What Would You Change About MLB's Financial Structure?
by Slyde on Nov 5, 2009 1:32 PM EST
in Off-season
Email
PrintNow that the Yankees have "bought" their way to another championship, I'm seeing some of the traditional hand-wringing and complaining about how to deal with the financial imbalance in the game (mainly on Twitter, America's source for truth!). I'll admit that it's hard to be a fan of a "small market" team and have to watch the big spending teams in the playoffs every year. Oh sure, the baseball gods throw us a bone or two every year with Minnesota or Tampa Bay or Oakland, but there is typically a big market flavor to the playoffs every year.
But I'm not here to whine about that. I understand why it happens, and I also understand that it is not impossible to overcome it, if you are smart. However, lower revenue teams are at a definite disadvantage, if only because they have less of an ability to absorb mistakes. Even though the Yankees signed players like Carl Pavano and Jason Giambi to large contracts that didn't really pan out, they still averaged 97 wins a season from 2001-2008 and made the playoffs in 7 of the 8 seasons. The Reds signed Eric Milton to a similar contract as Pavano and that set the organization back 3 years, at least. My point is that, despite the fact that intelligence can top money in some cases, money still gives some teams a perhaps unfair advantage.
So, what can be done about it?
I'm not a big fan of a hard salary cap because I think the ultimate result of that is that it allows owners to simply pocket more cash. Plus, I still think you'll have owners who spend the minimum amount and take home the maximum amount of profit. I do however think there needs to be a way to encourage players to "spread the wealth" of talent around the league. Unfortunately, I haven't heard an idea for that that sticks with me yet.
Here are some other ideas though that I think might help out the little guys:
1. International Draft - Force all players that want to enter the league to enter through the same process, regardless of where they were born. This would prevent the best international players from going simply to the highest bidder and would also help teams work their way into the overseas markets like Japan.
2. Division realignment - I think teams could become more interesting to free agents who are looking for a shot at the playoffs if the decks weren't so stacked against them. I'm not sure of the exact way that realignment would best work, but if it is based off of market size or done in an EPL type fashion, it could give smaller teams a better shot at overcoming their larger opponents to get to the playoffs.
3. Hard slotting for draft picks - I believe the NBA has a fairly strict range for what a draft pick can make based on where they are drafted. This won't completely take away signability issues, but it will make it easier for teams to know what they are getting into when they find out their draft slot and hopefully allow them to take the best player available instead of the best player they can afford.
4. Rework the luxury tax - I think only 4 teams pay the luxury tax each year, and honestly it doesn't seem to be a deterrent to any of them. On the other end of the spectrum, there are teams that are keep their luxury tax income strictly for profit. Force teams to invest that money back into their organizations or they have to forfeit it. And if they could find a way to discourage the rich from spending so damn much on their teams, that would be nice too. :)
These aren't all great ideas, and I'm not sure any of them are realistic (outside of #1). If you have any ideas that might work better, I'd love to hear them.
130 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
All great ideas I think
I’m admitedly ignorant of much of the business end of MLB, but it seems like they should also consider more robust profit sharing of media revenue that acknowledges teams with access to big media markets still have to have team to play in order to broadcast games. Maybe a formula based on ratings for a series, though I expect that would end of sending money back in forth between Boston and New York.
Also, maybe something similar to what I believe both the NFL and MLS do in different forms – allowing teams to designate franchise player(s) and partly financing their contracts out of a common stock of money – with bonus points for players from within the team’s farm system. The goal being to reward player development and talent evaluation financially and allow small-market teams to hang on to at least one player not to be poached in free agency.
And stick a baseball team in Brooklyn again.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 1:53 PM EST reply actions
I think
the shared media revenue is a big reason the NFL has done so well in achieving parity.
But baseball is different. I was thinking about this yesterday, when Brendan took time out from his busy day to make fun of me for being a Cowboys and Yankees fan. I’ve been a Cowboys fan since I was a toddler, even though I’ve never lived in Dallas. They’re on national TV enough that you can be a fan no matter where you live. Even if an NFL team is not very good, you can watch them in sports bars every weekend. Football games are enough of an “event” that fans are able and willing to do that.
Baseball, though…there are games almost every day during the season. You can’t go to a sports bar for every one.
I did not start watching baseball until I was in college. In NY. That basically gave me the choice of the Yanks or the Mets. I actually liked the Mets better at first, but the Yanks had much better TV coverage, so eventually, I gravitated to them. It was seeing them every day, same time, same station, that made me a fan. For that, it pretty much has to be a local team.
