Link Roundup: Red Sox Ownership Supports Cap
-P- The PBC blog is abuzz about this article, which reports that the Red Sox's ownership wants a salary cap for the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. P-G beat writer Dejan Kovacevic was the paper's hockey writer for several years prior to switching to baseball, watched as hockey owners gradually embraced the cap, and he believes the real obstacle to having one is not the players' union, but rather is that the owners don't agree that there should be one. If more owners get on board, there could be a major labor showdown in 2012.
Obviously, the salary cap has not been the Pirates' primary problem over the last decade or so. They've been run terribly, and they've watched as small-payroll team after small-payroll team has passed them by. Also, they've played in a division that has only featured one real high-roller in the Cubs, who haven't always been run well themselves.
The Pirates are now setting themselves up to be good for the first time in around 2012, though. While the Dave Littlefield Pirates surely would have failed with or without a salary cap, the Coonelly/Huntington Pirates could be poised to make serious noise if a cap is instituted just as a core of young players matures. Of course, I'm sure any cap would be instituted in steps, but it'll be interesting to see if the Bucs can use it to their advantage if it begins in 2012.
-P- Via PIttsburghsports.net, I highly recommend you check out these historical teams consisting of the Pirates' best homegrown and acquired players, if only for the pictures. This is awesome.
-P- Andy LaRoche had a back spasm and sat out of workout today. Let's hope this doesn't become a pattern.
-P- Jeff Francis will probably miss the 2009 season, dealing a blow to a Rockies team who don't have nearly enough strength to absorb one. He's having shoulder surgery because of the same problems that helped cause his poor 2008 season. I feel bad for him; he could've been a very special pitcher if not for the shoulder trouble and the fact that he's a Rockie, but he's going to be at least 29 when he returns, and he'll be lucky to eke out a career as an innings eater.
-P- The Brewers, even without C.C. Sabathia and Ben Sheets, are starting to get expensive.
-P- Ouch, ouch, ouch. The Nationals got burned badly by Esmailyn Gonzalez, who was their highest-profile Latin American signing in a very long and was supposed to be the proof that they were willing to pony up for top talent in the region. It turns out his name is actually Carlos Alvarez Daniel Lugo, and he's four years older than he told the team. There's $1.4 million down the drain.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You can never have enough underachieving 3rd basemen...
Andy Marte was DFA today by Cleveland. He was out of options.
Disagree on some picks for the homegrown team.
*Catcher is close, but Kendall has it over Manny on both peak and career value.
*As fun as the brother combination is, Max Carey deserves CF over Lloyd Waner. Better player in a longer career.
*The rotation is a total hash. No Sam Leever? No Wilbur Cooper? No Jack Chesbro?
*Stargell had more career games in the OF than he did at 1B. If you put him at his majority position, he and Bonds are fighting over LF (depending on whether you use Pirate career or total career), and you’ve probably got Jake Beckley at first base.
I guess in summation, I think there needs to be more acknowledgment of the excellence of the Pittsburgh teams of a hundred years ago.
Yeah. I know a lot more about contemporary baseball than about baseball history, but a few of the choices were head-scratchers even for me. Still, it’s totally cool that someone did that, and put in all that effort.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 19, 2009 5:53 PM EST up reply actions
I agree
I’m going to make some corrections
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:24 AM EST up reply actions
THANKS FOR READING MY POST
Seriously, thanks for the link.
As I write these, I basically take a crash course in a team’s history and a lot of times I make some mistakes… or a lot of mistakes.
I’ll switch out Bob Friend with Wilbur Cooper
I’ll take another look at Sam Leever and Jack Chesbro
I’ve struggled with players from the 19th century because the game was so different back then.
And even though Stargell played more games in left, he made his biggest impact (and shared the MVP) at first. Besides, the outfield is sooooooo crowded that at one point I wondered if there was no room at all for Dave Parker!
Either way, I weigh your thoughts… but let me finish my Brewers post first!
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions
Huh, how 'bout that. Disagree on the acquired team, too.
*Best acquired catcher, by a mile, is Fred Carroll. If you count him as a catcher – he was about 50/50 C/OF. Of course, Burgess spent a big chunk of his career as a PH.
*Best acquired first baseman, by a mile, is Fred Clarke. He did so much more for the franchise than Bream that it’s not even funny.
*Bay over Giles in LF is questionable at best.
*The rotation here is again extremely odd. Blyleven gets in on three strong seasons, but Vic Willis is ignored for four stronger ones? Drabek over Jesse Tannehill is also a shaky call.
I was going to say the same thing about Giles/Bay. People already forget how great Giles was. Also, on the homegrown team, I’d take Bob Veale over several of the starting pitchers.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Feb 19, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, Veale was a real killer, too.
I didn’t mention him because I’d already kicked three of the five guys from his rotation, but Veale probably belongs in the discussion, too.
according to baseball-reference.com
Fred Clarke played as many games in the bigs at first base as I did.
zero
It would be tough to squeeze him in at first.
I tend to weigh heavily on people who either came up big in October (Blyleven) or were the ace of an October bound team (Drabek)
I weigh very heavily on post season heroics. On my Red Sox team I have Dave Henderson and Dave Roberts, even though they weren’t even regular season starters and neither played a full season for Boston.
