Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
I've been thinking about the New York Yankees and their recent player acquisitions. Yes, I know - it's bad for my digestion or my blood pressure or my choler or something. But this has all gone on far enough. Something has to change.



For the good of the game, two things have to happen ASAP:

1. Salary dump trades have to be eliminated.

You can't just allow one team with big pockets the chance to buy up everybody they need. If a losing team decides that they can't afford a player, a better solution would be to make him a free agent available to the highest bidder. If the player's new contract is for less money than his old one, the team that dumped him is forced to make up the difference.

Let's look at an example. Suppose that Joe Superstar is making $15 million a year, and his team - let's call them the Philadelphia Phillies, to pick a team purely at random - decides they don't want him any more. Instead of just calling up Brian Cashman and saying, "Hey, big boy! Open up George's wallet some more!", the Phillies would be forced to put Joe up for auction. Other teams now have a chance at him.

And suppose that Joe Superstar is signed by, say, the Los Angeles Or Perhaps Anaheim Or Perhaps Anywhere in Southern California Where People Buy Tickets What The Heck Angels, for $12 million. The Phillies would have to pay $3 million towards Joe's contract.

"But, Dave," you're probably saying by now. "The Yankees still have more money than everybody else. Won't they just buy up all the free agents?" Well, not so fast, because of rule 2:

2. An upper limit on team payroll.

Yes, this is the dreaded salary cap, but with a difference. If a team reaches their upper limit, they can still sign new players - provided they let other players go as free agents to other teams, as in rule 1. And the players they have to let go have to be actually useful: any leftover salary paid out to players signed as free agents by other teams still counts against your payroll.

For example: suppose a team at random - let's call them the Yankees - decides to sign A. Expensive Rightfielder for $15 million. They have another player under contract, call him B. Injured Rightfielder, for $20 million. If they decide to dump B, they won't automatically have $20 million freed up. If another team, such as Kansas City, decides to sign B for $2 million, and no higher bids come in, the Yankees are still on the hook for $18 million, and can't sign A.

As long as the upper limit is set to something reasonable - such as $120 million or $150 million - this won't hinder the operations of normal baseball teams or of the free market. It's like not allowing one tycoon to corner the market on silver, or one computer company to corner the market on operating systems: some restrictions are necessary in order to make the free market truly free. Clever organizations will still draw well, and will still be able to afford to field better teams - but they'll be doing it because they're smarter than the other guys, not because they have unfathomably deep pockets.

(Of course, there will have to be some measures put in to ensure that the owners don't collude and drive down salaries. A minimum payroll requirement, plus an actual Commissioner of Baseball that cares about the game, would probably be necessary. At this point, we're talking pie in the sky for sure. But I'm talking about trying to solve the problem here, not actually expecting that the problem will be solved.)

The alternative is too unpleasant to think about. At this point, if you're a fan of the Blue Jays, Orioles, or Devil Rays, what point is there in going on? You're just going to be squashed by a giant wallet year after year after year. (The Red Sox will probably get by - they're rich and plenty smart, and they usually can pick up the wild card.) A fan needs to have some hope for the future, otherwise nobody's going to buy any tickets.
This has gone on far too long! | 72 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Mick Doherty - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#152272) #

This is really well-reasoned and well-thought-out and well-written and all that stuff. It's a good idea. It's also, from a capitalistic viewpoint, complete hogwash.

I know, other leagues have caps and rules and such of all sorts and types. I don't like those either. And before you point out that I am this site's only acknowledged Yankees fan (which I believe is a misdemeanor here in Texas), I am NOT a Knicks fan -- in fact, hate Da Knicks -- and realize that my proposal would be in line to win Isiah's bunch a whole mess of division titles. Same with the Rangers (NY, not Texas) and Islanders. And yes, the Dodgers, Angels, Kings, Lakers, Clippers.

I don't know much about soccer, but aren't Man U basically the Yankees of the World's Most Popular Sport? It's worked out for them pretty well, and yes, there is fan bitterness towards their success, but it's all part of The Game.

Paul D - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#152273) #

You can't just allow one team with big pockets the chance to buy up everybody they need. If a losing team decides that they can't afford a player, a better solution would be to make him a free agent available to the highest bidder.

I don't see how this could possibly be enforced.  What if instead of trading Abreu to the Yankees, they sent him to the Jays for McGowan and Rios.... is that still a salary dump?  If so, why wouldn't you allow it, it seems fair.  If not, how is it different from the Yankees sending their former first round pick and a couple of young pitchers to Philadelphia? 

I wouldn't mind if your first suggestion was added to what's currently available, but you can't eliminate the option of teams trading with each other.
mathesond - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#152274) #
As an aside to the Phillies salary dump, I found this to be quite interesting - depressing for Phillies fans, though
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:08 PM EDT (#152275) #
There's a much, much, MUCH simpler solution.

Put a second AL team in New York. 

That's all you have to do. The Yankees and Mets have so much money in part due to their large market.  It's time to make the Yankees get a smaller slice of the New York pie.

Have the team play out of Shea Stadium or Yankee Stadium when the Mets or Yankees on the road.  It'd be a guaranteed sell-out for about 20 games a year, when the Yankees and Red Sox are playing there.

In 10 years, you'd have a hell of a rivalry, for New Yorkers who like AL baseball, but can't stand cheering for U.S. Steel or Microsoft.

It'll never happen, because the Mets and Yankees would never allow it.  But it'd solve the problem with creating new, potentially worse, ones.

Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT (#152276) #
"Let's look at an example. Suppose that Joe Superstar is making $15 million a year, and his team - let's call them the Philadelphia Phillies, to pick a team purely at random - decides they don't want him any more. Instead of just calling up Brian Cashman and saying, "Hey, big boy! Open up George's wallet some more!", the Phillies would be forced to put Joe up for auction. Other teams now have a chance at him."

This is exactly how it works now!

