Skip to content

Quote of the day II: Steve Bisciotti on salary caps

Feb 3, 2010, 5:20 PM EST

Steve Bisciotti owns the Baltimore Ravens. He also either doesn’t know jack about baseball or is so blinded by salary cap politics that he feels he has to pretend that he doesn’t. Here he is today talking about the Yankees’ payroll advantages:

“It certainly doesn’t show up in the standings. If
I’m a Yankees fan, I’m upset we’re not winning 130 games with the
roster that they have and the money that they pay out. I think it’s a
disgrace they only beat the average team by 10 games in the standings
with three times the money. I’d fire that GM. You don’t need a GM. All
you have to do is buy the last Cy Young Award winner every year.”

But of course they don’t because, contrary to what salary cap fans will tell you, putting a winning team on the field in any sport requires more than the simple expenditure of dumb dollars.

In other news, I wonder if the other NFL owners are mad at Bisciotti. I mean, by highlighting that even the Yankees, with their extreme financial advantages can’t simply buy championships, he is unwittingly making a very good argument against salary caps.

  1. YankeesfanLen - Feb 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM

    To Steve Bisciotti in the manner of Rex Ryan:(/middle finger/)
    To Craig: Second your tag

  2. Phil - Feb 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    Love the tag, but for my part you can drop the “pro”.
    Well, in the last 46 seasons, most of which occurred in the era of free agency, the Yankees have won 7 championships. In the 40 seasons prior to that, all of which occurred with the reserve clause intact, the Yankees won 20 championships. Clearly, indentured servitude is the way to go.

  3. lessick - Feb 3, 2010 at 5:48 PM

    Salary caps do little else than make owners rich. Oh wait, Bisciotti is an owner…..

    Love the tag as well!

  4. Xpensive Wino - Feb 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM

    Anyone who thinks that baseball hasn’t been destroyed by salary arbitration and no salary cap, is an absolute idiot. Any sport that allows one team to spend over 200 million on players while another is spending 35 million, is no longer worth my time.

  5. JBerardi - Feb 3, 2010 at 6:02 PM

    “All you have to do is buy the last Cy Young Award winner every year.”
    Yeah, of course. It’s just like I’ve been saying: if Cashman was smart, he’d have signed Tim Lincecum by now. Twice! I can’t understand why he doesn’t…
    In all seriousness, Bisciotti really ought to understand that you can’t win 130 games in baseball. There’s too much luck involved in each individual game. If the Colts play the Lions 100 times, they beat them damn near 100 times. If the Yankees play the Royals 100 times, the Royals probably win 30-35 of those games. The difference in talent is similar, but the game itself tends to even those difference out more. This pretty much invalidates his entire point, and it should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than three seconds.
    Finally, someone please make a joke about dunking this guy in coffee. I can’t think of a good one.

  6. gumbercules - Feb 3, 2010 at 6:03 PM

    A thousand burning suns? Really? I’d have gone with a billion suns, but that’s just because I’m a Mudhoney fan.

  7. Phil - Feb 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM

    …is no longer worth my time.
    So I guess this means you are taking your wine, your ad hominem attacks and making like horse s**t and hitting the trail. Don’t let those swingin’ doors hit you in the kiester on the way out.

  8. Gelardia - Feb 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    So the Yankees should be penalized because their owner spends his money to improve his team while other owners prefer to pocket any profits they get?
    Oh wait, the Yankees are penalized. It’s called the luxury tax and teams like the Yankees are floating the rest of the league.
    Bottom line, if you can’t afford to be competitive, you shouldn’t own a team, period.

  9. IdahoMariner - Feb 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM

    I was (probably unreasonably) disappointed to click on the tag and see that this was the only article indexed thereunder (oooo, legalese). I was hoping there would be more articles to read that celebrated my distaste for all things pro (and, really, every other kind because it all feeds into pro) football. And I used to be a HUGE fan when I was a kid. But then I learned to think for myself and not just follow my three older brothers around. And I realized it was just…not right. In soooo many ways.

  10. Alex K - Feb 4, 2010 at 8:28 AM

    Tag Gold!

  11. Scott - Feb 4, 2010 at 2:45 PM

    He is aware that contracts don’t come with a player termination option for Cy Young seasons right?
    Why doesn’t anyone make the following observation about salary caps: The difference is SMART teams dominate salary cap sports regardless of ownership cash, whereas baseball requires smarts AND money for continued dominance.
    No matter what, you will see a lack of parody: In the two salary capped sports, NBA and NFL, we may see teams break the Loss record within two years of each other (2008 Lions, 2008-09 Nets).
    However it’s worth noting the worst teams in NBA and NFL have far worse winning percentages than those in baseball. There’s a sample size argument for football, but the NBA has an 82-game schedule (half a baseball season). When’s the last time a baseball team started the year 10-80?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. W. Myers (5251)
  2. M. Kemp (3123)
  3. W. Middlebrooks (2822)
  4. C. McGehee (2813)
  5. J. Upton (2704)
  1. J. Kang (2652)
  2. M. Morse (2214)
  3. A. Rios (1948)
  4. J. Peavy (1941)
  5. D. Norris (1764)