Perhaps the Internets will be the key to parity. But if so, they gotta fix MLB.TV. Between the stupid blackout rules, the nonexistent customer service, and incompetent/larcenous billing, I’m avoiding it like the plague, and I suspect others are, too.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
I think that's right
All the clubs do share media revenue from the Internet, but until they remove the blackout restrictions for MLBtv, it will never compete with the cable channels and thus revenue sharing of media is impossible
Internet revenues belong to MLBAM
(MLB Advanced Media). It’s a subsidiary of MLB, but it’s a stand alone entity that MLB considered taking public at some point. I believe you’re right about the revenues in that they’re split evenly.
Between the MLB channel and MLBtv, local cable contracts could be obselete some day. If all broadast revenues were central rather than local, they could be divided equally which would greatly help even the playing field.
by ken on Nov 5, 2009 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
The major difference between MLB and the NFL
is in the media contracts.
I think I read somewhere that 90% of the revenue stream of an NFL club comes from national media contracts and it is exactly the opposite in MLB, where local media contracts make up the primary revenue generator.
So it is far easier to collectivize the national media contracts than the local ones, which is why you haven’t seen MLB come tromping into the side network deals that the Yankees, Mets, Indians, et al have created for themselves. If they did somehow manage to do that, that would break the money cycle.
"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball" - Pete Rose
by Officer Dibble on Nov 9, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions
The Brooklyn idea
is one I’ve floated before and would be the number one drag on keeping the Yankees from outspending the league by 50+ million each year.
You would still have behemoths in New York, but with three of them to fight it out they would be smaller behemoths.
And if you really wanted to make that idea work, stick another team back into Boston and maybe LA.
If there were a deserving expansion city (Las Vegas? Montreal? dare I even say Columbus?), you could make it an even numbered expansion.
"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball" - Pete Rose
by Officer Dibble on Nov 9, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions
like the Missouri Compromise!
baseball needs its own Henry Clay.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 9, 2009 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
But who is going to be caned
by Preston Brooks?
Votes?
"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball" - Pete Rose
by Officer Dibble on Nov 9, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
EPL structure
I assume you’re talking about the English Premier League? If you don’t want the same teams to keep winning again and again, this isn’t really the model to follow. For those of you unfamiliar, English soccer (and pretty much everywhere else in the world except the US) is set up in a single table fashion. There are 20 teams, and each one plays every other team in the league twice, once at home and once away. Sounds nice, right? Except that once the season’s done, that’s it. There’s no playoffs. Whoever has the most points (3 for a win, 1 for a draw) wins. As the weeks pass by, more and more teams drop out of contention. In fact, since the EPL went to this format in 1992, only four teams have ever won the league, with Manchester United winning it 11 times. It’s no real wonder that they have a business partnership with the Yankees.
So what makes English soccer interesting for the other teams? A mixture of tournaments and punishment. While the league is in season, a couple of domestic tournaments (the FA Cup and the Carling Cup) are also going on. The FA Cup is open to every single soccer team in England, and the Carling Cup includes nearly 100 teams. Many of the giants of soccer have their eyes on bigger prizes and will play their reserves, so the tournament becomes similar to March Madness with lots of opportunities for upsets. If you’re a fan of a team that’s likely to finish mid-table, these tournaments are your chance for taking home hardware during a season.
Teams can also qualify for international tournaments by winning a domestic tournament or based on where they finish in the EPL standings. The top four teams qualify for the Champions League, and these almost always go to The Big Four – Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, and Liverpool. The fifth and sixth place teams can qualify for the UEFA Europa League, kind of a junior varsity tournament where the teams that don’t qualify for Champions League can still play in an international tournament. If your team isn’t owned by a Russian or Dubai oil magnate and has pumped billions of euros into your team, this is likely your best chance for glory.
Finally, there’s an incentive not to lose. Most soccer players aren’t drafted. Everyone’s basically a free agent, and a team identifies a player it wants and then pays him for his services. If he’s already under contract with another team, they will pay a transfer fee – very similar to the signing of Japanese players in baseball. But no draft means there’s no incentive to finish badly so you can get a higher pick. In fact, the teams with the worst three records get relegated to the lower division at the end of the year (and the three best of that division get promoted). So even though winning the league is out of the question for most teams, there’s always something to play for.