The Yankees bid more to get Abreu and Lidle than anyone else, unless you believe the Phillies got a higher bid from someone and sold them to the Yankees anyways, because they like the cut of their jib.  Or something like that.
Ryan Day - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:21 PM EDT (#152277) #
  I'm not sure if either suggestion is really workable, but I do agree that something needs to be done.  Perhaps something simpler, like disallowing trades where the financial disparity is greater than, say, $8 million. If the Phillies want to trade away Abreu's $15 mil, they have to take back at least $7 mil in Yankee players.  (also disallowing exchanges of cash in such situations)
zeppelinkm - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:22 PM EDT (#152278) #

Mick: How is it complete capitalistic hogwash? Keynesian economics states that government intervention is necessary in order to have truly competitive markets. Keynesian economics is a form of capitalism. There is also a reason it has come to dominate economic processes in the last 50 years over classical economics.

 We certainly, do not, have truly competitive markets in baseball (nor in society.. anyways). It's like the little mom and pop convenience store (the Royals) versus Walmart (the Yankees)... Bud just doesn't have a clue how to manage this. The luxary tax certainly isn't cutting it. Baseball needs some commissioner intervention in order to allow for some truly competitive markets.

 

 

Ron - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:25 PM EDT (#152279) #
I'm truly a basket case because I'm a Jays, Red Sox, and Yanks fan. Yes that wasn't a typo. My 3 favorite baseball teams play in the same division.

And because of this I always have to hear about how the Yanks (and to a lesser degree the Red Sox) are ruining baseball by having high payrolls.

How about these 2 magical solutions:

- If owners want to improve their teams than hire a smart GM. The A's and Twins continue to win year after year with low payrolls because their GM's clearly know what they're doing.

- You usually have to spend money to make money. Open up the wallet baby!

I'm sick and tired of baseball fans complaining about how poor the economic system in MLB is. There's a huge difference between NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO SIGN PLAYERS and NOT WILLING TO PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT TO SIGN PLAYERS.

For example, I know fans love to bitch about how certain teams like the Angels and Yanks dip into the international market to obtain talent. Guess what, all those players are free agents. Every single team has the chance to obtain these players. It just turns out the Yanks are usually willing to pay the most to obtain their services.

Deep down inside, every single fan wishes the owner of their favorite sport teams was like Big Georgie. He could easily just pocket the profits but instead he chooses to re-invest most of it back into his ball club.



Mike Green - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:25 PM EDT (#152280) #
Of course, there were once three New York teams- the Dodgers, the Giants and the Yankees.  All three were plenty successful, and the Yankees did still spend money like sailors.  With the increased size of New York, you'd probably need 4 teams in the area there to make a dent- 2 in the AL, 2 in the NL.  The Westchester Ponies.  The New Jersey Dirt Devils. I don't know.
Dave Till - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:34 PM EDT (#152282) #
This is really well-reasoned and well-thought-out and well-written and all that stuff. It's a good idea. It's also, from a capitalistic viewpoint, complete hogwash.

Baseball isn't a purely capitalistic endeavour - it's a carefully hand-picked monopoly. If baseball were truly capitalistic, there'd be a whole bunch of "major leagues", featuring possibly as many as dozens of teams in New York - some of them run by people with less than stable financial footing. (You could picture, say, Donald Trump trying to invest a billion dollars in the New York Trumps, only to have his entire empire collapse under him.)

The Yankees bid more to get Abreu and Lidle than anyone else, unless you believe the Phillies got a higher bid from someone and sold them to the Yankees anyways

You're assuming that Pat Gillick called the GMs of all 30 teams. Which he might not have done. Anyway, you can't have mid-season free agents in my model unless you have some way of keeping one or more teams from just buying up everybody.

There's a much, much, MUCH simpler solution. Put a second AL team in New York.

This would only work if this actually divides up the New York baseball market equally. There aren't many fans that would desert the Yankees to go root for the New Guys. (The Mets were mostly supported by abandoned Giants and Dodgers fans, I'm assuming - plus people who liked rooting for a bad team because it was kind of fun.)

I don't know much about soccer, but aren't Man U basically the Yankees of the World's Most Popular Sport?

Actually, right now it's Chelsea: they were purchased a few years back by a rich billionaire, who is busily buying the world's top players.

In most soccer leagues, one or two top teams win all the time, as all the money and players flow to them. This is starting to become a problem, as I understand it.


Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#152284) #
" It's like the little mom and pop convenience store (the Royals) versus Walmart (the Yankees)"

It's absolutely nothing like that.  Nothing.  Unless you mean that the Royals are Walmart.  Which they are, in a way, since they're owned by the President and Chief Executive Officer of WalMart.

At worst, it's Wendy's vs. Burger King vs. McDonalds.

One of the biggest and most powerful companies in Canada owns the Jays.  This isn't your local corner store.

"You're assuming that Pat Gillick called the GMs of all 30 teams."

Why wouldn't he?  Is he mad at Jim Bowden?  Is he not talking to Kevin Towers because Kev made fun of his tie?

Why would you assume that Pat isn't trying to get the best deal for his organization?  Do you really think that little of  Pat Gillick?

"This would only work if this actually divides up the New York baseball market equally. "

Not at all.  The White Sox certainly don't have half of the Chicago market (or the Midwest market), but it hasn't exactly hurt them.

I'm not going to begin to suggest that baseball doesn't have problems and can't be improved.   But this is a little much.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#152285) #
make that the former President and Chief yadda yadda yadda
Mike D - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#152286) #

How about another solution -- AL de-alignment?  Play a balanced schedule and qualify the top 4 teams from a divisionless American League.  Boston and New York aren't likely to stop being baseball-mad financial hubs, so why punish the Jays, Rays and O's for their Eastern-ness?  No salary cap or Westchester relocation necessary.

The LCS isn't East vs. West anymore anyway, in case that ever meant something.  If the Jays were simply competing for the 4th spot in the AL overall, we'd all be a lot more optimistic right now.

They say "you can't sell tickets to see a 12th-place team," but being a 4th- or 5th-place team in the AL East sure isn't alluring these days.

 

jjdynomite - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 05:57 PM EDT (#152287) #

Ron said: "The A's and Twins continue to win year after year with low payrolls because their GM's clearly know what they're doing."

My response is, put them in the AL East and see how well they stack up.  And anyway, when was the last time the Twins and As made it to the World Series, let along won it?  Yup, when payroll disparity was a lot less.

