Subject: How do you fix Baseball's economic structure?
Posted by: Species
- Donor [304521510] Mon, Jul 09, 17:58
....also called: Can Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Minnesota or Montreal (amongst others) ever compete again?
In keeping with JKaye's thread to keep us occupied during the break, I thought I would throw this topic out. The basics of this have been bantered about in various topics, but I find the issue so intriguing I thought I would breach the subject here.
What tends to cause this issue to come to the fore is when a "large market" team like the Yankees acquires/signs a player with a high salary. Last year it was Justice and Neagle - this year the bellyaching started when the Urbina trade was announced. Cries of the Yankees "buying another Championship" always seem to prop up from those jealous "small-market" fans.
While all intelligent Yankee fans get ticked off at the narrow-minded "money is everything" arguments, we also will admit that the Yankees' financial resources are, of course, a distinct advantage. Not only can the Yankees have a large payroll, but they can afford to keep an extensive scouting team as well as afford to give out big money to unproven foreign players (i.e. Andy Morales (what a dumbass signing) and Katsuhiro Maeda (at least he had potential)) and other bonus babies (i.e. Ricardo Aromboles, whom they just traded away for Wohlers). Ironically, and this has bugged me for years, the Yankees fail to use their resources (with the exception of Drew Henson) on those "hard signs" in our own draft -- but I digress.
Let's remember that money isn't everything, it's what you do with it. Irresponsible signings will get you an underacheiving, overpriced club fit for Camden Yards or Dodger Stadium. It is not the Yankees' fault that they can afford to retain their own free agents that they trade for or develop themselves. Remember the only free agents on the Yankees are Mike Mussina and Mike Stanton - this isn't a 1997 Marlins team we're talking about.
So what can be done? Should anything be done? Football shares every dime of it's lucrative TV deal. Baseball has a national TV deal, but they don't show that many games, so teams can sell the rights to their non-nationally televised games. Why should the Yankees be faulted for using the income generated by their superior marketplace? Further, why should the Yankees be forced to subsidize other owners because their market cannot support them? I realize that baseball is not exactly like the rest of our capitalist marketplace, but the revenue sharing idea funded by the product advantage of other teams is akin to Mercedes-Benz subsidizing Hyundai.
I think the main problem for the small market teams is bad management. Minnesota is catching lightning in a bottle because they have managed things very well and have developed their own players. They traded a good chip (Knoblauch) and got 2 All-Stars in Milton and Guzman for him. They developed Radke, Mays, , Rivas, Koskie and Lawton (to name a few) themselves.
Oakland, despite their early struggles, is very astutely managed. Their farm system is studly, and the actually teach things. Their success in breeding hitters has been phenomenal, although they also got lucky and had high draft picks for Mulder and Zito (established college studs). But the point is that they have a scouting plan and a development plan going in. They don't just draft a bunch of "tools" guys, throw them out there and hope they develop. They nurture these guys and teach them plate discipline and pitching philosophy. They also take some low-risk, high-reward shots at old veterans/journeyman like Geronimo Berroa and Olmedo Saenz and they turn out to be productive. Sandy Alderson left a lot of good things behind for Billy Beane when Alderson took his desk job.
The problem for the small market clubs is that the windows for success are generally going to be very short. Inevitably, the Giambi's, Hudson's, Tejada's etc. of the world grow out of their arbitration-buyout contracts (i.e. giving them a 4-year, $16M deal a year before arbitration) and the team can't afford to keep them any longer and they are forced to deal them away. But, IMO, smart trading, good scouting and good player development philosophy can allow you to have a good, contending team shortly thereafter....although admittedly there would be some deep valleys in between those brief peaks.
It's a very complex issue (obviously)....let's hope they figure it out without a significant work stoppage in 2002.
1
Pilewort Donor
ID: 25657715 Mon, Jul 09, 18:29
I'd make one change, and one change only. Thereafter, the small markets are on their own.
Each team would own complete broadcast rights to all games played in their stadium.
For example, when the Mets visited Pittsburgh, the Pirate org. would have the ability to sell the NYC radio and TV rights of the game to the highest bidder. This would reduce Mets broadcast income, increase the broadcast income of the smaller market teams. There'd still be a big difference in broadcast income, but it would help reduce the differences.
2
Species Donor
ID: 304521510 Mon, Jul 09, 18:58
I forgot two other things that I would be in favor of that would smooth out the playing field without hurting those with market advantages:
1 - an international draft. No more bidding wars for the next import. This would still reward those teams with good scouting, but at least the latest phenom from the streets of Turkey won't engender a bidding war.
2 - a draft/rookie salary cap. No longer would the MIN's of the world skip out on the best available draftee because they can't afford to meet their signing bonus requirements.
One would think the Player's Association wouldn't have a big beef with either of the above. I think some of them get pretty bitter about the Danny Baez' of the world making more than they did for 5 years.
There would have to be some other scenario for Japanese players.....or any players coming from other foreign professional leagues. That one would be pretty complicated.
3
Questor
ID: 5763761 Mon, Jul 09, 19:23
I think the answer, if there is to be one, is a sharing of broadcast revenue FROM ALL SOURCES, in some form, shape, or fashion.
For example, the Yankees reportedly have monster local TV/radio deals. But the deals are for a baseball GAME, not just to see a video of the Yankees team. And thus the Yankees NEED every other team for said broadcasts. And each team, with its willingness to participate, has some real value. (To illustrate the value of even a lousy team, think about this: would the Yankees broadcasts be worth as much if there were only 7 other teams they played, as in the 50s? Nope, it would get boring pretty fast.)
I think they should do 3 things:
#1, take MORE THAN 50% of the broadcast revenue (not merely national, but local revenue as well) from every team (maybe 65%) and put it in a pool and divvy it among all teams. And a certain minimum percentage MUST go toward player salaries (but this can include costs of player development in the minors also)- the Fla or Mont owner cannot pocket it but must put the major part of it into "product". Leaving still a big "chunk" for the Yankees (35-50%) lets them retain an incentive to market themselves and rewards them accordingly.
#2 You also put some top-dollar/bottom-dollar caps on payroll. The Yanks will still have an advantage, but the competition needs to be in the form of "playing ability" rather than stockpiling of players. There is no desire to see Bill Gates someday buy a team and then buy all the talent - it needs to be spread out between teams. The "luxury tax" concept, whereby if you spend past a certain point then you put more money in the pool and thus everyone can get SOME players, is reasonable.
#3 You let the teams then COMPETE. Let them move. Let some overspend. Make them be creative and find ways to win. And if Montreal or Florida or whoever still does not want or cannot support good baseball, so be it, move elsewhere. Some will fail, and if they continue to do so, that is life.
4
Stuck in the Sixties Leader
ID: 17627917 Mon, Jul 09, 20:06
Intersting, Questor, but what you suggests sounds a lot like the current NFL setup. I don't think too many would argue that Green Bay could never compete in MLB. The Brewer's franchise, just a couple of hours south, is living proof.
5
Questor
ID: 5763761 Mon, Jul 09, 21:34
Stuck, the NFL pools 100% (not 50 or 65) of ALL broadcast revs, plus some of gate receipts. And they are very healthy. Unfortunately, baseball has a different set of economics to deal with, so a total 100% pool could not work in MLB.
Not sure what you are suggesting re Green Bay and Milwaukee; your sentences there make no sense.
6
Wammie
ID: 437541618 Mon, Jul 09, 21:41
Football also has a salary cap. What would be wrong with a salary cap. i don't know about any one else, but i don't like the fact that going to a ball game can cost $50 or more, just to get in the door.
i can understand a football game being expensive, one game a week, but in baseball, there are 81 home dates compared to 8 for football.
ticket prices are what need addressed imho
7
Mujeriego
ID: 2843222 Mon, Jul 09, 21:46
I don't think it is fair to take the low payroll franchise of the moment (ie Minnesota) and hold it up as the model of efficiency. Is it prudent or right for them to have one decent team every 10 or 15 years, and they just suck the rest of the time?