Even so, soccer is one of the worst sports to follow in terms of parity. Like baseball, there’s no salary cap, and so it’s the same teams finishing top of the heap, year after year. Top teams like Chelsea, Manchester United, and Real Madrid spend so much money on players, it would make the Yankees blush.
Honestly, if parity is your ultimate goal, baseball currently does one of the best jobs of getting different champions and playoff teams every year.
by Brendanukkah on Nov 5, 2009 1:59 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think the goal should be parity, but not at the expense of not rewarding good management practices
How much of the Pirates 17-year streak of futility is due to poor management and how much of it the fact that they’re just poor? Any league where teams struggle to have a winning season for more than 3-4 years straight is clearly broken, but whatever system is instituted to encourage parity, should also, as much as possible, prevent owners from simply pocketing the subsidies or letting talent fall into their laps. It seems like it would be a vested interest of the league to make sure teams like the Pirates are competitive. If we assume Yankees revenues will stay relatively constant whether they win the World Series every other year or every 7-8 years, then clearly the untapped revenue is in markets like Pittsburgh or Kansas City where attendance and general interest has flagged due to chronic shitty baseball.
I wonder what the most desirable endgame for increased parity is. By my count, the NFL and MLB have both had 12 different champions since 1990. This is a very rough indicator, but at least at the top, there is enough variability in baseball, relative to the NFL, to say that it’s not simply controlled by a cabal. Just a cursory look at who’s made the playoffs in the last 20 years led me to the conclusion that while the Yankees are a fixture, there’s been a decent amount of turnover otherwise.
Attentions are better directed at the teams that have been missing the playoffs and finishing in the basement consistently over the last several years. There’s a gulf between the teams that have stayed competitive and those that have spiralled into irrelevance. I think there needs to be a balanced approach, increasing financial parity but also increasing non-financial incentives for competitiveness, which is where the EPL could be informative.
I’m sure relegation would never fly, but restructuring of the league – taking Baltimore and Tampa Bay out of the AL East for instance – is a good idea. A secondary post-season for next tier of teams could be good, or other tournaments that would be open to independent, minor league and international teams similar to the FA Cup and Champions League. Shrink the season down to 150 games – we don’t need a World Series in November – and add some post-ASG reasons for fans to buy tickets to Royals games and management to field a competitive team. I think individual franchise revenues would increase if the Pirates, Reds, Royals played more meaningful games, even if some of them were against inferior competition. Balance the restructured division schedules pitting crappy teams against each other with a mandate that the Yankees and Red Sox have to visit Cincinnati during interleague play.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I'll admit that I know very little about soccer
I was more thinking that realignment would happen in a fashion that would force the haves to beat the haves and the have-nots to beat the have-nots and then the winners would face each other in the playoffs.
Definitely a good argument.
thanks
for the clear exposition. I understood the relegation stuff, but it was never clear how all those tourneys fit in.
Do they schedule off weeks during tournament time, or just fit them in?
Yes, sometimes there are off weeks
FIFA, the world governing body of soccer, also sets aside a certain number of days for international matches, and most teams will have that day off. MLS, on the other hand, usually will schedule games on these international dates anyway, and it pisses everybody off.
by Brendanukkah on Nov 5, 2009 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Love #1
I would try to rework the luxury tax so that it scaled, i.e. the further you went over the higher percentage you pay. Make it hurt.
That said I also think there needs to be a hard cap/floor. If you fall on the wrong side of either you have one week to rectify the situation before you start forfeiting games. Yes, I’m serious.
"What'd I say?"
serious and correct
the draft issue should be fixed immediately. it makes no sense to penalize a player because they were born in or went to college in the united states
Made from 100% Recycled Awesome,
Agreed. A 30-round international draft
in addition to the regular first-year player draft would be a positive step.
We Are ... Marshall!
by Thundering Turtle on Nov 6, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
I'm sorry
I don’t think revenues are a structural problem in baseball, or at least a structural problem that creates winners/losers.
Here is a list of the media markets in the US, listed by size. Of the notorious “exceptions” that prove the rule that small markets can’t compete, Oakland shares the #6 market with San Francisco, while Tampa (#14), Minnesota (#15) and Florida (#17) are all in bigger markets than perennial big spenders St. Louis (#21). In fact, St. Louis is only slightly larger than “Boo, hoo, we can’t compete” Pittsburgh (#23).