As I posited in the poll post, at no other time in MLB history have the Yanks (or any other time, i.e. the Jays of 92-93) been so far above the rest of the teams in payroll differential.  No other team is within 60% of their payroll.  As I also conceded, in a short series a hot team (Marlins in 2003) can beat the Yankees, but that won't cut it in the regular season.  And we saw what happened to the Marlins afterwards.

If we wanted *true* free market capitalism, there would be no such things as guaranteed contracts and players from Josh Towers to Carl Pavano would have been dumped for a bag of balls.  But the NFL had to break their union for that to happen.  Fat chance Selig goes that route.  I wonder how Brewers fans feel, their owner presides over a league that allows their team to dump an all-star who refuses to sign a 4-year $51 million contract -- while their team was only 4.5 games back of the Wild Card.  Godfrey better work the room hard this winter to push for changes to the CBA, or the Jays will have Carlos Lee Part Deux on their hands next summer with their own all-star outfielder.  It's really a shame.

Ron - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 06:09 PM EDT (#152288) #
- Bud Selig doesn't own the Brewers anymore.

- I would love to see how Billy Beane or Terry Ryan work their magic in the AL East

- Having a bigger payroll by a wide margin than any other team doesn't mean success. The Yanks haven't won the World Series in 5 years despite having a huge edge in payroll. They've also been knocked out in the first round numerous times.

- The Jays have no right to complain about the current economic system. Especially after they went on a massive shopping spree last off-season. It was funny reading all the other negative comments from fans of other teams bashing the Jays for going crazy last year. I also noticed Jays fans, even one's on this site, who were very critical and concerned about the economic structure when the Jays payroll was around 50 million, didn't complain when the Jays opened up their wallet. I guess spending is only okay if it benefits your team in the eyes of some people.

smcs - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 06:13 PM EDT (#152289) #
...like disallowing trades where the financial disparity is greater than, say, $8 million...

I don't think that this is the best way possible because a $10 million player can be traded for a $2 million player.  I think that the best way to do is to say that there can be no more than a 20% difference in the salaries of the players traded.  This means that a $10 million can only be traded for a player making $8-12 million.
jjdynomite - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 06:24 PM EDT (#152290) #

You're right, Ron, Bud doesn't own the Brewers anymore.  I guess the conflict of interest was just too overwhelming to ignore after a while.

While the Jays have "no right to complain", their expanded payroll of this year, as well as that of the Orioles, is less than 37% of that of the Yankees.  And the problem isn't facing the Yankees in the playoffs, it's getting *to* the playoffs past the Yankees that's the core issue here.  Minny and Oakland have never had to deal with that burden.

Paul D - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 08:16 PM EDT (#152292) #
How about disallowing no-trade clauses?  That's one important reason Abreu went to the Yankees, since they were one of only 3 teams he'd agree to be traded to.

Or, how about that sum of the number of times a team is mentioned in a no-trade clause can't be two more than anyone else.

ie, Zito decides he doesn't want to play in Toronto or NY, so the Jays, Mets and Yankees all get one point.  Everyone else is at zero.

Lilly decides he doesn't want to pitch in California or for the Mets.  So the California teams get one point, Mets get two.

Since the Mets are now at two points above some of their competitors, no one else can name them in a no trade clause until all teams have at least one point.

Bah, that's probably silly and unworkable, but I'm trying to think of some way to mitigate the no trade problem.

js_magloire - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:28 PM EDT (#152295) #
smcs nailed the head on the donkey. In the NBA, you are only allowed to make trades if the total payroll is equivalent. Now, I do really hate this rule in the NBA, but it would prevent salary dumps. And also, baseball is a different game. The baseball draft is hundreds of players, the basketball draft is 60. Minor league talent is often traded for well paid guys in FAIR deals, and there would be no way to measure that.

Also, part of the reason the Jays spent so much money is because they had to pay max dollars to get them from the Yankees. The Yankees offered BJ Ryan 8-9 million just to have him in their bullpen, along with other closer studs like Farnsworth. So we paid 9 million...and players could even use the Yankees as a way to drive up negotiations. As well, the yankees are willing to spend money on every single position. If a player already doesn't want to go the National League, or live out in California on the West coast because they love that lifestyle, then they would be willing to come to the Blue Jays AND the yankees. As well, the Jays made a free agent splash that actually quite hurt them in terms of budgetary issues. See the Funny Money article, I guaranttee you that the Jays will be struggling to keep within budget during all those contracts. Hopefully Uncle Ted opens up the wallet more, but probably once he gets to 100mil, he'd be losing serious money instead of breaking even.

AWeb - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#152296) #
It's discussions like these that show why football, far and away, has the most fan-friendly situation. Teams have a hard cap, they revenue share extensively amoungst themselves, almost every team can spend the max in salary, and players can be cut lose at anytime, contract be damned. Playoffs berths are up for grabs each year (although a lot of that is due to the scheduling...successful teams get harder schedules the next year).  How did the NFL do it? They didn't just break the players union, but the league office broke the rich owners as well.

So many of baseball's problems could be mitigated by a strong, independent commissioner. If a trade looks ridiculous and is clearly unfair, veto it. As I understand it, Selig could do this now, but he just won't. An owner doesn't like a new team in his backyard...too bad, commish gets last say. And maybe teams should have to live with their bad signings, and players too. If you give someone too much money, then tough...a lot of teams sign these massive contracts for players with the knowledge that a rich team might bail them out later.  The NBA has trade rules that make balancing money an absolute requirement, so it's not like requiring that would be unheard of.  The commish could also serve as a rallying point for the majority of owners who want the top spending teams reigned in. From what I have heard, the next round of bargaining talks for baseball might come down to big market owner vs every other owner.

John Northey - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:29 PM EDT (#152297) #
I always find it funny when people go nuts about payroll and the like.  I wonder if these same people cheer on the Leafs, who were right up there in payroll in hockey before the cap came in, not that it helped them much.

