Life of Brian: Baseball Needs a Salary Cap Like a Hole in the Head

Watch your heads, baseball fans, because the sky is falling.

Or at least that is what some mistaken observers of the game would have you believe.

Last month, all-world shortstop Alex Rodriguez scored himself a hefty 10-year, $252 million contract from the Texas Rangers, and now--as is always the case whenever a big-time free agent cashes in--everyone and his uncle is running around proclaiming that the Apocalypse is upon us.

Here we go again.

We have come to expect this "Chicken Little" behavior from typical doomsday prophets like the self-important Bob Costas, but lately even more rational commentators--including writers for this very sports page--have been sucked in by the mania.

Just before winter break, two of my esteemed Crimson colleagues--Messrs. Michael R. Volonnino '01 and Alex M. Sherman '04--wrote separate columns bemoaning the current state of the game. Sherman went so far as to advocate a salary cap resembling the one in place in other professional sports leagues. Volonnino, though not advocating an outright salary cap, proposed a luxury tax. This, however, is just as troubling seeing as it still imposes a limit, albeit permeable, on spending.

While each raises his fair share of solid points, they both overstate the condition of the game of baseball. And the remedy they prescribe is even more alarming than the disease they hope to cure.

A salary cap? Ugh, guys, no thanks. And no to anything remotely like it.But in light of all the criticism that they and others have leveled at the current system, let's see if we can't get beyond the hysteria and examine baseball's situation rationally.

For starters, here's a pop quiz for those of you who decry Major League Baseball as an institution of clear-cut haves and have-nots:

Before this offseason, who was the highest paid player in baseball?

Feel free to take a moment and scratch your head about this one.

The answer: Carlos Delgado, first baseman for the Toronto Blue Jays. Delgado signed an extension with the Jays at the end of the 2000 season that will pay him an average annual salary of $17 million. At the time, it was the largest yearly salary ever for a professional baseball player--that is, of course, until A-Rod went on the market.

Now how many of you would consider Toronto one of the fat-cat organizations in baseball? Volonnino and Sherman probably wouldn't, based on the fact that they choose not to rank the Jays among the group of what Volonnino deems "the five-to-eight teams that can realistically compete." And yet, despite this dubious omission, Toronto boasted the highest paid player ever, albeit for a short amount of time. Delgado's signing was, moreover, just three years after the Blue Jays went out and bagged Roger Clemens off the free agent market and away from the Boston Red Sox--a club which, incidentally, Volonnino did include as one of baseball's five-to-eight "have" teams.

So who says the rest of the league can't compete? Even the Colorado Rockies, who finished second-to-last in the NL West last season, were able to go out this winter and make Mike Hampton the richest pitcher in the game. And, for that matter, before the results of the A-Rod sweepstakes were announced, who would have seriously considered Texas--which plays not in Dallas, but in Arlington--a big market?

Can it really be true that only eight or so teams are capable of signing the big-money players when we have just identified three others (the Rangers, Jays, and Rockies) who are more than holding their own when it comes to the highly sought-after free agents? I don't think so. Especially when you consider that three of the teams identified by Volonnino as among the five-or-so contenders have not been to a World Series in the last decade, and one--my beloved Sox--haven't won squat in you-know-how-long.

Objectively speaking, there are more teams out there who can spend the big money than you think. And, conversely, there are also fewer teams without the money than you might suppose.

Take, for instance, the seemingly hapless Minnesota Twins. The owner has deep pockets, he just chooses to keep his money where it is--in his pockets. If that organization is frustrated with its situation, they should take a look at themselves first before pointing a finger at the rest of the league as the problem.

Granted, there are a few organizations that have started the past couple of years with no chance at the postseason. The Expos. The Royals. The Brewers. And maybe a couple others.

But such bottom-of-the-barrel teams exist in every sport, be it due to any number of reasons, ranging from a lack of fan support to organizational mismanagement. (Montreal, for one, has no business hosting a baseball franchise. It is time for the league to move that team to Vegas or northern Virginia and move on.) But will a salary cap solve the problems of these teams? Well, how much has such a cap helped the Clippers in the NBA? Or the Bengals in the NFL?