8
Questor
ID: 5763761 Mon, Jul 09, 23:29
Wammie, a salary cap proposal would result in a total shutdown of baseball - players would never agree. In addition, the reason that the NFL salary cap is workable is because their revenues are pooled. Without that pool, a cap is worthless, cause many of the teams don't have anywhere near the revenue to compete.
Mujeriego, the current model where a Minn can compete only every 10 years or so must change, no question. Thus the question posed was "what would help?" However, to some extent, you can not legislate equality across the board - there is some level of "advantage" that a NY will need because of their huge population base. (Remember, if you strip them of ALL their advantage, you also lose the ability to appeal to that huge fan base, and that would be bad for all of baseball - thus, the reason for my idea of "partial" revenue sharing, rather than full.)
Do you have a BETTER idea than mine? Make a proposal.
9
azdbacker Donor
ID: 011111821 Mon, Jul 09, 23:33
I will make this short. We live in America, a great capitalist country (when our governmant doesn't step in). No cap, no sharing. If you can't compete, get out of the league. It's the 'Big Leagues', if you can't afford to pay a player what the market says he's worth, you're done.
I am so sick and tired of this small market BS. Bud Selig cried 'small market' forever in Milwaukee, ignoring the fact that the Milwaukee Braves led the NL in attendance at least 4 years in the 60's, and the Brewers did from '81-'83. Spend money, put a good product on the field, and the fans will come. Kinda odd that Milwaukee's not crying 'small market' this year, when 2 years ago everyone was ready to put them in the grave.
Aside from that, I would not be totally against sharing of TV revenues, as long as a team spent a certain amount on player salaries.
A big difference between football and baseball is most if not all of the football TV money is national...in baseball a majority of the money is from local TV deals. Very hard to compare the two.
11
JKaye Sustainer
ID: 4711592917 Mon, Jul 09, 23:51
azdbacker--I disagree. A professional league like MLB is not comparable with the capitalist system we have in place in America.
Imagine this: There is a street which contains 30 stores; each selling the same product. Now, in the capitalist society we live in, what is the goal of each store? Of course, to put the other 29 out of business so they get all the customers.
Now, imagine MLB is this "street". What happens if 29 "stores" go out of business here? Well, the one left standing goes out of business as well. MLB teams depend on the other teams. No one is showing up for single team scrimages.
So, the bottom line is that MLB is NOT a capitalist system. MLB is more like the store in the example above, with NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. being the other stores. The teams are all just individual products WITHIN the store. All must exist to make the store work. Remove a couple, and it can survive, but leave the store with just 1 product and people will not want to go there anymore.
Another point...it would be very hard to get a true dollar amount on some of the teams TV deals. Example: The Cubs, Braves, and Dodgers who are all owned by media outlets. I know for a fact the Cubs hide a lot of their earnings by having WGN not paying market value for the Cubs TV rights...WGN and the Cubs are both owned by the Tribune so the WGN TV money is a lot less than it would be if it was a seperate company.
I would be in favor of draft salary caps or slotted salaries for drafted players...spending a lot of money on unproven players can kill any team. Teams should be able to trade their picks too. I would also be in favor of forcing foreign players to declare for the draft. I think even high school players should be forced to declare for the draft. Too many drafted players hold out or go to college.
Personally I like the unrestricted nature of baseball player salaries and team spending. It allows more trading and free agency. It all probably breaks down to if your favorite team is a big market or small market team.
Species you said: "I realize that baseball is not exactly like the rest of our capitalist marketplace, but the revenue sharing idea funded by the product advantage of other teams is akin to Mercedes-Benz subsidizing Hyundai."
It's actually not at all akin to Mercedes subsidizing Hyundai, not at all. That analogy makes absolutely no sense what so ever. The whole point of baseball is for there to be a competitive sport put on the field. That is the product that is being sold, competition.
If NY played teams like Tampa all the time, people would stop going to the games and the Yankees would go broke. They need the league to appear to be fair, Mercedes does not.
If hyundai or a better example might be BMW went bankrupt Mercedes would make more money, it wouldn't hurt them at all. Your example actually made no sense what so ever if you stop and think about it.
The justification for sharing revenue is to keep the sport competitive so that teams win based on their scouting, training and manageing skills not just being able to go out and buy what they need every year with daddy george's wallet.
Remember the only free agents on the Yankees are Mike Mussina and Mike Stanton. Huh?
O.k., maybe there are not that many literal free agents, but they got half their team by tradeing small market teams prospects for proven studs.
You said: "Let's remember that money isn't everything, it's what you do with it.
If that's true, then why are you so defense about not shareing revenues between all markets, can't the Yankees compete if "money isn't everything?"
You said Irresponsible signings will get you an underacheiving, overpriced club fit for Camden Yards."
Look dude, just because the Orioles are idiots and don't know what to do with all that money, doesn't mean it's not a big advantage. Why is it that year after year at the end of the year, it is almost always the teams with the most money to spend who win???
I am not suggesting teams in very small markets who don't go to games (i.e. Montreal) should survive, but some type of revenue shareing makes sense. Why should the Yankees be able to buy what they want just because they happen to live in a TV market that is twice as big as any in the country? How does that make baseball, a sport, fair?
You said: "Why should the Yankees be faulted for using the income generated by their superior marketplace? Further, why should the Yankees be forced to subsidize other owners because their market cannot support them?"
The answer is already explained above but let's say it again, to keep the league competitive and make the winning team earn it not just buy it.
We all know George isn't done yet. He'll get out the wallet, he'll buy the best talent, and cut everyone else off at the knees. It's a great sport isn't it?
14
Questor
ID: 5763761 Tue, Jul 10, 00:15
azdbacker, I agree with you to an extent, but disagree in some areas as well.
Agree as follows: 1. You need to make teams compete. 2. You cannot make everything equal nor try to. 3. There are differences in each team, so a total pool would be bad. 4. There is nothing wrong with "get out if you can't cut it" as a general concept. 5. Bud Selig is generally full of crap and self-motivated.
Where I disagree: 1. I don't buy the concept that MLB is, or should be, an ultimate competition for survival between competing entities. They are one business with differing locales. Thus, the concept of rev share has a parallel like members of the same family who share for their mutual family benefit. 2. There is a need for a set of "losers" every year. Seattle cannot win 70% without 10 teams being below .500. (Or, harder numbers: 75% of the teams every year will NOT make the playoffs. Period.)
For every successful winner each year, there will be losers. Do you say "so what, let em all go bust?" If you are going to have a viable ongoing competition, you can't. The fans need stability, the fan base has to have some hope.
3. I don't agree that the local team does, or should, have the "right" to their broadcasts. It is a product of MLB that is being sold. AZ or any other team is selling "major league baseball competition" rather than photos of the local team. Thus, the sharing is of something that can easily be construed as a commonly-owned entity.
And it should not matter whether it is a national telecast, local, TV, radio, or whatever. It should all go in the pool (or a majority percent, anyhow, as elaborated above.)
4. Bud Selig is on the right track in spite of himself. The long-term economic health of all the teams must be made possible without having to forgo competitiveness. A team should, by hard work, be able to COMPETE and still make money if they don't do badly idiotic stuff.
5. Milwaukee was not a great market; they survived for quite a while IN SPITE OF the small size in the 60s. But you need some way to still do okay when your teams are DOWN (again, by the odds, that will be 75% of the time that they do NOT make the playoffs). If they are having to plan on losing money every time the team is down, they can't last. The game itself should pay both the winners and the losers each year, not merely the winners. (And the shared money lets the losers get better and more competitive; more competitive and better teams help everyone; and it is not shared for the benefit of the owners themselves - as I proposed above. Thus the sharing is not "everyone gets rich even if they do badly".)