To me a 100% free market is what I'd love to see.  The only limit being your 25 man roster.  Yes, not a 40 man, just the 25 on your current roster.  No draft, no arbitration, just everyone being a free agent from the time they legally can sign a contract (18) up until they retire.  If the Yankees want to sign an 18 year old they have to keep him on the roster or he is free to sign elsewhere.  Players not on the 25 man roster of any major league team are free to sign with any minor league team they wish to.   This would lead to teams being unable to claim they are investing in their farm system when they are really pocketing profits.  Also, players would be signed out of the minors each winter (or traded for) by MLB teams then given longer term contracts.  Thus your favorites would stay for a long time as teams would sign them for 5-10 year deals a lot more often if they really wanted to keep them. 

A very different MLB and one I'd love to see.

js_magloire - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT (#152298) #
John Northey, the thing is that the Yankees have so much leverage aside from their pocketbooks. They are a winning team today and everyone wants to win, and they have been historically a winning team. So....everyone loves them and so so so many more people would dream of playing for them then many other teams. Plus, its hard enough as it is for Toronto to get players to come to our city even though its a great great city.
Leigh - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:41 PM EDT (#152299) #
It's also, from a capitalistic viewpoint, complete hogwash.

Damn right.  That is what makes it so good.
MatO - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:42 PM EDT (#152300) #
De-allignment and expanded playoffs is your answer.  The Yanks will have less incentive to spend since they're guaranteed to make the playoffs.  You think expanded playoffs is unfair after an 162 game season?  Is one team spending more than double every other team except one fair?
CaramonLS - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:47 PM EDT (#152301) #
" It's like the little mom and pop convenience store (the Royals) versus Walmart (the Yankees)"

It's absolutely nothing like that.  Nothing.  Unless you mean that the Royals are Walmart.  Which they are, in a way, since they're owned by the President and Chief Executive Officer of WalMart.

At worst, it's Wendy's vs. Burger King vs. McDonalds.

One of the biggest and most powerful companies in Canada owns the Jays.  This isn't your local corner store.

Is this some sort of joke Pepper?  It is absolutely nothing like that.

It doesn't matter who owns the Jays or the Royals, since their market simply cannot support a payroll even close to the Yankees.  Ted Rogers could have a 200 million dollar payroll, keeping the Jays competitive with the likes of Boston and NY, but he would be losing a ton of cash in order to do that.

I don't even know how to argue with this, because it is so out there it is insane.  Markets are simply not equal, and the Jays can not keep up with the Yankees spending.
actionjackson - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:49 PM EDT (#152302) #

The Blue Jays do have to get smarter, but the payroll structure sucks too. I really would love to see the Twins and A's face the Yanks and Red Sox 19 times a year. I'm pretty sure neither of them would make the playoffs. This is the perfect time to raise the argument for a balanced schedule. The problem is the double whammy of unbalanced payrolls and an unbalanced schedule. Let's have one or the other. Of course, that would mean we'd have to face the crummy teams more often, and we have trouble beating them anyway. If you're not going to balance out the payrolls, balance the schedule.

In order to get smarter I hope the Jays start putting more money into drafting and international scouting. Now that they've filled the system with guys who are supposed to come quickly, I hope they'll start taking some of the higher ceiling guys like Snider. I know less of them eventually make it, and I know they're more difficult to predict, but when they click, they're something else.

Dave Till - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:13 PM EDT (#152303) #
How about another solution -- AL de-alignment?  Play a balanced schedule and qualify the top 4 teams from a divisionless American League.

That would work! Unfortunately, all but three of the teams in the AL would be opposed to it, so it'll never happen. Selig doesn't really care about the Rays or the Jays, and everybody hates Angelos.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 10:48 PM EDT (#152304) #
"Is this some sort of joke Pepper?  It is absolutely nothing like that."

Why isn't it?  Look at the figures.

SITUATION ONE:
Revenue of WalMart = $315,654,000,000
Revenue of Corner Store = $500,000?
RATIO: 631308:1

SITUATION TWO:
Revenue of McDonalds = $20,460,000,000
Revenue of Burger King = $ 1,940,000,000
RATIO: 10.5:1

SITUATION THREE:
Revenue of Yankees = $264,000,000
Revenue of Royals = $117,000,000
RATIO: 2.25:1

The idea that the Yankees are some giant corporation and the Royals are some mom-and-pop operation is so completely and utterly insane, it must be the product of higher education.  I can't believe people buy into this stuff.

"Ted Rogers could have a 200 million dollar payroll, keeping the Jays competitive with the likes of Boston and NY, but he would be losing a ton of cash in order to do that."

George Steinbrenner *is* losing a ton of cash to do that.  $37.1 million in cash, in fact, according to the latest Forbes estimates.  If Steinbrenner can do it, Uncle Ted can.

Not that it's good business sense, mind you, but some owners are doing it.

If you consider the fact the Jays have possibly the biggest potential television market in baseball (all of Canada, now the Expos are gone), they could easily compete with the Yankees on revenue, if they could figure out a way to market themselves. 

The Yankees natural TV market is about 31.5 million people, which includes the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont.  They have to split that with the Mets, plus they'll have to split some of Vermont and Connecticut with the Red Sox, and the lower half of New Jersey with the Phillies.

The Jays have all of Canada, except some of lower B.C., which is naturally Seattle territory, some of the Atlantic, which would gravitate more towards the Red Sox, and the Windsor area, which should be Tigers territory.  The rest is all theirs, unlike the case of the Yankees.

But hey, Al Dunlop always argued that it's easier to play "let's screw the union and trample organized labour!" than to actually try to grow market share.  And we all know how well that worked out for him.
Jim - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:16 PM EDT (#152307) #

Why wouldn't he?

I can reasonably guess that when Pat Gillick wants to trade a player who makes as much money as Abreu does he does not bother calling every team in the league.  He only calls teams that could realistically pick up the salary.

Jefftown - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:29 PM EDT (#152310) #

George Steinbrenner *is* losing a ton of cash to do that.  $37.1 million in cash, in fact, according to the latest Forbes estimates.

Steinbrenner's the only owner who can spend $199 million in payroll and *only* lose $37.1 million.

