[pietasterp]

Quote: Originally Posted by DrJones

To me, Giambi is the only one of those that fits the profile you first suggested (small or mid market team develops young star, only to lose him to Yankee megabucks). Clemens was 36. The Rangers stupidly overbid for A-Rod in the first place and received Soriano in the deal. The Tigers received decent value for Granderson in Austin Jackson. Texas received tremendous value for Teixeira (the Yankees signed him off the Angels, who aren't exactly poor). The Indians haven't received much so far for Sabathia (Brantley?), but the Brewers got a playoff appearance out of him. Personally, I don't mind the Yankees appearing in the playoffs most of the time (unless they consistently win titles) for the same reason I don't mind seeing the Patriots around. Every sport needs a villain, and nothing's more satisfying than watching the Yanks or Pats get booted from the postseason.

Fair enough. Although I don't think it occurred to me to factor in whether a team got value back or not after losing a star player; that may be more or less relevant depending on the circumstances. I wouldn't argue that the Tigers definitely came out on top, after all was said and done, from the Yanks/Tigers/D'backs trade that netted us Jackson and Scherzer. I do take exception w/ the Yanks and Patriots being around to have a villain every year though....if neither of those teams made the playoffs for the next 50 years, I'd be just fine with that.

Quote: Originally Posted by dickey1331

Like others have said I don't think baseball needs a salary cap. Its not the Yankees fault that Houston won't spend any money.

Quote: Originally Posted by 24

The best thing about Baseball is the fact there is no salary cap. The owners choose what they want to do with their money. George (And Now Hal) always wanted the Yanks to be in contention for a world series. Because of that he Spent a huge amount of money on free agents.

I agree that baseball - in fact, NO sport - "needs" a salary cap. It's an artificial restriction placed on teams by the teams themselves for what some view as the health of the game overall. As I mentioned prior, it's pretty much the purest expression of capitalism in sports to have an uncapped market, so in that sense it's a virtue. Of course nothing is stopping an owner from spending his own money out of his pocket to sign guys, but that's a bit artificial since it's not like the Steinbrenners are paying the likes of A-Rod out of their own personal bank accounts. The Yankees have a current valuation of $2.3 Billion, with annual revenues of $471 million, whereas a team like the Kansas City Royals have a valuation of $457 million, with annual revenues of about $160 million. Signing a guy like A-Rod for $30-mil a year + incentives isn't really a viable option for a team like KC. I'm not saying that's good or bad - I'm putting no value judgement on that statement whatsoever, vis-a-vis the virtues of a hard cap - but it's relevant only in the sense that the argument of "anyone can sign anyone they want" is not totally true, in a practical sense.

Look, the bottom line is that most baseball fans seem relatively happy with the way things are now and the franchise valuations keep going up, so everbody wins and nothing needs to be changed. I think there are valid arguments for a hard salary cap, but in the end, no one can reasonably argue that baseball "needs" one, in the sense that no sport "needs" one.