15
JKaye Sustainer
ID: 4711592917 Tue, Jul 10, 00:17
Some facts: 1. The Yankees are aided in their success by money. 2. Every year they beat out 6-8 teams who spend similar amounts of cash in October and prove themselves to be the best of the best. 3. The Yankees beat out the other 20+ teams strictly by having more cash.
What does this mean? The Yankees are legit champions because they beat out the best rich teams every October. However, they are NOT being challenged by as many teams as they should be beacuse of baseball's system, which sucks.
The solution? Revenue sharing of course,along with a salary cap.
In the end, give the Yankees their due for beating the best teams in the elite league of rich teams. They are the best of that group and because of it should be declared champs. However, at the same time recognize that there should be more teams competing and the only way to do this is to fix the existing system. The NFL, NBA and NHL don't have problems with big city domination. It isn't that hard to do.
16
KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 51521713 Tue, Jul 10, 00:26
Something that hasn't been considered that was brought up in SI recently: Would sharing the wealth and salary caps, etc. prevent dynasties? And would that be a bad thing?
IMO, yes and yes.
Quick! What's the most recent dynasty in the NFL? No, the Broncos don't count because back-to-back is not a "dynasty". The 49ers of the late 80's? Possibly. The Cowboys of the mid-90's? Possibly. But consider that there have been 8 different teams to win the Super Bowl since the 49ers won it in 1990. 8 teams in 12 Super Bowls. Where's the fun in knocking off the dynasty? Isn't just as much fun to watch the NCAA Basketball Tourney to see if someone knocks of Duke as it is to watch your favorite team or watch Duke? Wasn't it just as much fun to watch someone try to knock off Jordan and the Bulls as it was to watch them win? How passionate would some people be about their team in the playoffs if they were only facing the 1 time defending Yankees? Personally, I think part of the greatness of sports is the dynamics and cycles that it follows. How long ago was it that MIN was winning the World Series? And now they're "small market"? To me, calling a team a "small market" is like asking the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is a team a "small market" team because the team has done bad and can't draw fans? Or is it a "small market" team because they can't draw fans and thus can't sign good players? Hmmmm, double edged sword? You can't tell me that TAM is a small market. Their team just sucks. So why is it that MON can't "just suck"? And what about FLA? Miami is a "small market"? KAN is a "small market"? They seemed to do ok in drawing football fans if I remember correctly, so why not baseball fans? Is CWS a "small market" now that they're 24th in attendance? Or are they just there because the "just suck"?
I just find it amazing that most teams never cry out "small market" while they're winning. MIN may be the lone exception, but I think that just may be the result of years of depression surrounding a losing team. ;) Same with PHI. If you look at the attendance standings, most of the winning teams are near the top and most of the losing teams are near the bottom. So, again, the question becomes: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The bad team or the lack of fans?
Personally, I say let it ride. In this day and age, we look at "dynasties" as teams that win back-to-back. Teams that win back-to-back-to-back? Is there a word greater than "dynasty"? Nope. Sorry. A "dynasty" is UCLA winning every NCAA Hoops Championship from '73 to '64, with the lone exception being '66. That's a dynasty and that's more disparity than what we're seeing in the current situation in baseball. Leave well enough alone. It's a cycle. Just like NYM and CWS were in the playoffs last year and are near the bottom this year, so too will the NYY's fate be one season. Maybe not this year, or next, or the next. But eventually, all dynasties fall. And they usually fall pretty hard. Why can't MIN take over? Or MON? "Build it and they will come". Build the team and they will come. Eventually. ;)
BTW, if you can't follow my train of thought, neither can I. I'm going to bed now. ;)
17
Razor Donor
ID: 305102622 Tue, Jul 10, 00:31
Let me just interject and say I can't stand the way the NFL is these days. Pro-bowlers and Hall of Famers get cut to make the salary cap. It is ridiculous and I hope I'm not the only one who's noticed 2 or 3 of their team's best players getting cut every year. Not traded, CUT.
As for baseball, I'd like to see a salary floor be implemented before a salary cap. A salary cap should definitely be put on the draft. I don't see why that doesn't get passed sooner. Wouldn't major leaguers rather see millions get thrown at them instead of at these unproven talents? ^*&$ing lawyers.
18
Razor Donor
ID: 305102622 Tue, Jul 10, 00:37
Sure Duke's ranked #1 EVERY year for some god forsaken reason but I'd never call them a dynasty. It pains me to hear Duke and dynasty in the same sentence. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant to type "Florida State." ;)
19
Questor
ID: 5763761 Tue, Jul 10, 00:41
KKB, you are wrong, sorry.
The NFL lost their dynasties because THE WINNERS COULD NOT KEEP THEIR TALENT. It was not the revenue sharing, it was the hard cap/free agency that made it happen that way. (The NFL has had the "share the wealth" when they had dynasties.)
The "luxury tax" (rather than a hard cap), along with the SHARE (rather than total) pooling of broadcast revs, allows teams to keep their players IF THEY WANT - and thus, dynasties can happen. And it allows every team to have a shot.
Dynasties are fine, but they should be possible for everyone. Right now, there are only 2-3 teams in MLB that could have a dynasty. The small markets can win one year and then they lose all their good players. A sharing pool would allow them a CHANCE to continue: they would still have to be smart, and their "gate revs" would go up with winning to allow some retention also.
20
Questor
ID: 5763761 Tue, Jul 10, 00:44
Razor, solution is "luxury tax" instead of hard cap. That allows teams to keep who they want, at a price.
I think also that there are some teams that cut NFL aging stars using salary cap as an excuse. Just my opinion.
2. Every year they beat out 6-8 teams who spend similar amounts of cash in October and prove themselves to be the best of the best.
If I am not mistaken, they spend the same as a few other teams, until the tradeing deadline, but by the end of the year the are the # 1 or 2 team in money spent (payroll) by adding players like Justice last year.
22
azdbacker Donor
ID: 51392423 Tue, Jul 10, 01:23
I don't totally disagree with those who disagree with me. I do realize the importance of the league as a whole being successful. I guess my biggest problem is the teams that cry 'small market', {like Milwaukee, Minnesota, Oakland, Pittsburgh, Philly (when the heck did Philly become a small town)} and others, when they've all shown in the past that if they invest in their team and put a quality product on the field, they will succeed.
Anyone remember when Cleveland and Atlanta were baseball hell? I do, and it's because they didn't try.
23
Rogue's Strikers
ID: 24540291 Tue, Jul 10, 02:45
The way I see it are two simple solutions:
1) Put in a draft, just like in the NHL. If anyone, and I mean ANYONE, even from Japan, wants to play in MLB they have to put themselves up for draft. No signing bonuses, just a simple draft.
2) Put a salary cap on player's first 6 or 7 years in MLB. For years 1-3, the cap should be a very low 1 million. For years 4-6 the cap can be 3-4 million. For the last year, year 7, (That would be 29-30 for most players, but if your REALLY good it could be 27-28) the cap can be 10 million. After that, they can earn as much as they can get. So semi-talented players who manage to pop off 40 HR at their career peak of 28 will have to at least do it for 3 more years to get some ludicrous 20 million a year offer. But, if your a crazy talent like Arod, you'd be making normal cash for a young player until your 28, when you become a free agent and the peak of your career, and are available to make whatever all the teams are willing to pay you.
These two rules would allow all the small market teams to #1: Aquire top stars in the draft, without having to find 10 million for a signing bonus. and #2: To retain their stars for 6-7 years, thus preventing the 'good for 2 years, bad for 10' effect.
This is all the help small market teams need. I'm sure they'd rather do it this way than have a revenue sharing, which would lead to the comments of "You won that world series with Yankees and Dodgers money!!!" every time a small market team made it to the big dance...
