While fixing the kids’ lunch today, I was watching the Sports Reporters. They were talking about the economy’s effect on salaries, and just about every team but the NY Yankees. The salary cap was mentioned, and one of the reporters repeated an oft mentioned error. I can’t stand it when supposed experts (like this guy and Colin Cowherd) don’t know the facts. I think Cowherd also passed on this bit of incorrect information.
2008 MLB Salaries
- NY Yankees $209 million
- Detroit Tigers $138.6 million
- NY Mets $138.2 million
- Boston Red Sox $133.4 million
It will be interesting to see how it all stacks up come the beginning of this season. Both the Red Sox and Tigers have dumped salary. Lots of teams have. The Red Sox spent more the first few years of John Henry’s tenure as owner. But these knee-jerk reactionaries refuse to face facts. The Red Sox have been implementing their plan of player development in order to reduce their salary (they spent more than $143 million in 2007). They don’t want to depend on high priced free agents. To compete until they could develop guys like Lester, Pedroia and Papelbon, they spent money. But to think they ever actually competed with the Yankees salary-wise is silly. John Henry knew that the Red Sox could not sustain a system where they spent ever-increasing amounts on free agents (as the Mark Teixeira sweepstakes showed, they picked targets and set limits- just as with the A-Fraud trade which the MLBPA, not Bug Selig squashed [sorry Colin]).
Henry doesn’t want the Yankees to be in a completely different stratosphere when it comes to salary (they may near the $100 million gap this season). But they also don’t want those team who receive revenue sharing to just pocket the cash. They want them to spend money on players’ salaries so ALL teams are better increasing the competition and the MLB product. As a result, I don’t find the talk of a salary zone by John Henry to be disingenuous. Whether or not it is good for the game is up for debate. But to take the comments out of context, including historical context, is unfair, and not solid journalism.
Cavman Considers 