Let's take a trip to the "yeah right" files with this entry. Boston Red Sox owner John Henry has again picked up the torch crying for a salary cap yet again. Pot, this is the kettle. The Red Sox payroll is the fourth-highest in Major League Baseball at $133,390,035. Henry's problem is that he was outspent by his arch rival: the New York Yankees. In fact, Henry said that the Yankees spent like Congress.

For history's sake, Henry presented a salary cap five years ago (which was sour grapes in the wake of losing A-Roid to the Yankees) -- obviously this proposal never took hold. I just find it humorous that the owner of the Red Sox is calling for a salary cap. This is a team that is spending a veritable ton of money, and is succeeding. Let's take a look at the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Cincinnati Reds, the Oakland A's. All of these teams are considered "small market" teams. One would think that one of their owners would be yelling for a cap -- and that isn't the case.

The New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) reported a fourth quarter profit decline of 48% yesterday, but that actually managed to top analysts' expectations and the stock moved up 6.79%.

But there could be more trouble for the company. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that the market meltdown "blew out the Times's unfunded pension obligation to $625 million from $48 million at the end of 2007. The new figure is a whopping 73% of the Times' market capitalization."

Unless the market makes a miraculous rebound reminiscent of the Boston Red Sox (which the Times is in the process of trying to sell its stake in) 2004 ALCS comeback. the Times will have to fund that obligation over the next seven years.

Things are bad at The New York Times (NYSE:NYT). Advertising revenue at the company's newspapers fell 21% in November. Even online sales were down. Since the internet is supposed to be the lifeboat of the industry, signs could not have been more troubling.

The media company has $400 million in debt due next year. It would like to mortgage its headquarters building, but the real estate market in New York City is not exactly robust.

The one asset NYT has that is worth some real cash is its piece of the Boston Red Sox and the television business built around the team. Why the firm did not sell it sooner is a mystery. It is hardly "core" to being a newspaper company.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the The New York Times Company owns 17.5% of New England Sports Ventures, which owns the team and its stadium.. The paper notes that "Barclays Capital estimates the Times Co.'s investment is worth about $166 million; analysts and sports bankers recently told Reuters the Times Co. could raise at least $200 million if it sold its stake."

The same analysis shows that the Boston Globe is worth a tiny $20 million. Two years ago, the number was put at over $500 million, but the paper is hemorrhaging money now.

The management at The New York Times could not have made worse mistakes and now the company's main asset, its flagship paper, is at risk of being sold in a liquidation. Why would the company keep assets like a baseball team and the second-rate internet company which it owns, About.com. Why would it hold onto small regional newspapers around the country?

The New York Times is running out of options. And, executives at the firm will be remembered as the people who destroyed it by acting too slowly in auctioning off pieces it should not have owned in the first place. Now many of those assets are worth close to nothing. Even a baseball team probably losses some of its value in a deep recession.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 24/7 Wall St.

As Barry pointed out last week, Taco Bell -- my favorite arm of the Yum! Brands (NYSE: YUM) empire -- introduced a "Steal a Base, Steal a Taco" gimmick wherein free crunchy beef tacos (one per customer) would be handed out if a base was stolen in the 2007 World Series. Thanks to a speedy move from Boston Red Sox rookie center fielder Jacoby Ellsbury, free tacos are on the table.

There are, of course, some catches. The offer must be redeemed between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. local time tomorrow, October 30. And the deal is valid at participating locations only.

The site advertising the Free-Tacos deal, however, could use some updating. It closes with "Watch the 2007 MLB World Series Live on FOX." As fans of the national pastime already know, the Red Sox again nabbed the World Series trophy in a four-game sweep of their opponents. (They committed the same offense against the St. Louis Cardinals in 2004). Colorado Rockies fans should be entitled to two tacos as a consolation prize, but the bitter taste of defeat might have a negative effect.

Meanwhile, at YUM, regular tacos currently run somewhere around 89 cents to 99 cents a pop, depending on the market. That's a lot of free ground beef, cheese, and red sauce, even for a 3-hour window. I'm assuming YUM officials are counting on most free-taco bandits also ordering other menu items, or a drink.