24
Questor
ID: 5763761 Tue, Jul 10, 04:13
Rogue's, your idea is very similar to the current one in place for the NHL, but it is not feasible - it could not get past opposition from the player's union in baseball.
However, the "universal draft" with a wage scale might have potential and it would certainly be a good thing. The downside to it would be that it would prevent the teams from doing a draft-n-see, where they draft and lowball (and thus intentionally don't sign) the player this year, then if the player has a good year in college they sign them at a higher price; but, that could be worked out, I bet.
Without a 7-8 year plan like yours, though, the system somehow needs fixing so that teams can develop and then keep good players. I think a "pool" of money is the only way that has potential to work. Otherwise, even if you get em cheap, once they get to the majors, you lose them just as they are getting good.
25
Rogue's Strikers
ID: 24540291 Tue, Jul 10, 04:35
Perhaps a way around the draft problem of not being able to "draft-and-see" would be to limit the draft to 5-6 rounds. After 150-180 players, the rest aren't superstar potential, at least not now. After the draft, anyone who isn't chosen can be available to be signed. (Kind of an 'at your own risk' type deal for teams.)
As for the player's union not agreeing to a 7-8 year salary cap plan, I agree. But I think they and the owners are starting to realize that the way things are going only the superstars will be making lots of money. If 5-10 teams end up folding that leaves alot of marginal players out of work. The superstars will be richer than ever, but the average bullpen or #4 starter will probably end up with some minor league team. If the union takes it to a vote, (and I'm assuming each player gets one vote) there are far more average players than there are superstars. Plus, I have to believe that there are SOME players who actually care about the game...
26
Mujeriego
ID: 2843222 Tue, Jul 10, 09:05
I don't understand how cutting out the bottom rounds from the draft will aleviate some of the problems facing MLB. Do undrafted rookies who fill up the minor league system cost teams less money down the road?
It is unlikely that the players union will agree to an artificial salary ceiling (ie NHL style free agency) so the next most viable option remains some sort of revenue sharing.
Side note: people from cities like New York need to stop razzing fans from cities like Montreal, Tampa Bay and Detroit for not going to games. Dispite whatever statistics you may see, tickets to these games are expensive. I know that Detroit advertises 7 dollar tickets, but I never see them available. There are about 100 of them or so. Anytime I want to go down to a game, I end up spending 14$+ on tickets.
Now, why would I want to spend that kind of bread to see a team like Detroit? Basically, ticket purchasing power is the only weapon fans have against putting shoddy products on the field. Detroit had relatively cheap ticket prices last season; however, they raised most of their prices at midseason when people started coming.
My point: comments from people like neverclinic are unfair. I'm sure that the people in Montreal are sick of being the farm system for New York, Boston and LA and are using their only voice - ticket purchasing power. By saying that the franchise should be moved or destroyed is supporting the actions of their previous ownership actions.
Good teams who aren't supported by the fans should be moved. However, it is important that consistently bad teams not be moved and owners be held accountable.
27
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Tue, Jul 10, 09:15
I don't claim to have a solution to baseball economic problems (though I do feel some changes should be made), but regarding KKB's post #16 on dyansties, one true dynasty per decade is much more than enough. Yearly dominant sports franchises are the stuff of legend. To say that the NFL is incomplete by not currently having one or that it's less exciting because there is no dynasty to knock off (IMHO) cheapens the herculean accomplishments of those franchises that have been able to string together multiple championships, or that have dominated an era of championships. The longer it takes one to emerge will make the next true dynasty that much more special. Now, if the current economic structure of the NFL keeps teams from ever being able to string together multiple championships (which should be a rare feat to begin with) then that's a different story.
28
KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 51521713 Tue, Jul 10, 09:34
Questor, I stand corrected. However, I disagree that anyone should be able to have a dynasty. That's completely contradictory to the idea of a dynasty. You have to build a dynasty, you can't just "go get one". Even the Yankess, for all the money they spend, have a dynasty working because they have players that have come together as a team, under a great manager, and they continue to hold on to that core group of players. I think other teams get caught in the "win it this year" attitude and don't project long term. It was just 1992 when NYY finished 20 games out of 1st behind the 1st place Blue Jays. Second place in the division was MIL (surprise!). NYY was also 20 games out of 1st in '91. 21 in '90. 14.5 in '89. Yet through those years, MIL finished 8 games back in '91, 14 back in '90, and 8 back in '89. MIL was also 2 back in '88. The thing is, if you go back and look through the past standings, you see a cycle. It's just that NYY seem to complete the cycle faster than other teams. Is it a result of money? Or is it a result of the Yankees just being the Yankees? I really don't know. What I do know is that you can look through the standings and see times where the "small market" teams have been at the front of the standings just like anyone else. They just don't seem to know what to do in order to stay there.
The rules of baseball are simple. You have to put together a winning team. Sometimes this costs a lot money (NYY, BOS, CLE, etc.) and sometimes it doesn't (MIN, PHI, etc.) but the fact of the matter remains that when teams win, their players do statistically well. Because of free-agency, teams need to ante up and resign those players if they want to build a core group of winners like NYY have done. Wouldn't it have been much cheaper for NYY to just let Jeter and Rivera go? It depends on how you look at things. If you consider Jeter and Rivera to be part of that core group of winners, then losing them could have meant losing their winning ways, dropping them into a sub-par team, then having a fire-sale, then losing money, etc. Look at the damage done by that sort of thing in FLA. They're just finally starting to recover from it. I think it's funny that people look at NYY as this group of constantly changing players. A revolving door of the best, high priced free-agents. That's not even close to who or what they are. They are Posada (7 year, lifetime NYY), Brosius (4 year NYY), Jeter (7 year, lifetime NYY), Tino (6 year NYY), Knoblauch (4 year NYY), O'Neill (9 year NYY), Bernie (11 year, lifetime NYY), El Duque (4 year, lifetime NYY), Mendoza (6 year, lifetime NYY), Pettitte (7 year, lifetime NYY), Rivera (7 year, lifetime NYY), Joe Torre (5 year NYY manager). I found it interesting, in looking up all those players, that they all had about a 5-7 year average career with NYY. Is it coincidental that this team came together about the same time NYY won the WS in '96? Is it coincidental that the 7 year, "lifetimers" came together about the time NYY started making the playoffs again? I don't think so. I think NYY started to get a core group of players with the 7 year, "lifetimers" and they started building around that. Since then, they've made key acquisitions (Clemens, Mussina, etc.) to add to that team. Sure they've made the occasional late season addition, but they do that in every sport. Anybody see the trade deadline in Hockey last season? The playoff teams look to add that one missing part while the "out-of-the-picture" teams look to start rebuilding.
And I agree with azdbacker, about teams like CLE and ATL. Did you know that ATL's best finishes from 1975 to 1990 was a 3 year stretch from 82 to 84 when they finished 1 (DIV), 2, and 3rd? Did you know that those were the only 3 years Joe Torre was their manager? Interesting, indeed! And what happend to the MON that finished 2, 2, and 1 (DIV) from 92-94? Well, that's what happens when you let guys like Floyd, Alou, Walker, Rondell White, Vander Wal, Stairs, DeShields, Grissom, Pedro, Fassero, Shaw, Wetteland, and Bottenfield walk away. PHI is a "small market"? They didn't seem to small of a market from 76-83. PIT only became a "small market" after Bonds, Bonilla, Bream, Vanslyke, and Drabek. On an interesting note, did you know that the 1990 PIT team included one Rick Reed? KAN is another "small market" team that has had past success. 76-89, with sparks of life in 95, but then the wheels fell off. Their 1996 team featured Offerman, Lockhart, Goodwin, Damon, Sweeney, a young Chris Stynes, Belcher, and Appier. Not too shabby, but where did they all go (except for Sweeney, obviously)? MIN just seems to have broken out of their cycle until recently. They've held on to some of their youth recently and it seems to be paying off. What will happen if they continue to hold on to their "core" group of players? Only time will tell.