For an example, look at the two 2001 World Series teams in this 2001 revenues and expenses chart.  Arizona paid $99.4 million for the players that won them the WS, but they lost $44.3 million for the year (when all other revenues and expenses - including revenue sharing and interest - had been factored in).  The Yankees spent $117.9 million on payroll, and at the end of the day made an $8.2 million profit (even after revenue sharing cost them $26.5 million).  This was partly due to a total operating revenue of $242.2 million, approximately $40 million more than the next highest team (Seattle, in the first year of Ichiro).

The size of the Yankees' market clearly and simply gives them an unfair advantage over other teams.  It's false to think smaller-market teams can build equally-sized markets simply by more marketing cunning.  Revenue sharing and a luxury tax helps, but it is certainly not enough.

CaramonLS - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:35 PM EDT (#152312) #
SITUATION THREE:
Revenue of Yankees = $264,000,000
Revenue of Royals = $117,000,000
RATIO: 2.25:1

The idea that the Yankees are some giant corporation and the Royals are some mom-and-pop operation is so completely and utterly insane, it must be the product of higher education.  I can't believe people buy into this stuff.

Must be, however your stats are slightly skewed as you haven't taken into account sunk costs of the business.  I'm not sure exactly what the average MLB franchise has for sunk cost, but the way you are at least making it seem is that revenue = payroll. 

Compared to the Yankees it IS like walking into a mom and pop store and comparing their selection to a Walmart.  Walmart is bigger, has more products, has more buying power, etc etc.  You walk into a McDonalds/BK and when you boil down the choices, it is a level playing field, both have the pretty much the same type of menu, it all comes down to personal tates.

George Steinbrenner *is* losing a ton of cash to do that.  $37.1 million in cash, in fact, according to the latest Forbes estimates.  If Steinbrenner can do it, Uncle Ted can.

Not that it's good business sense, mind you, but some owners are doing it.

Should owners have to do that for the sake of competing?  Because that is going to be what it takes to get the Jays over the hump apparently. 

If you consider the fact the Jays have possibly the biggest potential television market in baseball (all of Canada, now the Expos are gone), they could easily compete with the Yankees on revenue, if they could figure out a way to market themselves. 

Yeah, the Jays do have a large "potential" television market, but Baseball isn't considered one of Canada's past times either, and isn't ingrained into the culture like it is in the US.

But hey, Al Dunlop always argued that it's easier to play "let's screw the union and trample organized labour!" than to actually try to grow market share.  And we all know how well that worked out for him.

If you've got a plan to do that, you should call up the NHL.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:37 PM EDT (#152314) #
"  It's false to think smaller-market teams can build equally-sized markets simply by more marketing cunning."

Yeah, Kansas City isn't ever going to have the market size that the Yankees have.

But Toronto could easily have a larger market than the Yankees have.  Heck, they did just 12 years ago, and they were still splitting a lot of it with the Expos!

For instance, the Mariners, in their natural market, receive about $11.50 a head in revenue per year in television and radio revenue.  If the Jays did that, they'd be the highest revenue team in baseball, because their market is so large.

Again, I don't think everything is perfect in baseball.  Given the love of the sport in the Northeast, I think a 3rd team in New York makes a whole lot of sense, and would solve, or at least greatly reduce, these issues.  I don't think you need to resort to playing "screw the union", which is what management has been trying to achieve for the last decade with the salary cap talk.

Magpie - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:41 PM EDT (#152315) #
Another way to even the playing field - make teams share their their local TV money. Obviously, the home team should get the largest piece of the pie. But they're not playing intrasquad games. They do need someone to play.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:50 PM EDT (#152316) #
"Must be, however your stats are slightly skewed as you haven't taken into account sunk costs of the business.  I'm not sure exactly what the average MLB franchise has for sunk cost, but the way you are at least making it seem is that revenue = payroll. "

They're not skewed at all.  The stats are what they are.

I'm not saying that revenue = payroll at all.  Teams choose to spend what they spend.  Some choose to pocket the money.  Some invest wisely and market the sport well and succeed in a small market (the Cardinals), and some go insane and lose money hand over fist every year in order to win.  But at the end of the day, it's a choice that's being made by these teams.

"Compared to the Yankees it IS like walking into a mom and pop store and comparing their selection to a Walmart."

No, it's not.  It's not nearly on the same scale.  There's several orders of magnitude of difference.  The Yankees and say, St. Thomas of the Intercounty League may have that relationship, but not the Royals and the Yankees.   Compare it by revenue, or by payroll, number of customers, merchandise purchases, what have you.  It doesn't have the scale you suggest at all.  It's a silly comparison.

" You walk into a McDonalds/BK and when you boil down the choices, it is a level playing field, both have the pretty much the same type of menu, it all comes down to personal tates."

Then why is McDonalds 11 times bigger than Burger King?  Is it because their food is 11 times better?

"Yeah, the Jays do have a large "potential" television market, but Baseball isn't considered one of Canada's past times either, and isn't ingrained into the culture like it is in the US."

But Yankee fandom wasn't always like this either, particularly before Steinbrenner bought them.  In the early 1970s, their  attendance was above average for the AL, but only marginally so.

The Yankees generate so much revenue, in part because they have such a large potential market, like the Jays.  But it's not just "potential" - Steinbrenner did a heck of a job resurrecting a dying brand.
CaramonLS - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:51 PM EDT (#152317) #
Again, I don't think everything is perfect in baseball.  Given the love of the sport in the Northeast, I think a 3rd team in New York makes a whole lot of sense, and would solve, or at least greatly reduce, these issues.  I don't think you need to resort to playing "screw the union", which is what management has been trying to achieve for the last decade with the salary cap talk.

I disagree that Salary caps = screw the Union.

What is better for baseball? Parity and 30 healthy markets, including teams like the Pirates and the Rays actually having a chance to make the playoffs?  Or this system with a big lack of competitive balance.

You said it yourself, there are many markets with "potential", the best way (and the only way in most cases) to tap that potential is to put a winning product on the field, and the best way to ensure parity is a salary cap with revenue sharing, along with various things like a Salary floor, fixed draft pick bonuses, etc etc.

I think Hockey did a great thing, not only for the owners - but if the game grows, the players will reap the benefits as well.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 11:57 PM EDT (#152318) #
"I disagree that Salary caps = screw the Union."

