Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The baseball content on ESPN.com just improved dramatically with the latest column by Darren Rovell: http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0320/1526812.html.

A very good columnist who writes about the business of sport, and baseball in particular, he hasn't succumbed to laziness or poor research in his latest effort (please note the plethora of quotes from good sources like Dave Dombrowski, president and GM of the Detroit Tigers; Jerry Colangelo, managing partner of the Arizona Diamondbacks; and Larry Baer, executive VP of the San Francisco Giants). Rovell appears to be, based on what I've read of his work so far, an acceptable mainstream writer delving into the same material so ably analyzed by Doug Pappas (at Baseball Primer and SABR).



This time around, Rovell seizes upon the remarkable public comments by Oakland A's owner Steve Schott, who (ridiculously) undermined the new CBA by claiming that the revenue sharing system doesn't permit the A's to resign reigning AL-MVP shortstop Miguel Tejada. While I personally believe there are sound business reasons not to give Tejada a long-term contract--the A's have some very good MI prospects in the upper minors, and the best player on the left side of their infield might well be Eric Chavez--Major League Baseball should fine Schott for his remarks.

More importantly, Rovell goes on to ask the important question of what the small-market clubs are actually doing with the transferred money. A hard salary-cap floor was not negotiated in the Agreement, so the clubs aren't forced to spend a set amount on their ML rosters. While at first blush this may seem very inequitable, there are some good reasons why intelligent management would be throwing good money after bad depending on where their club is situated in their success cycle. (For more on this imprtant concept, see Jonah Keri's work at Baseball Primer)
Equally, the Oakland A's and Minnesota Twins are examples 1 and 1A for not tying high payroll expenditures with postseason success.

And Now For A Word | 16 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Coach - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 02:46 PM EST (#92707) #
Silence, in the case of some teams, really is golden:

Royals president Dan Glass declined to comment on how the Royals' reduction in payroll will help make the team more competitive and Devil Rays owner Vince Naimoli did not return calls seeking comment.

Only three or four of Naimoli's players make more than the minimum salary. Really competitive; the new CBA has helped Tampa collect more of everyone else's castoffs. These owners are insulting the game and their fans while putting George's money into their pockets. I'm no economist, but I think it's called a Seligopoly. Seligarchy?
_Ian Gray - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST (#92708) #
My all-time favorite word like that seems to fit the bill: kakistocracy. It apparently means 'rule of the worst.'
_Sean - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 02:57 PM EST (#92709) #
I noticed that as well.

As much as I deplore the ineptitude exhibited by some ML teams, in other cases a good argument can be made that an artificial salary floor would actually hurt the long-term prospects for a team's success (I'm particularly thinking of the San Diego Padres. I generally like the plan their GM has put in place and think it would be severely crimped by such a rule. Other examples are possible; YMMV.
Dave Till - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 04:12 PM EST (#92710) #
Perhaps, instead of a salary floor, teams could have a "salary plus player development" floor. A team that is at the start of a rebuilding cycle could spend revenue-sharing money very usefully - on signing bonuses for their top draft picks and extra money for quality coaches, trainers, nutritionists, etc., at every stop in their minor league system.

Another idea would be to allow a team to defer some of their revenue spending. If it doesn't make sense for a team to spend $10 million on a free agent, perhaps they could be allowed to bank some of that money and use it further down the road to keep some of their best talent. (The players and owners would have to work out some sort of arrangement as to how this would work, but both would benefit: players would be able to stay with one organization for longer, and owners would know that their revenue-sharing money isn't just disappearing into cheap teams' pockets.)
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 05:37 PM EST (#92711) #
I think there definatly needs to be a salary floor so teams do not let all their good players go, like a MLB version of the NBA's Clippers. The one drawback is that teams like the Padres might be forced to sign people to large contracts that really have no large contribution to their team, like Todd Hundley, Rondel White, and Denny Neagle.

Another thing I disagree with is how revenue sharing is used. I dont think that the revenue sharing should go to the teams though. Perhaps it should go to a ballpark fund to help teams build new ballparks so teams can't hold cities hostage with demands for new parks. This would hypothetically help those in small markets increase their market and also put pressure on teams to field viable teams.
_steve - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 07:12 PM EST (#92712) #
Sorry for the hijack, but:
Mike Berardino wrote a familiar-sounding column today on the merits of Tosca the Teacher. Berardino also presents a (free) lengthy overview of the "sabermatric/tools" debate in Baseball America.
_Shrike - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 08:08 PM EST (#92713) #
Ben, I hate to call you on this, but do you really think that the owners would ever voluntarily take their revenue sharing money and put it into a stadium fund? It's just never going to happen!

The drawback that you identified with respect to the Padres is precisely one of the issues that I was concerned about when I linked the column in the first place.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:37 PM EST (#92714) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:37 PM EST (#92715) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92716) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92717) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92718) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92719) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92720) #
I realize that the owners would never agree to such a scheme. Owning a team is way to make money and doing it by any means possible. I just thought that it was an interesting idea. I think that it would come with a lot of benefits for both the fans and actually the owners. Say each team gets a new stadium through this plan every 10-15 years. That means that each team gets a jump in their revenue stream every 10 years or so. There are a lot of holes in the plan but I thought that it might help teams increase payroll and maintain competitive balance and still have everyone get a new stadium.
_Ben - Friday, March 21 2003 @ 09:38 PM EST (#92721) #
Sorry about that everyone
_Chuck Van Den C - Saturday, March 22 2003 @ 07:52 AM EST (#92722) #
I hadn't realized it was groundhog day.
And Now For A Word | 16 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.