The fact is that winning teams win around a core group of "winners". The '95 Braves featured Lopez, Chipper, Eddie Perez, Glavine, Smoltz, and Maddux. They've built up from there, but are always only adding to the core. They'll switch players in and out until they have an addittion to the "core". And what of CLE? Same thing. Their '94 team featured Thome, Vizquel, Lofton, Ramirez, and Nagy. They built from there.
I guess I believe it's a little more than a money issue. Sure, keeping your "core" group of players requires money, but so does making money on the stock market. You have to invest something before you get something back. Some teams make a large investment and don't get much back (TEX, BAL, NYM) while others make a large investment and get plenty in return (NYY, CLE, ATL). Also, there are teams that make a little investment and get very little back (MON, CIN, ANA), but there are others that make a little investment and get a very good return (MIN, OAK, FLA). So to me, it says that it's not the amount of money you invest, but rather where you invest it. Who you invest it in.
I don't believe in the "small market" concept. I believe that "small markets" are created by losing teams that fans don't want to pay money to go watch. Would I shell out a couple hundred bucks to go see ATL play? Yes, no doubt. And I've done it before. Would I do the same to see BAL play? I haven't yet and I'm not planning on it yet either. People want to see winning teams. Is Chicago any more of a small market that Chicago? The White Sox are 24th in average attendance while the Cubs are 14th.
Get a core group of winners. Sign them long term. Watch them win. Add strategic, key acquisitions. Win more. The fans flock. Repeat 2-3 years. You're no longer a "small market"
29
KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 51521713 Tue, Jul 10, 09:43
MITH re: 27, I agree that dynasties shouldn't be easy to accomplish, but I just don't like the Championship merry-go-round that exists in the current NFL. To me, that cheapens the championship more than anything else because it becomes a "just wait until next year and it will be our turn to win" type of thing. I like "mini-dynasties" like the back-to-backs and the back-to-back-to-backs. because it creates the sense that you can knock off the favorite, but that there is a clear favorite. Dynasties are great, and I find myself getting caught up in wanting to see one fall (if it's not my favorite team), but I agree that it shouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish, nor was I trying to suggest that. I was trying to slant it more against the merry-go-round championships than anything else. it was late when I posted that. ;)
30
JKaye Sustainer
ID: 4711592917 Tue, Jul 10, 10:13
nerveclinic 21--It depends on whether you consider 5-10 million dollars significant. In baseball salary terms, I don't. The Yanke may spend 100 mil in a given championship year, but there are, like I said, 6-8, within the high 80, 90+ range. These teams COULD go the extra distance and increase their payroll to what the Yankees is(like the Mets who play in the same market).
azdbacker 22--Those teams have a right to cry small market. Teams in small markets who invest(the Marlins) end up losing a ton of cash. They simply cannot afford it. Keep in mind that the Indians only emerged from baseball hell when they got a new ballpark.
31
Unemployed Donor
ID: 53428912 Tue, Jul 10, 10:35
I completely agree with azdbacker. A couple of things I wanted to throw out though
1) Didn't MLB use to share gate receipts? So if KC visited the Indians, KC would get a share of Cleveland's higher revenue. Could be an alternative to sharing broadcasting revenue, especially since broadcasting revenue is so difficult to ascertain when you have a parent that also owns media outlets. The Cubs and WGN are a perfect example. The Cubs have historically under-reported their TV/Radio revenue.
2) The owners make decisions but never hold themselves accountable. All the revenue in the world wouldn't help Tampa Bay or Kansas City. They would still make the same bad decisions. The next time Pittsburg whines about the small market blues, someone should just say "Derek Bell. Now shut up."
3) There will always be perennial losers. Every sport has them, and yes some can turn it around in your lifetime.
32
Perm Dude Leader
ID: 351562522 Tue, Jul 10, 10:55
KKB: The NFL has had, for years, the "On Any Given Sunday" policy, which would make it quite difficult for dynasties to continue. Reverse drafts, and the salary cap has given reasons for the cutting of veterans from teams that might otherwise give leadership and continuity, the two (of three, the other being talent) components of dynasties.
That said, the comparison of MLB with the NFL is not a good one, since everyone who signs with baseball spends some time in the minors for development. NFL draftees have a much greater impact on their sport than MLB draftees.
adz: Here in America companies don't generally hide behind a Congressionally-mandated monopoly. Here in America the consumer dictates what products survive and what don't. In MLB, however, with a monolopoly which shields them from preditorial pricing risks, and stadiums financed not by owners but by gullible cities through bonds and other tax schemes paid for by everyone (not just baseball or even sports fans), it's difficult to say how the business of baseball is really all that All-American. I'm all for letting them play, and opening up the economics of baseball (even with a broadcast revenue sharing plan), but the first steps would be to eliminate baseball's legal protections (unshared by any other sport) and to be up-front about the real costs being paid by taxpayers in MLB towns, big and small.
pd
33
Unemployed Donor
ID: 53428912 Tue, Jul 10, 11:09
PD,
I understand where you're going when you suggest removing the legal protections, but you lost me on opening up the real cost to tax payers. What would that accomplish? Are they hidden now? The bond issues and tax schemes are public record.
34
Species Donor
ID: 304521510 Tue, Jul 10, 11:12
nerveclinic - post #13 - I figured I would engender at least one response that misunderstood what I was saying. Forgive me for my lack of clarity. I guess I mixed my rationale a bit by defending how the Yankees have done things (and noting the possibilities for success for "small market" teams when they do things right) under a subject heading that relates to fixing baseball's economic structure. Let me explain:
- I agree that something should be done to level the field somewhat. - I agree that the Yankees' financial advantage has helped tremendously in this Championship run.
I simply vehemently disagree with those that mistakenly and ignorantly insinuate that money was the only reason, or that they buy Championships. Let's look at some of your counter-arguments:
"The justification for sharing revenue is to keep the sport competitive so that teams win based on their scouting, training and manageing skills not just being able to go out and buy what they need every year with daddy george's wallet."
Ohhhh, you were doing so well until that last dumb line. I agree that teams should win based upon the things you outline. As has been explained, that's exactly how the Yankees have done it! Congratulations. You just made my point.
The daddy George's walled comment I'll address along with this one:
(first you quoting me) 'Remember the only free agents on the Yankees are Mike Mussina and Mike Stanton.' Then you: "Huh?
O.k., maybe there are not that many literal free agents, but they got half their team by tradeing small market teams prospects for proven studs."
Let's look at some trades: * Roberto Kelly for Paul O'Neill - not exactly a small-market ripoff deal * Hitchcock and R. Davis for Nelson and Tino - Tino was up-and-coming, Nelson not exactly proven. Doesn't look like a small-market ripoff, nor trading for "proven studs" as you put it * Rogers for Brosius - a trade of underacheivers * Guzman, Buchanan and Milton for Knoblauch - one All-Star (at the time) for 2 future All-Stars. I don't think the Twins are balking at that one at all * Wells, Lloyd and Bush for Clemens - let's not forget this was proposed by Gord Ash. * Westbrook and some other dudes for Justice - Westbrook is in CLE's rotation and Justice was a salary dump by a team with 455 consecutive sellouts. Sure this is they type of deal a team like the Yanks can do with their revenues, but CLE was a lot more interested in dumping Justice than it was the Yanks desperate to get him.
That's about it for the current Yankees as far as I can tell. Sure we traded prospects for Wetteland in 1995 but only had him through 1996. The Neagle deal was an expensive rental (in terms of prospects - ouch), but clinic I don't see some laundry list of the Yankees swindling the poor, unsuspecting small-market teams out of their stars. Teams like MIN would make the aging All-Star for 2 young All-Stars deal every day of the week.
