5 comments Frank Deford Loves a Salary Cap and Jon Heyman Did It Again

Frank Deford has written a "Viewpoint" article stating that baseball is predictable because it lacks a salary cap. While I can't completely argue baseball is unpredictable in that we know some of which teams are going to be good and which aren't, I don't believe it is too much different from other sports in that respect. You can pretty much pick out which NBA teams will make the playoffs and which won't and even in football it isn't incredibly hard to know which teams will be in the playoffs and which won't. So I don't think baseball is that much different. Frank Deford disagrees.

Directly comparing the salary cap in football and a (potential) one in baseball is misleading in another respect...in football there are only 16 games so a losing streak affects a team more than a losing streak affects a baseball team. So over a span of 162 games the most talented teams show themselves over that period, while in the NFL, there is parity because all the teams can't afford to struggle for a short stretch of time. So while the salary cap does affect parity in the NFL, so does the fact the season is shorter.

I think this is an overlooked part of the football/parity discussion and comparison. The NFL season is so much shorter and there is a smaller sample size of games so it looks like there is more parity, but the season is shorter so it is a result of good/bad teams having longer winning/losing streaks.

For example, if the playoffs had begun in baseball last year on April 24, 2009 (which was after about 16 games for each team), the winners for each division would have been:

AL East: Toronto
AL Central: Kansas City
AL West: Seattle
AL Wild Card: Boston

NL East: Florida
NL Central: St. Louis
NL West: L.A. Dodgers
NL Wild Card: San Diego

The results would be much different than what these divisions looked like at the end of the year. Obviously there are scheduling issues, like each team hasn't played the other team in the division and teams play multiple games against the same team in their division, but I still think the smaller sample size of the season makes parity in the NFL look more pervasive than it may actually be.

So knowing this, let's let Deford explain:

Yes: As sure as the flowers are a-bloomin' again, every team has a chance. Well, that's true in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL, but baseball is more like Dancing With The Stars. It's understood from the start that some competitors just don't have a prayer.
This seriously goes for most major sports. In the NBA, it is pretty easy to know which teams will compete each year for the playoffs. Even in the NFL, there are some sure-fire teams that will make the playoffs. I think the rest of the parity can be explained by the smaller amount of games teams play.

And as long as there is no salary cap to equalize things, the Yankees and a few other rich teams are going to buy championships, while the little old mid-major cities really can't compete.

Here is the list of World Series champions. I am going to go back to 1989 and out of the last 20 World Series played, let's see how championships teams have been won by teams that are "large market" teams and teams that are "non-large market."

Championships won by large-market teams: 9 {Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston (2), New York (5).}

Championships won by non-large market teams: 11 {Oakland, Cincinnati, Minnesota, Toronto (2), Florida (2), Arizona, Anaheim, Chicago White Sox, St. Louis}.

You know what, I will even give you Anaheim, St. Louis or Chicago as a large-market team. That's fine, but that would just mean there is still some balance with 12 large market teams winning and 8 small market teams winning World Series'. The problem is that large-market teams have won the World Series more frequently lately than it feels like happened before. Since 2004, Boston has won it twice, the Yankees once, and Philadelphia once. This is obviously fresh on everyone's mind and combined with the Yankees win this past year comes the call for more parity.

Come on, let's admit it. Baseball is the national pastime only if hedge funds are the national livelihood.

I admit there are some parity issues in baseball and I think they rise partially from some teams have more money to invest in their players than other teams do. The business model is different for each team. Obviously we all want equality, but I am not sure equality is possible in today's sports world. The large market teams already have revenue sharing and I don't know if a salary cap is really going to stop these teams from winning. I believe even the Yankees could win a World Series with a salary cap, I really do. I know the Red Sox and other teams could.

If one needs proof, a British survey just revealed that the Yankees pay their players, on average, more than any other team in the world.

This has essentially paid off with just one World Series win for the Yankees during their spending spree of the 2000's. Let's remember this too.

Even more significant: The Bronx Bombers are the only MLB team in the top dozen. Baseball law really does allow the Yankees to be in a league of their own.

This is significant, but what is a reasonable salary cap for players in MLB? Hell, the Twins are up to a $95 million payroll because they have new sources of revenue. I am not against a salary cap in baseball, I am just confused as to what the proper salary cap would be and whether this will fix the problem.

Clearly, the Yankees are in a class of their own. I am a person who will worry and whine about players being able to keep their homegrown players once they become free agents, but I also find it hard to justify a salary cap for one specific team in baseball. So I am kind of torn on a salary cap. It seems like a good idea, but basically it is setting restrictions and changing the salary format for MLB. If the Yankees had won 4 straight World Series titles then I may be able to get behind this idea, but they won most of their titles over the last 20 years when they weren't the high spending team they currently are.

There are 26 divisions in the four major team sports and, in 25 of them, the American dream lives. Then there is the American League East, where the Yankees reside along with their moneybag runner-up, the Boston Red Sox.