And other than that handful of six or so teams in baseball, who else are we supposed to shed tears over?

Surely not the Phillies. I don't care 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.

So who should we cry for? Certainly not the Marlins or Padres. Seeing as my Red Sox have not been in a World Series in fifteen years, I'm not inclined to feel sorry for two clubs that have both been there within the past four. And the Marlins just announced a plan to build a new, $318-million ballpark. So don't tell me they need a hand up.

Is there anyone left to feel sorry for? Even a team like Pittsburgh, as horrible as they are now, enjoyed a pretty remarkable stretch of making the postseason during the early 90s. And that was back when only two teams made the playoffs from each league, as opposed to the four teams that qualify now.

The disparity is not as great as it seems. When it comes down to it, what really riles people up is not who-is-signing-who, but what the fetching price is. Deep down, people are sickened not so much by the fact that a relatively small-market club like Seattle was unable to re-sign A-Rod, but that the ultimate price tag A-Rod fetched was so monstrously high.

But you know what? I don't care what these players make, and neither should you. When you think about it, it's really none of our business. And even if it was our business, who are we to say these players are overpaid? If the Dodgers are willing to pay Darren Dreifort $10 million a year, then that is what he is worth. So don't blame A-Rod simply for taking what was coming to him.

The rising salaries are a function of the good economic times that are being experienced across the board, the sport of baseball included. The relative size of payrolls should not be the target of any potential solution imposed on the game.

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 and are now forced to essentially sell out to memorabilia moguls to pay the bills.

Let's 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 the pitiful Celtics exceed it by a good $15 million.

And 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 of the league.

And lastly, even if salary caps did ensure parity, and even if they did so in the proper way, I still would not support them. Why? Because parity is overrated. Say what you want about competitive balance in the NFL, I think it just makes things boring. There's a reason why last year's Super Bowl between St. Louis and Tennessee received such low ratings. And this year's title game will surely be no better. The Ravens and the Giants? For those outside Baltimore and New York, it doesn't get much more boring than that.

By the way, when did dynasties become so intolerable all of a sudden? The Yankees win four World Series titles in five years and just like that, everyone says the system needs an overhaul. As much as I hate the Yankees, I don't necessarily think their recent success signifies anything wrong with the system. This past season, the Yankees positively sucked it up during the regular season. They were ripe for the taking in the AL East by anyone who could post a measly 90 wins. New York's ultimate success was due less to their great cash reserves and more to the fact that teams that easily could have ousted them--the Red Sox included--crashed and burned by their own fault.

The success of teams, it has been shown, comes in cycles. What did the Yankees accomplish in the '80s? Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, since 1990, teams as diverse as the Phillies, the Indians, and the Padres have all made World Series appearances, while the Reds, Blue Jays, and Marlins have all claimed championships.

The professional sports leagues could do a lot worse than if they returned to the days when you could expect great things from certain teams each year. Having suffered through this past weekend's NFL conference championship games, I can say with great confidence that, for my money, I'd much rather pay to see the likes of the old Niners-Cowboys rivalry than the crap that FOX threw at us last Sunday.

So 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 him and Mike Mussina.

The reality is that the Yankees will spend only up to the point where they think they need to, and not necessarily until the well is completely dry. No businessman worth his salt, least of all Steinbrenner, owns a team with the hope of simply breaking even.

Also, to Steinbrenner's credit, he has earnestly refrained from setting the standard when it comes to salaries. If anything, he put himself and his team at risk last season when he refused to sign Derek Jeter to an extension that would have made him the highest-paid player in the game.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I am more inclined to judge parity by looking at teams' positions in the standings, not their pocketbooks. The fact of the matter is, the Oakland Athletics were one game away from eliminating the Yankees from the playoffs and rendering this whole discussion moot. That is an achievement that should be lauded as proof that good scouting and player development will always win out over blind spending. It should not be dismissed as simply an anomaly.

Sure, the collective bargaining agreement is set to expire soon. Yes, change is needed. And revenue sharing is one avenue that should definitely be explored. But please God, do not let baseball impose a salary cap on itself.

Because that really would ruin the game.