Later, first quoting me:
"You said: 'Why should the Yankees be faulted for using the income generated by their superior marketplace? Further, why should the Yankees be forced to subsidize other owners because their market cannot support them?'
The answer is already explained above but let's say it again, to keep the league competitive and make the winning team earn it not just buy it.
We all know George isn't done yet. He'll get out the wallet, he'll buy the best talent, and cut everyone else off at the knees. It's a great sport isn't it? "
As has been explained above, the Yankees have developed the main core of their team: Jeter, Posada, Bernie, Rivera, Pettitte. That's 5 All-Stars who are home-grown. They have made some good trades over the years and true they have the money to keep their own players as well as take on expensive players from other teams. They scout well. They develop talent themselves. They do a lot of the right things as an organization.
I'm sorry, but to insinuate that the Yankees "just buy it" is just plain ignorant. I simply have never been able to figure out why Yankee-bashers cannot understand the difference.
35
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Tue, Jul 10, 11:21
Well said, Species. The response to your last sentence in easy, they don't want to know the difference. Jealousy and frustration readily breed ignorance when it is convenient for the purpose of shifting blame when one refuses to acknowledge the faults of his/her constituants, or in this case, sports franchises.
Go Yankees! -MITH
36
Perm Dude Leader
ID: 351562522 Tue, Jul 10, 11:55
Oy, now we're bashing the Yankees bashers? That's not right, MITH.
Unemployed Yes, it's all public record, just like Bush's tax plan. The problem with both is not in what it says, but in what it projects. Nearly every new stadium going up now (and all recent completed arenas) project revenues for the cities which will pay for the stadiums. And nearly all of them have been wrong. I'm saying we need to be more up-front with it. Part of the reason owners can be less than economical with their money is that they need not pay for their buildings.
PD, gotcha. I remember the Arod thread. If you're arguing that baseball or sports teams in general don't generate the revenue for their communities that their backers project, I agree. If you're saying ridiculous spending by owners is supported by public financing, I agree. Are taxpayers getting soaked and deserve full disclosure? Yeah, but what would that accomplish other than having it spelled out that the team is a money drain? Are you saying there shouldn't be public financing? BTW PD I'm not picking an argument here. I just really can't see where full disclosure leads.
38
Perm Dude Leader
ID: 351562522 Tue, Jul 10, 13:29
I guess I'm responding to several earlier opinions which say that we should not impose any economical structures onto baseball, to kind of let capitalism do its work. The problem with that is that baseball has never been a capitalistic enterprise. It's been largely a socialistic enterprise since a large part of the costs are borne by taxpayers in the cities represented by these clubs (I'm not saying this is bad, or good, just pointing out the reality).
A true "let 'em play" policy would have owners build their own arenas at their own expense. Baring that, fuller disclosure would allow taxpayers to make real choices in how much they want to pony up for the civic pride of having a MLB team.
It's my contention that major league baseball teams ought to be owned by the towns in which they play. After all, the cost of those teams are being paid for by the cities anyway. Those that argue that local & state governments shouldn't be in the baseball business miss the point that they already underwrite the costs.
If state & local governments owned the teams, the economics would change pretty quickly. For one, revenue sharing of broadcast rights would change very quickly, I believe. By helping install real "civic pride" in teams, I believe there would be fewer player moves (not a lot fewer, but some).
Of course, this opens up another can of worms, since state & local governments are immune from certain lawsuits themselves. Hmmmm...
pd
39
Unemployed Donor
ID: 53428912 Tue, Jul 10, 14:08
It would certainly be interesting to have elected general managers.:)
40
azdbacker Donor
ID: 51392423 Tue, Jul 10, 21:34
PD, post 32: I agree 100 percent. I'm all for as little government intervention as possible, in all things.
41
StLCards Sustainer
ID: 3505622 Wed, Jul 11, 01:14
A small conference on this very subject was recently held in St. Louis with Bob Costas and a bunch of others. I was interested in attending until I found out the cost to attend was in the $100's. I decided to skip it. The rich get richer. I have now decided I really don't care what happens. Let 'em argue and go on strike and the result will be they will have lost me as a fan for a long long time.
Bottom line IMO is money talks. It doesn't mean you'll win, but it certainly means you have a shot or can buy the corrections needed.
42
Valkyrie Leader
ID: 56640810 Wed, Jul 11, 01:39
Guys you are going to hate this and before I proceed let me state I am a died in the wool capitalist but I have never really gotten over the last strike. A pox on both owners and players I say. Baseball is a sport- it should not be a business (let's temporarily forget the antitrust exemption etc.). It should be a sport of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore I say that the cities in which the team is located should own all the teams and that all owners should be forced to sell to the cities at fair market value. Step two the greedy players- no player should be permitted to make more money than the president of the United States or ok no more than twice as the president because some players really are worth more than some presidents. All profits made by the cities should be returned to the fans by way of lower ticket, concession and parking fees thus making it once again possible for all kids to be able to go to the ball game. Yes I know this reeks of socialism or worse, and that part rubs me wrong but public sport is different from business- it is just that- an exempt sport which in my opinion is a public asset and should be run for the amusement of the public not for the enrichment of one individual or companies private coffers. Unlike business there is no open entry into baseball- new competition can't just join the american league even if they built there own stadium. Sport is unique and should be treated uniquely.
43
Madman
ID: 29246911 Wed, Jul 11, 01:45
Further, why should the Yankees be forced to subsidize other owners because their market cannot support them?
Because the small market owners, in conjunction with the U.S. Congress, allows George Steinbrenner to keep his market. The NY market was split between the Yankees and the Mets back when TV was thought to be as much of a danger to MLB revenues as a bonus. Further, the idea of competing on a revenue basis just wasn't applicable to baseball back then. Thus, the Yankees are earning great rents from an antiquated totalitarian system that was created long, long ago and that was protected by ignorant Congressmen who apparently eschew the ideals of a free market. Because many owners would be hurt by eliminating this totalitarian regime, there is no reason to believe that Steinbrenner's "lucky draw" will be reduced any time in the near future.
Why should the Yankees be faulted for using the income generated by their superior marketplace? I don't fault them. This is the fault of all the other owners for giving that market to him. See above.
The main problem with small market clubs is indeed bad management, but that misses the point. The main problem with all losing clubs is bad management. "Bad" management is a relative term. The fact of the matter is that roughly half of the teams in baseball MUST lose, and must, therefore, have somewhat "bad" management. Furthermore, when some of these losing clubs happen to reside in small markets, the fans in those areas cannot develop loyalties to players. It's as simple as that.
I actually don't think the arguments about "competitive balance" are particularly relevant. It's the way you win (or lose) that is critical here. And if small market teams can't sign their players, or if they have to trade their stars away to be competitive, then this depresses the local fan base, and is damaging to baseball as a whole, IMO.
How to Fix it? That's a broad question. You'll have to define a bit better what you mean by "fix", and "it". Personally, as I noted before, I think the only problem is the signing of players.
Thus, I would change the system so that players negotiate for a lump-sum percentage of aggregate revenues. The player's union then gets to split that revenue up however they wish among players.
Players are assigned to teams based on drafts and trades and some limited free agency for veterans who are disgruntled and wish to leave. This is more freedom than most U.S. citizens have when deciding which branch of their company (MLB here) they wish to work for.
Owners split the remaining revenues based on some sort of formula that relates to how successful their team is, and how much attendance they have generated.
An intriguing aspect of this proposal is that suddenly both players and owners would be on the same side in their desire to promote MLB. Further, the owner/labor disputes are greatly simplified, which should reduce the probability of stand-offs. The only real problem is the union and how they distribute their revenue. Presumably, this revenue distribution would have to be based partially on longevity, and partly on some sort of analysis of a player's value to his/her club. It could even be related to the winning percentage of the team the player is on. Although that radical idea probably wouldn't win any supporters.