Want more? The Rangers are said to be getting millions in support from MLB, despite having a smaller payroll than the Reds and playing in the #5 market; the Tigers, despite playing in the #11 market (and one that has been shrinking quickly), have had a top-5 payroll each of the last 2 years and are going to be up there again next (they’re already committed to over $100M).
If large markets have such a huge advantage, where are all of the titles for the Chicago teams (1 combined in 92 years)? Since the Mets entered the league, the Reds have appeared in and won more World Series. Whether called Los Angeles, Califonia, Anaheim, or Los Angeles of Anaheim, the Angels have appeared in one World Series.
My suggestion? Do a better job. The Cardinals have proven that if you put a winning team on the field, sufficient revenue will be generated. Quit wasting money on the Eric Miltons, Willy Taverases, Francisco Corderos, and Dusty Bakers of the world.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
by sidnancy on Nov 5, 2009 2:45 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
truth to power!
it really is this simple. win games and you will make more money. the only difference between Big Stein and Banana Bob is that Big Stein learned this a long time ago.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not sure you really read my post
My only real complaint on the money being spent is the fact that it enables larger market teams to absorb mistakes that would kill a smaller organization.
I agree that teams need to be smarter, but even smart teams have a much smaller margin of error than their larger counterparts – especially when large payroll teams are using the same tricks that the supposed smarter teams use.
As for your examples, they’re crap. Using history going back more than 20 years is irrelevant. Salaries are MUCH larger today than they were when the Mets or Angels came into the league. And yes the Reds have more WS wins than the Mets, but not since Free Agency started. In 1989, the median team salary was $14M, and the highest payroll team had a payroll 50% higher than that. In 1999, the median payroll was $46M, and the top payroll was $42M more than that. In 2009, the median payroll was $80M and the top payroll was 150% more than that. Heck, the 7th highest payroll was nearly 50% higher than that. Salaries and payroll are expanding too fast to be comparing success from 30 or 40 years ago and acting like there is parity.
For what it’s worth, here are the playoff breakdowns from the last 5 years (hopefully not selective endpoints, but I don’t feel like compiling more):
2009 – 5 of 8 teams were in the top 10 in payroll
2008 – 5 of 8 teams were in the top 10 in payroll
2007 – 4 of 8 teams were in the top 10 in payroll
2006 – 3 of 8 teams were in the top 10 in payroll
2005 – 5 of 8 teams were in the top 10 in payroll
22 of 40 playoff teams in the last 5 years have been in the top 10 in payroll. By those numbers, that means that 2/3rds of the league has less than a 50% chance of making the playoffs. Sure, you can be smarter, but it’s a helluva lot easier to just be richer.
Definitely a good argument.
most of this comment was more a response to sidnancy and not really about the point I was trying to make
I think there are some creative ways to work on leveling the playing field. I don’t so much care about the money as finding ways to make it easier to distribute the talent among the league. That may require financial changes to the game, but it can also be done other ways too.
Definitely a good argument.
i think what sid is saying is that market size isnt the problem
it’s the owners. guys like Castellini are unwilling to put up the initial investment of capital to field a good team. instead, they complain that they cant compete and ask baseball to subsidize them. then they hire idiots to run their teams and instead of blaming their loss on poor decision-making they blame the Yankees.
while it’s unavoidably true that the Yankees and Red Sox can absorb Miltonian contracts and the Reds and Pirates cant, that isnt as important as the fact that the Reds and Pirates should know better than to sign these contracts. especially now when so much free information is available for talent evaluation it is completely indefensible to waste $6 mil on Willy Taveras. while the Red Sox could absorb that contract, they also know better than to sign it in the first place.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions
well, the better scouts and baseball guys and all of those
would probably be attracted to the money, too. I bet you that the Red Sox’ front office has a bigger payroll than the Reds. Not to mention, if you’re trying to attract pimple-faced computer geeks, they’ll probably choose the big cities, too.
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
This gets at the larger debate about the importance of resourcefulness vs. resources
Big metropolitan areas are better-resourced and are generally better able to attract talent, baseball players and statgeeks included. Every major league baseball team should be affored the ability to hire top-shelf talent and avail itself of the latest developments in player evaluation by virtue of being a MLB franchise… otherwise I think you have to start talking about 1st world vs. 3rd world teams.
