Salary cap thoughts


I’ve already gotten a lot of feedback regarding the Pirates’ stance on a salary cap for MLB. As I was leaving Mass this morning, my phone chirped with the arrival of an e-mail from Larry DeGaris, the marketing professor at the University of Indianapolis. DeGaris had some additional thoughts on the issue:

“Interesting that officials in European soccer (UEFA) are discussing limiting transfer fees and salaries, and their system is a lot more free-market than U.S. sports.  I think you’ve hit on the major consequence of the financial crisis for (pro) sports — leagues are going to have to review their business models.  There’s been a lot of talk about what’s going to happen on the revenue side with the decline of corporate dollars, and that’s going to put a lot of pressure on the cost side.”

Here are some thoughts from reader Jon Plesce:

“Some of these small market teams had better be careful what the wish for. There’s no way the union will allow a salary cap without a corresponding basement. Then you’ll see some of these teams being sold because the owners will be forced to open their books to prove they’re investing the money back into player salaries. There goes their pocket money. Expect a work stoppage otherwise. When a team like the Marlins has a $22 million payroll and receives almost $30 million in (luxury tax),  there’s something wrong. The big-market teams, especially the Yankees, will want relief on their end. Their (luxury tax) money is helping keep a couple teams afloat.”

Finally, a short-and-sweet statement from faithful reader Mort Davis:

“Spending $4 million on a back-up anything makes as much sense as not leading the charge for a hard salary cap. Makes no sense!”

I believe Mort was referring to utility infielder Ramon Vazquez, who got a two-year, $4 million deal as a free agent.