At any rate, since clubs would no longer have to "sign" players in any meaningful sense, obviously the ugliness of the current system where a team cannot afford to keep a player is totally eradicated. In addition, this obviously returns a premium to scouting and development, since even small market clubs could retain their talent.
Lastly, I would also advocate that a certain portion of the revenues slated to go to owners should be tagged to player development and scouting. Although each club could augment this basic amount, this minimum would be used to ensure quality player development, and a levelling of the playing field in the international arena and other places. (note that international scouting is where the Yankees have acquired free agent talent of significance, as well).
44
Perm Dude Leader
ID: 351562522 Wed, Jul 11, 08:46
Madman I'm not quite clear on something. Currently, of course, MLB players are subject to two contracts, one directly with their clubs and the other as part of their union membership. Are you saying that they should do away with the individual contracts? Or that the wage portion (and incentives?) would be removed from the individual-club contracts and decided by the union?
Perhaps you are advocating a system like Major League Soccer, in which all contracts are with the league, who assigns the players to the clubs themselves?
I think it leaves open the problems of owners demanding new stadiums and how revenues sometimes occur in the short-term with long-term problems looming (such as teams which do not cover their share of stadia costs and cities which have to run venues at a loss). Also, I suppose players will demand to be involved in future broadcasting negotiations if their percentages are hard-wired into the union-MLB contract.
A good beginning, though. Something to mull over.
pd
45
Madman
ID: 29246911 Thu, Jul 12, 23:14
Yes -- contracts would be with the league.
I don't see how this really leaves "open" the problem of owners demand new stadiums. Owners, like all good businessmen, will try to feed off the public trough. I don't see this as a "problem" that has to be fixed.
Short/Long term issues are also a non-issue, since those problems exist with any proposed structure. In fact, my system is a bit more robust to these sorts of problems, since a problem with any one club can be overcome by another club doing well.
The basic logic is that the U.S. Congress has given MLB an anti-trust exemption so they can split up markets and act essentially like a monopoly. Given that structure, it makes a lot of sense to simply treat them for what they are -- a monopoly.
Players would probably want to participate in negotations for added broadcasting revenues. What's wrong with that? They'd have a vested interested in baseball expansion. These contracts are negotiated by teams of lawyers, anyway, so I don't think this is that big of a deal.
46
blue hen Leader
ID: 34937217 Fri, Jul 13, 08:59
Long posts are boring
I recommend you read Lords of the Realm by John Helyar and Fair Ball by Bob Costas.
In addition to a salary cap, we need a salary floor. Imagine if the Twins put that extra million into scouting instead of an owner's pocket.
The truth? It's not so bad. If the ticket prices were too high, the people wouldn't go to the ballparks. They do. If the salaries were too high, the owners wouldn't be able to pay them. They do.
Maybe the Yankees didn't buy those pennants. I sure didn't see any bids from Oakland or Kansas City for Mike Mussina. And it sure is boring seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year, and especially boring seeing the same team win the World Series.
Honestly, there's one thing the XFL did right. Have a look at their salary structure...
47
WiddleAvi
ID: 54640816 Fri, Jul 13, 09:41
I think a strike after this season is baseballs only hope. Strike for long enough until the players give into a salary cap. Fans are disillusioned the with salary's these players get now. While a strike will hurt baseball short term it will help in the long run. While I like the way the football cap works in that it keeps so many teams hopefull which keeps fan interest high I do no like that top players get cut for salary cap reasons. Although thats a trade off I am willing to accept. Basketball has a cap but rewards players for staying with their teams. If I am correct a team can resign it's own players for more money then other teams, usually. Not exactly sure how it works though. I also like that in the NBA rookies have a set price when they enter the league. I would like to see a salary cap in baseball that rewards players for staying with their team by being able to sign for more. my 2 cents
48
blue hen Leader
ID: 34937217 Fri, Jul 13, 10:11
Before anyone else jumps on you... It's the players who strike. "Strike for long enough until the players give into a salary cap" isn't exactly a viable option, and it ruins your credibility. I didn't even read the rest of the post.
49
Perm Dude Leader
ID: 351562522 Fri, Jul 13, 10:18
I haven't heard of a strike threat, but I've heard of lockout threats by the owners.
pd
50
Madman
ID: 29246911 Fri, Jul 13, 13:25
Costas is either accidentally or purposefully trying to make sure that clubs like Oak. or Min. cannot develop players like they used to. The idea that Minnesota should have signed a Derek Bell to $5m just to stay above the floor in 2000 is really irresponsible, IMO.
I'd much rather see a team suck and try to build for the future, rather than to suck and waste away a minimum $40m. Obviously, Costas has other opinions. And talk about long posts. You just posted two books!
51
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jul 13, 13:31
Madman, surprised I haven't seen you post in the long thread with the Mattingly argument. I'm interested in your opinions.
52
Species Donor
ID: 304521510 Fri, Jul 13, 14:17
MITH - for your sake, you wouldn't be interested in Madman's opinion on that subject. I can guess with a large degree of certainty that he would not agree with your stance.....
Madman - while in a perfect world your proposal could work for everyone, obviously nothing along those lines is ever going to happen in our lifetimes (I'm only 32 - aren't you around there?). I realize the topic was "How do you fix Baseball's economic structure?", but the theme of the thread was intended to discuss possible ideas/solutions that actually have touch with reality.
I realize that's blunt, but facts are facts. Both sides involved are just too damned greedy and the type of almost Communistic approach you've proposed in my humble opinion is about as likely as me having Jennifer Lopez break down my door, stripping down to her thong and saying "Take me! I'm all yours!".
I honestly do not have too many answers to this problem. Perhaps some kind of broadcast revenue sharing pool can help, but unless there is a baseball Armageddon I can't see the Players Union allowing a structure that limits their side of the revenue pool too much. If the owners want to split the money amongst themselves, they probably wouldn't care. But an arbitrary salary structure based only loosely upon a free market system would not be allowed at all, IMO.
53
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jul 13, 14:51
Species, I'm not looking to recruit allies. I was genuinely curious of the opinion of one of the most thorough and well thought out gurupies.
54
Madman
ID: 29246911 Fri, Jul 13, 15:07
"the type of almost Communistic approach" Geez. That comment is in "Left" field.
Major League Baseball is currently in violation of a number of anti-trust laws. They are immune to prosecution because of a special exemption from Congress. This fact allows Steinbrenner and others to reap great rewards at the expense of other owners and at the expense of MLB as a whole. Tell me how my proposal is any less "Communistic" than what we have now.
In fact, my approach is actually not very radical at all. Any salary cap would surely be based on a percentage of revenues. One interpretation of my proposal is simply that the player's union and MLB sit down and negotiate how big that implicit "salary cap" is.
However, unlike traditional "salary cap" proposals, my proposal still rewards clubs for good marketing. My proposal still allows clubs to reap the full rewards from good scouting. My proposal reduces the acrimony between players and owners.
I think you could get owners to agree to it fairly easily, as long as Congress threatens Steinbrenner, et. al.'s revenue stream. Players would be a bit harder to convince, since all the intricacies of player contracts with the league would have to be worked out. But since they wouldn't be subject to a hard salary cap, and since they would be guaranteed that owners simply wouldn't pocket revenue-sharing funds or whatever, I think they might be able to be persuaded to go along with the idea if they can be convinced it's in the best interests of the game, and if they can also be convinced that their salaries will continue to escalate along with the popularity of the game.
So, I guess you're going to have to help me with your version of "reality". Were you looking for a simple regurgitation of the other flawed plans that are out there and already on the table? If so, I have nothing to contribute to that discussion. Indeed, I think that such a discussion would be exceptionally boring and a waste of time.
55
Alex Trebek
ID: 20552219 Fri, Jul 13, 22:00
Here is my 2 cents on Baseball's economic structure:
1) There should be a salary cap placed on both the draft and major and minor league squads.