It is the way baseball has gone about it.  In the 1990s, baseball players typically received 64% of revenue.  The rest went to things like "sunk costs" as you mentioned, scouting, and profit.

Whenever baseball suggested a salary cap or some other form of profit-sharing arrangement, they'd only guarantee the players a 58% share of profits.

If a salary cap was truly about growing the sport, then shouldn't the owners be willing to offer an even higher percentage, since they'd make it up in added revenue?  But that never happened.  Ever.

The desire for a salary cap is for one purpose and one purpose only - to drive down player salaries.

Baseball could accomplish as much or as little equality as they want by some form of strong revenue sharing, like pooling of TV moneys.  They wouldn't have a union fight at all.  But then they'd have to fight with each other, and couldn't play the victim card.
Geoff - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:08 AM EDT (#152319) #
The only thing I could see happening is increasing the luxury tax hit and revenue sharing model to dig George for more.

What was his loss last year? $110 million?

The ensuing complaints are that the shared money isn't even spent rather than pocketed, but I couldn't imagine what the Yankees payroll could be without these penalties.
Jefftown - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:45 AM EDT (#152321) #

Toronto could easily have a larger market than the Yankees have.

I wouldn't say "easily."  Sure, any team *could* have a larger market than the Yankees, in the same way that it is not logically impossible to do so, but for all practical purposes, many teams could not.

As I see it, the Yankees' market edge comes from two primary factors:

1.  The demographics of New York - its large population along with a relatively higher proportion of baseball fans (given the history of baseball there, starting with New York's role as the cradle of baseball in the mid 1800s).

2.  The build-up, over a long period of time, of fandom for the Yankees through their "dynasties," starting in the 1920s with the overwhelming popularity of Babe Ruth.

These two factors have obviously not been available to the Blue Jays to the same extent.  They have had only 30 years to build up fan support (for a major league club, that is), Toronto is not as populous as New York (nor Ontario as New York state), and, as an earlier poster noted, baseball is not as enmeshed in the Canadian cultural fabric as it is here.

So it's not as if the Jays' marketing gurus can just tug at millions more Canadians' sleeves and prod them to become Jays' fans.  It's more of an uphill battle.  Getting Chuck D. Canadian from Saskatchewan to spend money on the Jays (after a family history of hockey fandom) is harder than getting Joe C. Bronx-Resident to spend money on the Yankees, especially since his father liked the Yankees, and his father before him, and so forth.

So it comes down to the Jays (or many other teams) having to compete with teams (like the Red Sox and Yankees) who were able to build up their already-large markets through time, and thus gain more revenue capacity, and thus become more able to spend more money *today* with less pecuniary impunity, and thus put themselves in a better position to win the AL East or Wild Card, to the frustration of all of us Jays fans.

markham_jay - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 04:15 AM EDT (#152322) #
If you consider the fact the Jays have possibly the biggest potential television market in baseball (all of Canada, now the Expos are gone), they could easily compete with the Yankees on revenue, if they could figure out a way to market themselves. The Jays have all of Canada, except some of lower B.C., which is naturally Seattle territory, some of the Atlantic, which would gravitate more towards the Red Sox, and the Windsor area, which should be Tigers territory.  The rest is all theirs, unlike the case of the Yankees.

The Jays might have a potentially bigger market but those 32.5 million fans are spread out all over this big country of ours, whereas the Yankees have much of their fan base in a relatively small area. This might not affect the television market so much but it sure makes it easier to go to a Yankees game if you're in the natural tv market.

George Steinbrenner *is* losing a ton of cash to do that.  $37.1 million in cash, in fact, according to the latest Forbes estimates.  If Steinbrenner can do it, Uncle Ted can.

I thought that money was lost due to revenue sharing ($63 mill in '05) and the luxury tax (for their overpayed free agent signings) - not say, mediocre attendance and merchandise sales.  Here's an interesting article   about how some owners can have their teams showing red in the books while making money on the side.

Someone also mentioned that baseball just doesn't have the same following in Canada as it does in the States. I have to agree with this person. During the 2004 WS, I was in a bar in Guelph for the final game of the Bosox and NY series and everyone was watching hockey except for myself and this one other guy who claimed to be a lifelong Redsox fan.  I can honestly say that it is not often that I meet people who like baseball or would even consider going to a Jays game. Despite these people's lack of interest in sports they'll gut out an NHL game because that's the thing to do in Canada, but a baseball game? Fat chance.

I've only started watching baseball around 1997 (and it took a few more years before I was fully addicted) so I have no firsthand recollections of what the place was like in the 80's and early 90's. Should I assume Canadians were genuinely interested in watching baseball or were they just enamored with a winning team playing in a state of the art stadium that had a big TV?

With my naive view of Blue Jays history in mind , let me say that everyone's seen the increase in Jays attendance and interest this year, but has anyone noticed how dumb a lot of the new fans are? They'd just as soon jump off the bandwagon as fast as they jumped on. Once the novely of watching Glaus, Ryan, and Burnett wears off and the Leafs and Raptors are back to vying in vain for that 8th and final playoff spot I expect attendance figures to drop from this year's numbers ... unless of course our pitching makes a miraculous return from the abyss to vanquish our two eastern cousins atop the standings and set things right again.
timpinder - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 05:12 AM EDT (#152323) #

I like the idea of going back to a more balanced schedule.  It's tough to go head-to-head with New York and Boston 19 times each, Oakland and Anaheim 10-12 times each, and expect to win the wildcard when Chicago and Minnesota get to feast on Kansas City 19 times each. 

I think there are a lot of changes that have to be made.  For instance, how would you like to be in the NL West?  Teams in the NL West have a 1 / 6 chance of making the playoffs and in the AL West it's 1 / 4.  The first move Selig should make is to transfer one of the NL West teams to the AL West.

As for a salary cap, my only fear would be that  it might keep some of the top talent from coming to North America.  Would Suzuki, Matsui, et al., still be playing in the majors if they were going to be making similar money at home in Japan?  Perhaps not.

Jim - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:03 AM EDT (#152325) #
The demographics of New York

The income levels in Manhattan, Northern NJ, Westchester, and Fairfield County are also immense. 

