For the 1,567th time: baseball does not need a salary cap

43 Comments

John Feinstein knows a hell of a lot about college basketball and golf, but his take on the finances of major league team sports is a bit shaky.  How could it be anything but based on the argument he makes today: baseball should have a salary cap so it can be successful and competitive like football, basketball and hockey.

I’ll leave hockey to others because I just don’t know enough about it, but it never ceases to amaze me that the NFL and NBA are trotted out as superior models to baseball’s. The same NFL that is about to embark on an ugly as all hell labor battle. The same NBA that just bore witness to the 127th (estimated) Celtics-Lakers Finals and just watched a team get its heart ripped out by a departing free agent in more callous a manner than any baseball player’s departure has ever hurt a team.  If the point of a salary cap is a league’s financial health, competitiveness and some sense of fan friendliness, football and basketball are doing it wrong.

But I think the kicker to this is that what sets off Feinstein’s rant today is that the Yankees picked up Austin Kearns. Really, he ends his column by suggesting that baseball’s salary cap be called “The Kearns Rule” because apparently New York’s acquisition of a journeyman outfielder making $750,000 is a bridge too far. No one likes the Yankees’ largess, but it sure as hell wasn’t on display at the trade deadline.

But as I always do when someone writes one of these “baseball needs a salary cap” things, I’ll note that every team in Major League Baseball has made the playoffs at least once. Twenty-three of 30 have made it in the past ten years, and 28 of 30 have made it since 1992.  I’ll also note that, as I type this, there are two very sophisticated groups of businessmen literally bidding against one another in an auction for the right to buy a Major League Baseball team. And a bankrupt one to boot.

If that’s evidence of a problem, it’s a problem unlike that which I have ever seen.

Dilson Herrera has season-ending surgery

Getty Images
2 Comments

Reds infielder Dilson Herrera will undergo surgery to remove bone spurs from his right shoulder. His season is over.

Herrera, you may recall, was acquired from the Mets in the Jay Bruce trade last year. He played in 49 games for the Mets, but spent all of last year and this year in the minors. In parts of seven minor league seasons he’s hit .295/.357/.461 with 67 homers and 87 stolen bases in 631 games.

Herrera, one time a top-5 prospect of the Mets, was expected to play in the bigs this year, but hasn’t. He was expected to challenge for the starting second base job for the Reds next year, but that’s obviously in doubt now. The worst part: he’ll be out of minor league options next year, so the Reds will be pressured to either put him on the big league roster fresh off an injury or else risk losing him via waivers, which I suspect he’d be unlikely to clear.

Yu Darvish’s no-trade list revealed

Getty Images
9 Comments

Ken Rosenthal has found out the ten teams on Yu Darvish‘s no-trade list per his contract. They are the Orioles, Red Sox, Cubs, Indians, Rockies, White Sox, Tigers, A’s, Pirates and Blue Jays. He has no right to veto trades to any other team.

As we’ve noted in recent days, the Dodgers are said to have a “strong interest” in Darvish. It’d not be at all surprising to see other contenders in on him too, at least as long as the Rangers keep listening to offers. In the no-trade category, it would seem that the Cubs and Indians would have a need, but it’s doubtful the Indians would make that kind of deal. The Cubs may, but of course they’d have to sweeten the deal for Darvish in order to get him to agree to waive his no-trade rights (which is often the point of having a no-trade provision).

Beyond the Dodgers, the Yankees and Astros are obvious potential suitors.

Darvish is 6-8 with a 3.44 ERA and has struck out 143 batters to only 43 walks in 133.1 innings.