The division is so stacked, Commissioner Bud Selig has floated the idea that perhaps some desperately poor franchises be temporarily reassigned to that division. Not to improve their chances, you understand, but to give them more paydays.

So really Bud Selig hasn't floated the idea to help the competitive balance of baseball, but to find a way to use the Red Sox and Yankees fan base to make other teams more money? How about some of these teams find a way to get their own fans to games played by their team? Or is that just too much of a simplistic way of looking at this?

Higher attendance at games against Boston and New York equals big gate receipts.

Excuse me if I get this wrong, but this is the problem I have with a salary cap in baseball. The Yankees (my 29th favorite MLB team) dole out huge revenue sharing checks to other teams and bring in money to the opposing team's ball parks, but Frank Deford wants to institute a salary cap to punish them further for daring to be good and giving other teams money through revenue sharing and ticket sales? So competitively it is a bad thing for the Yankees (there are other teams who spend money, but we all know Deford is talking about the Yankees) to be so good, but as far as revenue goes, it is a great thing? But many times we ignore the revenue advantages and focus on the competitive disadvantages.

I would argue while other teams are losing competitively because of the Yankees spending habits, they are actually benefiting in terms of revenue they take in, so at some point the Yankees free-spending may not be a terrible thing.

The only way for the three geographical losers in the AL East -- Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto -- to have any chance, is to be both wise and lucky when drafting amateur players.

Large-market teams do have to spend their money fairly wisely as well. The Yankees of the mid-2000's will tell you that.

When Tampa's young, homegrown players dared win the division two years ago, the Yankees immediately went out and signed the best hitter and the two best free agent pitchers, essentially buying the 2009 pennant.

Actually, the Yankees going out and spending that money wasn't based solely on the Rays winning the division. It was a combination of the Yankees missing the playoffs, a great hitter and pitcher being available, and the Yankees having a large amount of money come off the books...so they could spend that money on these players. As we saw this past winter, even the Yankees have a budget. Without the big contracts coming off the books, the Yankees don't spend all that money on Teixeira and Sabathia.

Sure, quirky things can happen in the playoffs. But this Opening Day we are only reminded again, that for baseball's welter of statistics, it remains a sport without a salary cap.

It may also remain a sport without a salary cap. The NFL has instituted a salary cap and it has worked, but I believe the shorter schedule is as much the reason behind the parity in the NFL as the salary cap is.

Ultimately, the only numbers that matter are the ones that follow the dollar sign.

Let's not forget other teams in MLB benefit financially from the Yankees rabid fan base and free-spending because they get ticket sales and revenue sharing. Some of that would go out the window with a salary cap.

-Jon Heyman has done it again. He made a list of breakout players. Last week it was breakout teams that weren't at all breaking out (because they were already good teams) and this week it is players who have already breaking out. Fortunately he only lists 9 other players who could breakout and not 30 like he did last year.

The list is still pretty bad in my mind though.

You might think Jayson Werth already had his breakout season last year, when he set career highs in nearly every category, made his first All-Star team and finished 17th in MVP voting.

You might think this...and you would be right. This doesn't stop Jon Heyman though. This is the year Jayson Werth REALLY breaks out. So while last year was his breakout year, this year is his REALLY breakout year. Let's look at the definition of "breakout."

Breakout- A sudden manifestation or increase,

Wouldn't you think going from .273/.363/.498 with 24 home runs and 67 RBI's to .268/.373/.506 with 36 home runs and 99 RBI's at the age of 30 is a breakout year? Jon Heyman doesn't.

But there are a few reasons Werth might be even better this season.

BUT HE HAS ALREADY BROKEN OUT! REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE PLAYS BETTER THIS YEAR OR NOT, HE HAS ALREADY INCREASED HIS PRODUCTION TO WHERE HE HAS BROKEN OUT!

My first thought was that Scott Boras was Werth's agent and he had Heyman trump him up...since we all know about the perceived relationship there.

Though Heyman denies it.

But I couldn't find who Werth's agent was, so I am assuming it is not Boras. If it were, I am sure we all would have heard by now.

1. He just might be warming up now, as last year was actually his first full year as a starting player (he split time the year before with Geoff Jenkins, who's now out of the game).

He still had 482 at-bats in 2008, while Geoff Jenkins had 293 at-bats. Considering Jenkins was the LH hitter and RH pitchers are more predominant in the major leagues, so Jenkins should play more than Werth if there is a platoon, there wasn't much splitting time going on.

3. He has yet to cash in for the big bucks befitting a star, and while the walk year can weigh on some players, he is the kind who can handle it.

We all love Jayson Werth, but before Heyman finishes with his hyping of Werth's abilities, let's remember he will be 32 next year had his best years in a loaded lineup in a ball park that is known as a hitter's ball park.