There will never be a second AL team in NY, but Connecticut and Northern New Jersey could easily support a second and third AL team. 
Leigh - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:21 AM EDT (#152326) #
Baseball is more important than other businesses that are fit for your crude calculus, Moffatt.  Baseball is an essential public trust.  Walmart doesn't owe the people anything, so when it creates poverty, dictates unfair conditions for its suppliers, ruins communities, erodes labour standards and kills small business, those things are okay (according to capitalists) because the actions (though not the consequences!) are carried out privately.  You know, freedom of contract and all that horseshit.

Baseball, however, is a more public endeavour.  The enjoyment level of a baseball fan in Kansas City ought not to be indexed to the frugality of the Glass'.  A baseball fan is not a consumer.

Paul D - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#152327) #
<i>The first move Selig should make is to transfer one of the NL West teams to the AL West.</i>

The problem with this idea is that once you have an odd number of teams in each league, you need either one team per league off each day, or interleague play each day.
Craig B - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:21 AM EDT (#152328) #

A baseball fan is not a consumer.

We are to the bosses who run baseball, Leigh, which is why bellyaching about injustice accomplishes nothing if it isn't accompanied by consumer-based action.  Fans provide the resources (dollars) that keep baseball going as an enterprise; fans therefore have ultimate responsibility for the system that is put in place.  Yes, I acknowledge that there are MASSIVE collective action problems inherent in that.  But that's something we as fans must work on.

Mike is right; we aren't owed ANYTHING by the Bosses of Baseball other than what they contractually agree to give us.  Uttering red-faced demands for more is pissing into the wind.  We can claim that baseball is a public trust all we like, a statement that I happen to agree with, but without that public actually taking responsibility for it, we are left with the current situation.  Surely governments, weak and bumbling as they always are when they inject themselves into cultural enterprises, can't be expected to restrain baseball (except in extreme case like antitrust, where they should obviously be m,uch more active than they are).  Without the pressure of the state, and with labour in the industry complicit with the Bosses on the points that matter to the fans, we as public/fans are left with only one scope for action - consumer-based action.

There is nothing "wrong" about a system that massively rewards one or two teams at the expense of the others, if those teams have such a preponderance of fans that their success provides the greatest possible pleasure to the greatest possible number of teams.  That's not actually the case; that's why fans need to step up and start dictating terms.  Will it happen?  I don't know.  "Fan power" has begun to accomplish considerable things in England's football leagues - maybe we can do the same here, although the institutional obstacles are much greater...

zeppelinkm - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 09:23 AM EDT (#152329) #
Maybe the mom and pop versus Walmart wasn't the perfect comparison.. I was just trying to make a point though about the size of the market each commands. Mom and Pop might be in a big city, but hasn't realized the potential available to them. Walmart is established and has control over a massive part of their audience. The Jays haven't realized their audience yet. They lost a lot of it back in the mid-to-late 90's. A big reason I picked Walmart is because they are at the very top of the corporate ladder in terms of size, whereas a mom and pop (ok.. for the sake of agrument, a line of small mom and pop stores?) certainly wouldn't be, and you can see the difference this means for Walmart when it comes to growing/expanding (or the Yankees adding players) versus the smaller company. Walmart can grow faster, build bigger add-on's to their stores, can price more competitively, etc, because of their massive magnitude.

It's a vicious circle though: the Royals won't take the dive and lose a lot of money for a few years to improve their team and generate more fan interest, which would then start to fund the team better. Therefore they continue this small market approach with tiny payrolls, minimal fan interest, and smaller losses.  The Royals are simply my small market catch-all team to represent small market teams...

But overall Pepper I think you have made some very good points with regards to this... Your McDonalds versus BK is probably a better comparison... since you can point to McDonald's being so much bigger being the result of more aggressive and better management. (But certainly not because their food is 11 times better! I got a good laugh outta that) going back I would restructure my agrument a bit...

I do disagree with this point: The only point of the salary cap is to drive down player salaries. I thought the point was to provide a maximum payroll so that there can't as great a difference between the biggest spenders and the lowest spenders. It's designed to create parity, and ask any NHL fan, this season was really exciting down the stretch because of all the teams that were battling for spots. If you have a base of say 64% of revenues for the salary cap, that would only drive down player salaries A) if that % is smaller then what it currently is or B) revenues go down. But in fact, if the league is more competitive, it SHOULD generate more interest all around, which should infact allow revenues to increase on the whole.  It doesn't mean in order for the Yankees to keep A-Rod he's got to take a paycut to $10 mill a year, it simply means they can't afford to have an A-Rod, Giambi, Jeter, Johnson, Sheffield, etc, and one or two of those players would wind up on some other teams. Sure, as a result player salaries coudl go down because there wouldn't be as much room for intense bidding wars, but surely that is not the entire goal/point.

Anyways, I look forward to your response... this is the first I've really thought in any kind of detail about salaries and payroll structures, so I'm open to constructive feedback/criticism.





tr0mbone - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 10:51 AM EDT (#152340) #
Since players think they are kings, they think they deserve to be paid based on performance. That's true, and in fact, I agree. That's why I propose a fully arbitration based system with heavy incentives for performance. This way, the base salary for a player is predictable (within a range) and there is a maximum and minimum for a team. Each season, the players go through arbitration where they can get a raise based on past season performance, up to a cap based on service and previous salary. On top of this, each player gets a set of incentaves for performance to add to their salary.

Because the base salary is predictable, there is only a cap on each idividual raise and for a normal team, would sit around 40 million depending on the rates or raises and perforamnce of the team. Above this is a second cap to account for player incentives (and bonuses) This would be a hard limit of 100 million above the salary. (base salary of 44 million, incentives of 90 million makes team payroll = 134 million) Any team salary that breeches this limit would be refused and if not resolved before the start of the season, that team would be locked out of the season until the payroll is resolved. any games scheduled for that team would immediatly be counted as a loss.
In the event of a trade, the salarys for each side are summed and the difference is made up by the team paying less. For incentives, there are two options. Keep it the same as before, now all incentives are paid by the new team, or renegotiate incentives for the new team.