Thus you could throw any pitcher and any stat at me and I am not removing Red Oldham from the list. Getting three hall of famers out in order to clinch game 7 of the World Series trumps any stat in my book.
As I said before, I’m in the middle of the Brewers post (and also prepping the White sox and Royals) and I’m always up for adjusting the Home Grown vs Acquired teams… but my own quirks in the list will remain.
In other words, Blyleven, Drabek and Oldham stay
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions
By the way
thanks for reading it again
these have been a f—-ing blast to write!
What other Red Sox fan with a blog wrote about Max Carey?
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:43 AM EST up reply actions
Heh!
Totally blew it on Clarke, sorry about that. Shows what you get when you just go from memory, I guess.
Nothing wrong with keeping Oldham. Honestly, if I were going to cut a reliever, it’d probably be Gossage, since he only spent one year with the team.
Perhaps
But I would have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror and cutting Rich Gossage.
Could be just me.
It’s kind of like why I was getting Dave Parker in there by hook or by crook… he made such an impact on me as a kid that there was no way I was not including him
Then again, growing up in Massachusetts, my favorite Red Sox player was Butch Hobson.
He was my guy… but I couldn’t include him on my Home Grown Red Sox team!
Or else I’d have to cut Wade Boggs (can’t do it) at third, the home grown reserve infielders Dustin Pedroia and Nomar Garciaparra… and the 25th man was some dude from Baltimore named George Herman Ruth who was a decent pitcher and hitter and evidently his trade to New York had some long term reprecussions.
Man, I am behind in writing.
OK, I’ll finish the Brewers one, correct the Pirates one and then move on to the White Sox.
(Mind you, White Sox fans tend to be pretty angry. I am looking forward to them calling me retarded!)
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
No Cap with A Minimum!
A cap won’t help the Pirates directly; it would only allow the Pirate owners to NOT spend up to the cap. Sure it might reduce the overall player’s salaries and in turn make it cheaper for the Bucs to keep players BUT overall a cap is not the answer. The money is there for all teams to spend alot more than they already are on player’s salaries.
I am against a cap w/o a minimum AND the owners opening up ALL of their books. Read Bob Costa’s book or some of the other books (Not Money Ball) that details how the owners “hide” their real revenue.
Do we want the situation as in the NFL where teams release their “stars” to stay under the cap? How many good players did the Steelers let go to stay under the artifical cap? How many more Super Bowls would the Steelers have won if they kept these players instead of having to play rookies?
No cap for me!
Actually
the Steelers have been pretty smart. Not a lot of the “stars” they let go have much mileage left on them. Only ones that come immediately to mind are Woodson, Kevin Green (and only for a year, was it) and now Porter, but I don’t follow the Stillers much. Maybe somebody who does can enlighten. Plax too, maybe? Though he has a lot of baggage the Stillers are probably just as happy to be rid of.
Yeah I tend to agree with you there, I’m by no means a Steelers expert but they haven’t had to release that many young stars. Guys like Randle El and Chris Hope and kind of Plax but they’ve kept the most influential players for the most part.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on Feb 19, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions
Steelers lost more than their fair share
Chad Brown was pretty good for awhile. Can’t remember if Kirkland or Earl Holmes did anything. Hardy Nickerson left at some point. Orpheus Roye was decent and went to the Browns. Losing Faneca may also have hurt this year, for certain values of hurt. Chris Hope went to the Titans a few years ago for fairly big money. Even Kris Brown, the kicker, got big bucks from the Texans.
So they’ve lost plenty of guys that were decent, if not “stars”.
Kirkland was pretty done, IIRC.
Not sure they wouldn’t have pushed him off to the side even without a cap.
Yes on a Minimum
The NFL has one, it’s just almost never referenced because it’s a non-issue. Teams have to spend at least 85.2 percent of the cap. So if the cap was $100 million, each team must spend at least $85.2M, but no more than $100M.
As for releasing “stars” (why the quotes?), it’s the nature of the structure of NFL contracts, many of which are backloaded, and not 100% guaranteed. The teams like it this way. They’re almost never forced to release anyone.
"stars"
because I meant usually these guys touched on stardom for a moment or a couple seasons, and in many fans’ minds perhaps, they still are; they might have a big season or two left (we’ll see how much longer Porter lasts) but the team has usually been pretty good at knowing when a “star” isn’t anymore, when he’s more likely to decline than get any better. A subject related to this is, when a good player moves on it’s almost always because he thinks he’s worth way more than the Steelers do. I’m sure they’d like to have Randle El back, but not at the price crazy owners were willing to pay him. It seems to have worked out for them pretty well. Hard to argue with results.
a payroll zone
In the article Lucchino (a Burgh native, btw) says he wants a payroll zone, i.e., a max and a minimum, rather than just a cap. Let’s hope that’s what the owners can agree to push for.
agreed
Plus the Pirates need to spend money on scouts and the farm system…
The Pirates have picked early enough in the draft that even if they don’t draft the best players because of costs, they should be getting SOMEONE of worth and someone the farm should be able to develop
by SullyBaseball on Feb 20, 2009 1:46 AM EST up reply actions

by 













