Teams That Spend to Keep Their Stars Is What's RIGHT with Baseball

joel ray by Contributor Written on November 08, 2009
WEST PALM BEACH, FL - NOVEMBER 18:  A detailed shot of a box containing $1 million dollars as seen on the first tee during the final round of the 2007 ADT Championship at the Trump International Golf Club on November 18, 2007 in West Palm Beach, Florida  (Photo by Scott Halleran/Getty Images) Scott Halleran/Getty Images

In days gone by, stars were associated with teams.  Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, Koufax, Mays, Kaline, Musial, Cobb.  Was there any doubt that star and team had a shared identity and that this was part of the magic of baseball?  In 2009, the big story for the Yankees became the “core four”; a story of a team that found a way to keep its stars over a 14 year run in an era of free agency; Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Pettitte—what a great story!

But how about the other great “core 4” stories that COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BUT WEREN’T because of team owners who just decided to cash out?  How about the core 4 of the 1994 Montreal Expos?  Pedro Martinez, John Wetteland, Larry Walker, and Moises Alou?  How about the core 4 of the 1997 Florida Marlins? Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Moises Alou, Gary Sheffield?

All core 4s would cost $50MM or so to keep (based on peak salaries) but only one of these teams stepped up to the plate…the Yankees.  Why castigate the Yankees for their payroll spending?  More teams should do that—spend what it takes to hang onto their stars.  The Yankees are a special team across the country and even the world; the Washington Nationals and the Marlins are mostly a joke in terms of home interest and draw on the road. NOT hanging onto your core 4 is what’s WRONG with baseball.

Also, let’s debunk right now that the Yankees are just a free-agent team; over half ( 8 of 13) who played in the final World Series game came up through the farm system or were traded for home grown talent (A-Rod was obtained in a super-star trade for Soriano).  (Similarly, the Phillies had 7 home grown players, the Angels had 9 of 18, and the Dodgers had 8 of 17 in their last game.) Again, home grown, keep your stars—tough, but needed in an era of free agency.  On the other hand, The Mets only had 3 of 14 players who were home-grown on opening day—a team of hired guns that had horrible clubhouse karma.

Baseball needs to ENCOURAGE teams to hold onto their stars, not single them out for over-spending.  Teams that held onto their own talent were the ones that made it all the way, not the hired gun or grow ‘em and dump ‘em teams. It’s the under-spenders that are ruining fan interest.  That’s where the salary cap needs to go, on the bottom end.

Vote Now! - Author Poll

should their be a minimum salary cap?

  • no
  • yes $75 MM
  • yes $100MM
vote to see results
Results - Author Poll

should their be a minimum salary cap?

  • no

    20.0%
  • yes $75 MM

    40.0%
  • yes $100MM

    40.0%
  • Total votes: 5
(0)
...
Share This  
Crop_45x45
or to post this comment

1 Comments

There are no comments yet. Get the conversation started by leaving the first comment

Loading more comments...
posted just now
  • Loading...
  • Nobody has liked this comment yet
Cancel

This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete

38
reads

1
comments

written on November 08, 2009 Opinion

The best newsletter on the web

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address


CBS Sports Official Partner
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Getty Images.
Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Getty Images is strictly prohibited.