Now, here's the key. The total salary is paid out as it is now but the incentives are paid out on a monthly basis. Before you receive the cheque, you get a drug test. Failure, and you don't get paid, you don't pass go, and you definitly sit out for 50 games. If a player hits the DL, they get their salary of course but no incentives.

This system eliminates the 'unmanageable contract' that happens in overinflated markets and the 'Kerry Wood situation' when the team is saddled with a massive (bad) contract for no gain. Imagine if Kerry were signed to a 2 million contract with 14 million in incentives. If he deosn't play, it's a roster spot. Not a black hole of cash.

And then for Free Agency. Basically, since the base salary is calculated and then arbitrated, every team will have the same inital offer but different incentives. That way a player can choose where to go and what level of incentives he can get upon arrival.

This is a type of salary system that can allow a rookie to make more than a veteran if his incentives are done rightly but overrated players make what they should make. There are no Bobby Abreu contracts in this league... he would make his base salary and then go from there... allthough, in some teams, the high OBS and loads of walks would be greatly appreciated and well compensated.

That's how you make it equal I guess... eliminate the massive salary but still let greed and performance play a huge roll in what the players make.

Newton - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 11:51 AM EDT (#152348) #

2 compromise cap ideas that crossed my mind during the NHL lockout:

A)  Introduce a cap that only applies to players acquired through trade or via free agency.

The benefit of this system is that teams would have an incentive to identify and cultivate talent through their own systems as the salaries of such players wouldn't count against the cap.   Potential chilling effect on trades, potential inequity from players p.o.v. particularly those drafted by small market teams.     

B)  The Kyoto Style Cap

Each team gets x amount  of cap space (the same for every club) and that cap space is treated as a marketable commodity.   ie the Brewers trade the Yankees 10 mill in cap space for prospect x.    You could introduce a max cap in this context as well ie. no team can acquire more than x amount of cap space from an individual team in the course of a season and each team cannot exceed a total cap amount of x. 

This system was more fitting to the NHL dispute where the league was concerned about linking player salaries to a percentage of total league revenues.

NDG - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#152350) #
Since this is the How to Fix Baseball Economics 101 Forum.  Let me give my idea.

Firstly, I like the fact the Yankees are big and bad, and would hate to see a hard cap.  However I also agree that the Yanks right now just have so much of an advantage over every other team, that it is destroying the overall marketability of the game.

Secondly, I think too many of the fixes proposed require honesty and trust of/between players, owners and the commish.  This will not work.  This is also why the current system of revenue sharing will never work.  Too many paying teams circumvent the process, and they have every right too since too many of the collectors seem to just pocket the money.

Therefore I figure any type of system must have the following characteristics:
1) Must be simple to implement and police,
2) Must not remove too much of the advantage teams gain from marketing of themselves,
3) Must reward teams that develop their own talent.

I think to accomplish this, just two things are necessary,
1) 50% of local television money is put into a pot that is EVENLY distributed to all teams.  Ignore local ticket, parking and concession revenues, because it is just too difficult to determine this accurately.
2) A free agent tax is implement where a team that signs a free agent must give 10-20% of the total contract value signed to the team from which the free agent leaves.  Remove any other type of revenue sharing.

Now, players entering FA stiil have value and won't just be dumped to rich teams.  Teams that develop lots of young talent now have another revenue stream, which can be used to pay for current players.  Teams that are poorly run will still do poorly.

I think that since the money going to the small market teams will be obvious, it will be harder for them to just pocket the money.  Finding out now what teams net from revenue sharing is difficult and I think the Owners use that to their advantage to cry poor.

Also I don' t think (2) creates a drag on salaries.  It will obviously hurt the big spenders, however the total money available is still the same, just redistributed (this is also why I think the system needs to be transparent, as soon as money gets hidden, it will be lost).  I see this as squishing the curve which will again have a secondary effect that smaller market teams may be able to resign their superstars.

I could keep going, but you boys get the gist.

Mike Green - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 12:33 PM EDT (#152351) #
Interesting proposal, NDG.  Would you make the free agent tax flat or sliding (5% on the first $3 million/year, 10% on the second $3 million, 15% on the 3rd $3 million and 20% on amounts over $9 million/year might be one way)?
Paul D - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:00 PM EDT (#152355) #

B)  The Kyoto Style Cap

Each team gets x amount  of cap space (the same for every club) and that cap space is treated as a marketable commodity.   ie the Brewers trade the Yankees 10 mill in cap space for prospect x.    You could introduce a max cap in this context as well ie. no team can acquire more than x amount of cap space from an individual team in the course of a season and each team cannot exceed a total cap amount of x.

I love this idea. THe NBA has a bit of this, with trace exemptions that can be traded, but I think you'd get a whole different dynamic by having this in a league without a hard cap. 

Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, August 03 2006 @ 01:20 PM EDT (#152356) #
"If you have a base of say 64% of revenues for the salary cap, that would only drive down player salaries A) if that % is smaller then what it currently is or B) revenues go down."

Right.  But every single argument put forward in the past by management hasn't been anything close to this.  It always had the obvious effect of driving down salaries.  Players might be millionaires, but they're the product.  They're what the fans pay to see.  All the owners do is sit on a government enforced monopoly and get massive corporate welfare from governments.  So I have little sympathy for their "plight".

I also don't buy the idea that small markets can't win.  What's so different between Pittsburgh and St. Louis?  Both incredibly small markets, both play in the same division.  The Pirates have the best new stadium in baseball.  But one can compete, and the other can't?  Makes no sense.

None of them have been given at all in good faith - they've had one purpose and one purpose only - to break the union and impose their will.  There's no way a salary cap goes in without the union being demolished.  I don't see that as being a positive thing, and the last time baseball tried that, they managed to kill the Expos.

If management presented something that was reasonable and in good faith to improve competitive balance, that would be something different entirely.  But that's never happened.

For one, you'd also need an independent third party to determine what each team's full revenue is.  You couldn't have the teams do it, because the revenues they'd end up presenting would be so low as to be ridiculous.  It'd be like Hollywood, where no movie ever turns a profit.. ever.  But I can't see management allowing their books to be that open.
This has gone on far too long! | 72 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.