Since Werth didn't realize his potential until he got to the Phillies, and when he finally was on the cusp of his first full-time job, he jumped at the chance to sign a safe $10-million, two-year contract. But Werth figures to have a chance now to sign a deal at least five times that,

A 10 year $50 million dollar contract? Well, that is actually a shitty contract. I kid of course, it's a great contract and Werth will get more money than that.

and probably more than that. It's hard to make a case that Jason Bay's a better player, and he got $66 million from the Mets.

Is it hard to make this case?

Jayson Werth

Jason Bay

They are both the same age. Werth has been a full-time starter for almost two years now and his breakout year involved a career high OPS+ of 128. Bay has had a OPS+ of 128 or higher every single year of his career except for 2007. They appear to be comparable fielders and while Werth is faster than Bay, Bay is a better hitter.

It's not hard to make a case that Bay is a better player, at least in my mind.

Assuming the left-handed-hitting Brown is ready to start in 2011, and most experts think he will be, they'd probably have to trade Raul Ibanez to find room for Werth, though.

We all love Raul Ibanez, but I would be interested to see the trade market for a 39 year old outfielder in the last year of his contract.

Werth certainly will have options. The Yankees are thought to have Carl Crawford at the top of their free-agent wish list, but one Yankees executive loves Werth. And the New York Post reported that Reggie Jackson took Werth out to lunch during spring training in Tampa.

How interesting we were just talking about a lack of parity in baseball and now we are talking about a potential free agent who may not have enough interest from his team and the Yankees are interested in him. Werth appears to want to stay in Philadelphia and the only reason he may not leave is if the team doesn't show enough interest. So while the Yankees could end up with Werth, it may not be because they run roughshod over the Phillies to get him.

Either way, Jayson Werth is not a breakout candidate for this year because he has already broken out for last year.

A few more breakout candidates for this year ...

Get ready.

2. Ricky Nolasco. The Marlins pitcher is a perfectionist and looked even better than teammate Josh Johnson this spring.

So when he went 15-8 in 2008 with a ERA+ of 124 in 212 innings while sporting a 3.52 ERA and 1.102 WHIP...that wasn't a breakout year? I would disagree.

Heyman put Nolasco on his breakout list for last year too. Apparently he is just going to put him on the list until he thinks he has sufficiently broken out. He also put Rickie Weeks and Jayson Werth on the breakout list last year too. So of the 9 players he puts on the list for this year, 3 of them were on the list last year too. So basically he just copies part of his list from year-to-year.

3. The Uptons. The Diamondbacks' Justin is practically there, and with a little more concentration, folks think the Rays' B.J. can be, too. Justin's new $51.25 million contract would make him comfortable, and he said it might "light a fire'' under older brother B.J.

I don't know, I happen to think last year's performance when he made the All-Star team at the age of 21 was a breakout year for Upton. Simply because he may play better this year doesn't mean last year wasn't his breakout year. A breakout year isn't the best year in a player's career, it is the point where that player goes from an average player to a great player and Justin Upton did that last year.

I would probably agree with the selection of B.J. Upton. If he had a good year this year then this would be his breakout year.

4. Matt Kemp. Dodgers' outfielder is on the cusp of becoming one of the better players in the league.

Last year Matt Kemp was 10th in the MVP race, won a Silver Slugger award, and a Gold Glove. He also had the best year of his career. I would say that he has sufficiently broken out at this point. The MVP voting is a joke sometimes, but at least the players on that list are quality major league players. He's already broken out.

5. Ubaldo Jimenez. Scouts believe the Rockies' ace could be dominant.

Jimenez was the best pitcher on the Rockies staff last year and is the #1 starter for this year. Scouts don't need to tell us anything about him because he is a good pitcher. I will admit he may not have broken out yet, but if he is the Rockies' ace then he is clearly a good pitcher who might have already broken out.

7. Robinson Cano

What? Robinson Cano has made the All-Star team, won a Silver Slugger, has gotten MVP votes in two different seasons, and is one of the best second basemen in baseball right now. He broke out in 2006, or even last year, not 2010.

It the ball on the screws almost every at-bat late in spring. Joe Torre said when he first came up he reminded him of Rod Carew. He's moved up to the No. 5 spot in the Yankees lineup, and has gone 4-for-8 with three RBIs in his first two games.

He has always hit the ball well in the majors. There is no way Robinson Cano hasn't broken out already. He is one of the best second basemen in baseball.

So of the 9 players (10 players if you count the Uptons as 2 players, which they are) Jon Heyman listed four players who have made All-Star teams and four players who have gotten MVP votes. I would call that "breaking out" personally, but Jon Heyman disagrees apparently.

Every year Jon Heyman writes his "breakout" players article and every year he seems to list guys who have already broken out or had their breakout season the year before. Like Christmas and TMQ misunderstanding how exactly NFL strategy and offensive/defensive game planning works, it is a tradition now that I just have to deal with and write about every year.