgh first. I think it's fair to say that they're not many pieces away from being a title contender. But, what have they done this offseason? Not a lot - at least at a high profile standpoint. If you were a free agent pitcher, say Ubaldo Jimenez, and you had identical offers from the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Yankees, let's call it 6 years, $90mil, which would you take under the current setup? Obviously, the Yankees, even if the Pirates are closer to contention (speaking hypothetically). Why? Simple, because you know that the Yankees can, and will, spend whatever is needed to bring in the other parts. And, you know that if you sign with Pittsburgh, and they don't win right off, they'll likely start selling off pieces. Enter the salary cap/floor. Now, the Yankees can't bid on Jimenez because they're over the cap - at least without making some other moves (another topic, in addition to this one). But, on the flipside, the Pirates, who may still need a first baseman, will have money to spend next year, and will be required to maintain payroll. And, they're still in title contention especially with another quality starter. This is simple math.
However, there's another reason to implement a salary structure like I've proposed. The other team I want to highlight is the Tampa Bay Rays. As a Red Sox fan, I've grown a little tired of their new found persistence. But, it is good for baseball. Unfortunately, the Rays are in the middle of a LOT of trade rumors, surrounding possibly the best player in franchise history. I applaud the Rays for finally locking up a franchise-type player in Evan Longoria. I also applaud them for their continuous success despite so many moving parts. How would this structure help the Rays? Longoria signed a 10 year, $136mil extension a couple of years ago, theoretically keeping him in Tampa for his career. That eats up approximately $13.6mil of the required minimum of $80mil. Guess how they could get that number to $30mil over the next 8 seasons? Lock up David Price. It's a no-brainer. The best thing about baseball, when I was a kid, was watching stars carry their teams, and stick with them for years - sometimes too long. It's what stars do, it's how franchises get established. Imagine a roster with Evan Longoria and David Price through their coinciding primes. That's downright scary for the opposition, and if that doesn't get the fans in the seats in Tampa, nothing will.
In the end, I don't think this will ever be approved by the unions, but I do believe strongly that this is the best step for Major League Baseball to take. Parity is always around the corner, but it's always a step away for the "mid-majors" in MLB. Think about how different this offseason would have turned out if these restrictions were in place.
That all said, what's the biggest problem prohibiting Major League Baseball from having a level playing field? It's not a secret, and the 16 or so teams at the wrong end of the stick will let everyone know. It's the money. If you want to be on an even playing field in MLB, you need to be able to pay the players. What's the solution? It's easy. A salary cap. I know, the players don't want it because their salaries keep growing - Clayton Kershaw just signed a 7-year, $180mil contract extension, and he's only 25! A-Rod is in the middle of a 10-year, $275mil contract. The problem with that is that he's not the best player in baseball - he wasn't even the best on his team last year. If A-Rod is worth $27,500,000 a year, what is Miguel Cabrera or Mike Trout worth? So, that's the player's argument - no salary cap means their wallets get fatter. I'll counter this later. From what I've read, there is one team vehemently opposed to a salary cap, too. It's the Yankees, who spend what they want when they want. Wait! I know, the Dodgers and Red Sox can spend with the best of them, too. But, from what I've read, only the Yankees are opposed to the cap.
So, how do we fix this? Let's look at the NFL. They do it right, I think. They have a salary cap, and you can pay any player as much as you want - but you better stay under the cap, or you get penalized. But, wait, you say. The NBA has a salary cap, and a pay scale for its players. Why not use them as an example? Well, it's because of the other end of the salary structure. The NFL has a salary floor, as well. Each team must have a salary within a certain range. What if MLB did this? According to deadspin.com, the New York Yankees had a team salary of $228,995,945 in 2013, and the Houston Astros had a team salary of $24,328,538. The other 28 teams fell somewhere in between. Keep in mind that the luxury tax threshold is $189,000,000 this offseason. Let's use the midway point of these numbers as a starting point - $126,662,242, Let's set a hypothetical cap at $170mil and a floor at $80mil. There were only two teams above that cap in 2013, and in the interest of competitive fairness, we won't penalize the Yankees or Dodgers for 5 years. There were eight teams below the $80mil threshold last season, though. Of those 8 teams, three of them made the playoffs.
I want to focus on two of the teams who made the playoffs for this argument. Let's look at the Tampa Bay Rays and the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Oakland A's were the other team, but we all know their story. I'm considering Pittsburgh first. I think it's fair to say that they're not many pieces away from being a title contender. But, what have they done this offseason? Not a lot - at least at a high profile standpoint. If you were a free agent pitcher, say Ubaldo Jimenez, and you had identical offers from the Pittsburgh Pirates and the New York Yankees, let's call it 6 years, $90mil, which would you take under the current setup? Obviously, the Yankees, even if the Pirates are closer to contention (speaking hypothetically). Why? Simple, because you know that the Yankees can, and will, spend whatever is needed to bring in the other parts. And, you know that if you sign with Pittsburgh, and they don't win right off, they'll likely start selling off pieces. Enter the salary cap/floor. Now, the Yankees can't bid on Jimenez because they're over the cap - at least without making some other moves (another topic, in addition to this one). But, on the flipside, the Pirates, who may still need a first baseman, will have money to spend next year, and will be required to maintain payroll. And, they're still in title contention especially with another quality starter. This is simple math.
However, there's another reason to implement a salary structure like I've proposed. The other team I want to highlight is the Tampa Bay Rays. As a Red Sox fan, I've grown a little tired of their new found persistence. But, it is good for baseball. Unfortunately, the Rays are in the middle of a LOT of trade rumors, surrounding possibly the best player in franchise history. I applaud the Rays for finally locking up a franchise-type player in Evan Longoria. I also applaud them for their continuous success despite so many moving parts. How would this structure help the Rays? Longoria signed a 10 year, $136mil extension a couple of years ago, theoretically keeping him in Tampa for his career. That eats up approximately $13.6mil of the required minimum of $80mil. Guess how they could get that number to $30mil over the next 8 seasons? Lock up David Price. It's a no-brainer. The best thing about baseball, when I was a kid, was watching stars carry their teams, and stick with them for years - sometimes too long. It's what stars do, it's how franchises get established. Imagine a roster with Evan Longoria and David Price through their coinciding primes. That's downright scary for the opposition, and if that doesn't get the fans in the seats in Tampa, nothing will.
In the end, I don't think this will ever be approved by the unions, but I do believe strongly that this is the best step for Major League Baseball to take. Parity is always around the corner, but it's always a step away for the "mid-majors" in MLB. Think about how different this offseason would have turned out if these restrictions were in place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)