Besides Opening Day, the biggest stories in baseball last week were the monster contracts handed out to Cincinnati's Joey Votto and San Francisco's Matt Cain. Votto got 10 years and $225 million; Cain got 5 years and $112 million. Presumably, these deals lock up the players until the end of their careers (Cain may have some more left in him after 2017, I guess).
There was a lot of talk about Votto going into free agency and finding a big payday with another team (you can name the usual suspects). There wasn't as much talk of that with Cain, but it was a possibility. I'm absolutely stoked that neither guy is moving.
Of course, this is a risk to the teams; Cincinnati is a small market, the Giants have a lot of other major parts to lock up, and anytime you give a player a long term deal, you're probably buying a few shitty years. So I understand if fans have some mixed feelings. But I'm not a fan, so I think this is awesome.
Look, baseball is boring when the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. can just swoop in and buy out every major free agent. Baseball is more boring when fans in San Diego or Cleveland have to look to L.A. and New York for great players. Baseball is boring when those fans have to reconcile themselves to the fact that their best players are only going to be around until a "bigger" team makes them a better offer. Baseball is boring when the same 10 teams can print their playoffs tickets in July every year.
So, I'm pleased that the Reds have locked up their Big Damn Star. He gives the local fans something to root for, and with Votto, you're always just a few pieces away from a serious playoff run. I'm happy that the Giants have held on to part of the talent core that won them a World Series just two years ago. He gives the folks in the bay area something to root for while the A's are looking distinctly mediocre.
But mostly, I'm happy that serious, interesting baseball is going to be played outside of the eastern seaboard and L.A. for another few years.
So are you in favor of a salary cap in baseball?
ReplyDeleteHaven't thought about it too much, but based on what I know right now, I can't say I oppose it.
DeleteI was just thinking you basically seem to be lamenting the lack of parity, and salary caps and/or revenue sharing seem to be step 1 for most leagues seeking to increase parity. That might be more of a historical accident than prescription.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, but the counter argument becomes that baseball has its "villains", and villains make for good drama. Plus if you're rating teams on a "championships won to money spent" ratio, the Yankees ain't doing so hot this past decade or so.
This is such a cop out, but I kinda want BOTH villains/dynasties AND parity. I'm a child of the '90s Bulls, so I don't mind seeing a clearly amazing team go on a run...but I would prefer it if they have some actual competition to triumph over. It's a difference between the boring playoffs of the late 90s, when the Yankees clearly outclassed everyone, and the playoffs now, where teams have to really struggle- and get really lucky- to win it all. I just wish we could get a few more random teams to mix it up in the playoffs. But it's a difference of degree, not kind.
DeleteNo I get your point. One of the factors I think is ensuring that teams are rewarded for being well managed. I'm trying to see where football and basketball get this right and wrong. On the one hand in basketball, you have the Lakers, who are a perrennial playoff team and title contenders despite a salary cap and max contracts. You also have the Mavericks, who despite the salary cap and max contracts have risen to a similar status in playoff contention (just not in legend). On the other hand, the guaranteed contract system (on top of salary cap) has compounded the mismanagement of the Knicks such that a big market team spent a decade in the cellar. I hate the Knicks, but that hatred is better served by my team knocking them out of the playoffs than when they get a lottery pick three years running.
ReplyDeleteIn football I would call the Patriots a dynasty. The Packers and the Cowboys also have fan bases that get their loyalty rewarded with pretty routine playoff trips. But you also have never had a team three-peat. Not sure if that's good or bad.