Beth Gaston Moon is an analyst at Schaeffer's Investment Research.

Warren Buffett bought a prominent Massachusetts furniture company -- Jordan's Furniture -- in 1999 for between $200 million and $300 million. At the beginning of the season, Jordan's announced it would reimburse the furniture purchases of anyone who bought sofas, dining tables, beds, and mattresses there between March 7 and April 16 if the Red Sox won the World Series this year.

According to the Boston Globe, Jordan's took almost 30,000 orders during the contest. One customer stands to get back $40,000. Jordan's covered this bet through an insurance policy. It would not disclose which company issued the policy, but it would not shock me if it was issued by Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A).

As a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan, I am absolutely thrilled that they are in the World Series for the second time in a few years. And last night's blowout victory against Colorado was a great way to start. Unfortunately, my years of being disappointed by the Red Sox are making me wary about whether they can keep pulling off wins.

The secondary effects of the subprime fiasco are rippling through the market. High among the losers are those firms living off the carry trade, borrowing currency from countries such as Japan at low interest rates and investing that money at higher interest rates elsewhere.

The foundation for the carry trade is a non-volatile currency market, since a sudden rise in the value of the yen against the dollar, for example, can more than wipe out the profits to be made via the interest rate difference. The recent market, however, has been anything but non-volatile; the dollar has dropped from 124 yen in late June to just 114.398 last Friday.

According to Bloomberg.com, among the big losers in the carry trade is J. W. Henry & Co, whose financial and metals portfolio took a $122 million hit in July. While any losses to the owner of the Boston Red Sox is good news to Indians fans like me, investors with J. W. Henry have seen the assets of the firm shrink by 75% since November. The hedge fund of Campbell & Co. also suffered over a 10% loss in July from its $9 billion portfolio.

A Goldman Sachs index of implied volatility on currency options has risen to 6.03% from a record low in November of 5.54%. With the forecast calling for turbulence in the currency exchange market, the carry trade does not seem like a safe harbor for the risk-adverse to wait out the storm.

While the Boston Red Sox are leading the American League East by 8 games, the commodities fund managed by one of its owners is a big loser. In Hedge Funds -- Managed Futures: Changing Course: Becalmed No More [subscription required] Barron's notes that Red Sox principal owner John Henry's commodity fund is suffering a three year, 40% decline in value.

More specifically, On March 31, the John W. Henry & Co. Financial and Metals Portfolio was down almost 20% for 2007 and in the midst of a three-year, 40% slump that was the longest and one of the deepest in its 22-year history. The decline and resulting investor redemptions, cost the firm -- controlled by John W. Henry -- more than 80% of its assets, which now stand at $500 million.

But there is a bit of light at the end of this tunnel. In 2007's second quarter, the portfolio surged 25%. Ironically, Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER) ended a long-term relationship with Henry in April and pulled its mostly retail investors' assets out of his fund -- almost exactly at the portfolio's lowest point.

So I'll keep rooting for the Red Sox to repeat their 2004 World Series win. As for Henry, I would not bet my money on his trading skills -- such managed futures funds have high costs, high risk, and heavy reliance on black-box trading systems. I like to sleep at night and don't know how Henry can pull that off.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned in this post.

What lessons can investors learn from the return of Roger Clemens to the Yankees next week, possibly against the Boston Red Sox? Plenty.

Like great investors, great baseball executives know where to find value. On the face of it, spending lots of money on a 44-year-old pitcher seems like a poor investment. But this isn't just any player. Clemens has already won 348 games, along with seven Cy Young Awards, making him one of the best to ever play the game.

The Yankees are going to pay him an astounding $4.5 million per month for four months work. That works out to about $9,000 per pitch regardless whether they are balls or strikes. Sure is nice work if you can get it, but is Yankee owner George Steinbrenner going to get his money's worth from Clemens? They have to reach the postseason, period.

The Bronx Bombers faced a double-digit deficit to the Red Sox last weekend, before rebounding slightly. They've been forced to start a record seven rookies in the team's first 42 games, so adding Clemens surely will be a welcome injection for the decimated starting staff.