2) There should be an international draft. This would include any Japanese professionals or whatever. This draft should occur separately from the U.S. draft at first. It is my opinion that not all teams have the resources in terms of talented scouts to accomplish a combined draft. I would prefer that the two drafts be fused together gradually. Say, over 5 years.
3) Revenue sharing across the board. It is in the best interest of all teams to have as many teams as possible.
4) This may seem contradictory to #3, but I believe the following franchises should be dispersed: Tampa Bay, Montreal, and Anaheim. These teams all appear to be at or near the bottom in attendance. I may possibly be mistaken about Anaheim. I chose them because I believe that California doesn't need all those teams. With less teams on the downside of the revenue average, the better the cash distribution to other teams. This would then be followed by an obvious dispersement draft.
5) Any salary cap in baseball would have to include a "Larry Bird" exception rule, IMHO. What would they call that rule in baseball?
There is no realistic approach to fixing baseballs labor pains. The only thing that can be realistically done is placing a band-aid over this and that. I ultimately blame the owners because they are the ones offering the contracts. A-ROD doesn't sign for $252 million if nobody offers it to him. This is just my version of how I'd like to see it done, not the reality of it. If I knew that answer, I'd quit this stupid game show gig and work for MLB.
56
Species Donor
ID: 536651 Fri, Jul 13, 23:47
Madman - the Communistic comment wasn't intended as an insult nor to necessarily be associated with the very negative stigma we have here regarding (the former) USSR or current Chinese politics. As you well know, in theory Communism (at least by my recollection of 10th Grade World History! ;-) was supposed to work in the sense of the population banding together for the greater good of everyone. The entire country produces enough grain to feed everyone. The entire country produces enough clothing for everyone. Whether you produced grain or produced linen for clothing you should end up with both....blah blah blah. We all know what went wrong there.
The analogy comes with your distribution of revenue by both sides. While in theory this magical distribution of funds would be wonderful, the problem is that it takes away all aspects of individual accomplishment and the free market(like Communism does). Players are "assigned" to teams with limited free agency? Where's Curt Flood? Andy Messersmith? Players' salaries being "based partially on longevity, and partly on some sort of analysis of a player's value to his/her club."?? Come on!! More elimination of individual accomplishment and the free market.
In my opinion the lack of reality in your proposal is in the amount of movement it seems it would take from the Player's Union. Maybe I can see them agreeing to some sort of predetermined salary structure for the draft and for players up to "X" years of ML service (3 or 4??). But any elimination of total free market-based free agency is indeed out of touch with reality. They may concede many things, but I can't see them giving that up or compromising on that particular aspect anytime soon.
...and no, J. Lo hasn't broken down my door yet, either.
57
Madman
ID: 29246911 Sat, Jul 14, 02:27
There is no "magical" distribution of funds. There is a whole class of solutions. I simply left that aspect up to whatever the player's union desired.
For example:
a) Players negotiate contracts on an individual basis with the league, subject to the overall salary cap. Obviously, in this scenario, there's no potential upper-bound. Imagine McGwire in 1999 bargaining under this sort of regime (if he wanted to stick it to them), b) Players agree to a salary structure as a percentage of their funds. This "non-free market" solution is what most corporations do -- you get hired on a salary schedule. Why would the players do that? Their salaries will still escalate based on their bargaining position with owners! I.e., if they could negotiate a pay increase from 50 to 55%, then this effectively is a 10% across-the-board pay increase (assuming stagnante ravenues). OR, this could be a 0% pay increase for the first 4 years, and a 50% pay increase for the veterans. Whatever. c) You could still incorporate a salary-structure based on club-bidding, as long as you kept it within the negotiated overall salary structure negotiated by the player's union. I personally don't advocate this, however, since I think it's unnecessary and needlessly complicated. Not to mention the fact that it would tend to harm the lesser players (like the current system does).
My plan just doesn't impose any system for divying up the revenues between Ripken and Furcal.
"But any elimination of total free market-based free agency is indeed out of touch with reality." People need to get a grip with this sort of language. The current system is no more a "free-market" than the deregulated California electricity market. In fact, consulting economists for the player's union in the 1970's advocated the restricted market aspect of the system in an effort to maximize the pay of a select membership.
To a few other points: a) Yes, players are assigned to teams with a limited free agency. Hmmm. Sounds like baseball in 2000. b) Yes, I am saying that players need to give up the right to demand a job-transfer from city to city. This is a fairly absurd "right" that they won in court. I'm advocating a perspective that views MLB as a single entity; under this perspective, there is obviously no "right" that a player has to transfer locations (no more-so than there is in private industry). Because of the peculiar historical context of MLB, however, I would assume that players after 6 years or whatever would be negotiated would be able to have some sort of "demand" to be traded, and, thus, free-agency.
I think fundamentally that you, like many analysts, are confusing the idea that individual players can achieve massive pay increases with the idea that overall salary payments will also increase. Historically (last 20 years), individual bargaining has led to overall market increases. But just because this has historically occurred doesn't mean that this is the only way to achieve salary gains (in aggregate) for players. Actually, I think by having this limited perspective on reality, negotiators for the player's union will (and actually have already) started to see some serious stagnation in their overall gains. Further, the current system has a variety of bad side-effects -- on competitive balance, investment in young talent, salaries for younger players, etc.
If veteran players continue to demand that the Union represent their interests at the expense of all players who will never reach stardom, then my proposal is indeed doomed. But Cal Ripken said in 1994 that he was striking to save baseball. I want to put that statement to the test.
In fact, what I am advocating can be much closer to a real free-market for player services than our current system. You may be right that the players won't go for it, but at least this sort of proposal, if rejected, would reveal their actions to be motivated by pure selfish greed rather than any sort of illusionary altruism (as claimed by Mr. Ripken).
58
Madman
ID: 29246911 Sat, Jul 14, 02:47
Let me try to rephrase the basic idea with a hypothetical.
A Bob Costas proposal is to have players get paid a maximum of, say, $2.4 billion, and a minimum of $1.2 billion (30 clubs X cap of 80, minimum of 40). Does that proposal fit your "realistic" definition?
There is no guarantee to the players union regarding where in that $1.2b to $2.4b range they will fall.
My proposal, instead, would offer the players a fixed amount, say $2b, that they are effectively guaranteed to receive. No need to worry about money-grubbing owners not paying players, etc.
In other words, relative to the Costas proposal, there is an effective "flex-cap". Some clubs might field teams with under $40m payrolls; however, this MUST be off-set by astute and well-run clubs who managed to draft and develop quality players might field a team worth $100m.
Further, unlike the Costas proposal, clubs still retain the incentive to fully develop talent; clubs aren't given the incentive to over-invest in bad talent; players are protected from overly-greedy owners, teams are able to retain their locally marketable players (indeed, the player's union would find this desirable -- if Sweeney in KC creates more revenue than Sweeney in NY, then it's in everyone's interest to keep Sweeney in KC under my proposal. This isn't necessarily true in Costa's plan, or any other that I've seen).
59
Alex Trebek
ID: 20552219 Sun, Jul 15, 06:40
Madman: I have to respectfully disagree with your following statement, "Yes, I am saying that players need to give up the right to demand a job-transfer from city to city. This is a fairly absurd "right" that they won in court. I'm advocating a perspective that views MLB as a single entity; under this perspective, there is obviously no "right" that a player has to transfer locations (no more-so than there is in private industry)." Shouldn't players have the right to move from team to team? What would you do if you couldn't ever leave the company you work for? I feel that baseball players are just as much entitled to transfer to other teams as we are to different jobs. How can you expect a ball player to not leave his current team for better money, live closer to his family, or to play in a bigger market, etc.? Basically, my question to you is this, What is so different between baseball players wanting to change job locations and regular people doing the same thing?
Rate this thread:
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.
If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.
If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.