Part of the problem is definitely willfull ignorance by owners and the other part is that for all its resourcefulness, teams like Florida cannot achieve sustainable success without some fiscal safeguards. There’s also the plain fact that even if the information gaps were levelled, bidding wars would always favor the big guys. Fix it a la carte – with a little redistribution and a more equity in access to talent pools and competitive design.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 4:28 PM EST up reply actions
part of the problem is that being smarter and spending money aren't mutually exclusive
if the smart teams are also setting the price on the market, it doesn’t really matter how smart you are if you can’t pay.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d be much happier if the Reds would just be smarter. I wish they hadn’t wasted money on Eric Milton or CoCo, but it’s not so easy just to say “Be Smarter!” Every team is trying to be smarter, even the rich ones.
Definitely a good argument.
but the Reds still spend $70-80 mil a year
maybe im just being cantankerous, but that sounds like enough money to field a good team if you have any idea what you are doing. it’s true that the Yankees set the market and it makes it really hard for the Reds to compete with that, but that is only a small part of the problem. if media revenue were shared properly then the Yanks wouldnt likely be able to spend all that money, and some of that will go to the Reds.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions
If every team was trying to be smarter...
…contracts like Milton’s and Cordero’s wouldn’t happen. Milton’s was a stupid, stupid contract – he had allowed 40 HRs in Philly, and was at best league-average; if Cordero was the last piece of the puzzle, his contract might have made sense, but he wasn’t so it didn’t.
But ther was no reason to sign Taveras at any price. Good teams don’t end up paying Juan Castro to not play for them – there was no reason to sign him in the first place.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
You seem to be arguing against something that I'm not saying
I’m not saying “woe is our Reds, the world is so unfair!” Yes, they’ve made stupid moves. My only point is that every team makes stupid moves, but the rich ones can get away with it.
Funny thing about Juan Castro is that he was on the team with the best record in the NL this year.
Definitely a good argument.
It's not just the Reds
the comment “teams are trying to be smarter” goes against what seems like the majority of free-agent signings every year; it’s just that the Reds’ mistakes are fresher in my mind (like the smell of the dead skunk I drove by this morning).
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
think how dumb the average* American is
half of them are dumber than that.
*Not strictly true, but “think how dumb the median American is” just doesn’t sound as good.
I wonder how much incentive Bob has
He gets guaranteed money from the City, from concessions, from parking, and from MLB to keep the club going, plus, when he sells the team, he’ll make an immense profit (see Bush, George W, “only successful job”)
And I'm not sure you're reading mine
Why are some teams low revenue, and others high revenue? Piss and moan all you want about the Yankees and Cardinals, but the truth is that those are well-run teams and the Reds are not, and that is why they have a margin of errror larger than ours. Their revenue follows their success (and their owners’ willingness to spend), not the other way around.
As I have time and again, I’ll go back to Detroit. Mike Ilich bought a team mockingly called the Dead Things, hired a couple of great GMs, stayed out of their way, and built the Yankees of the NHL. He then bought the Tigers, and by building a consistant winner, now has the resources to keep a winning team on the field – in a city with over 30% unemployment.
How many free agent signings look like good decisions afterwards? Even half? More often than not, it’s a Willy Taveras signed because the team won’t play a Chris Dickerson.
Finally, the way that baseball is structured, teams don’t have to spend a gazillion dollars on free agents to compete. Joey Votto is still under team control for 4 more years; Bruce and Cueto for 5; even Volquez is even under control for at least 3 more seasons.
Money is a great resource to have, but it’s the end result of investment in the team.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Illich
and the dude makes a fine pizza pie as well!
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't say I'm pissing and moaning (stupid internet and it's failure to express tone)
Being smarter run does not give you a higher margin of error (see the A’s). And winning will help revenue, but does not guarantee increased revenue, at least not to the point that a team can become a big spender (see A’s, Marlins, Rays, Twins). Have the Reds hurt themselves with stupid moves? Absolutely. My point is that a stupid move to the Reds costs them a helluva lot more than it costs the Red Sox or Angels or Dodgers. Sure, they should be smarter, but it’s not like teh rich teams are stupid.
Definitely a good argument.
Seems like this debate has become too polar
The Yankees benefit from commanding biggest media market AND they’ve leveraged this to invest in a winner. The Reds have a lower revenue ceiling AND they’ve been stupid with the money.
If the Reds wise up and commit themselves to acquiring talent that would produce a winner which would produce more revenue, they’re still at a disadvantage in what financial risks they can take and what audience they can build. Once you correct some of these disparities, then hopefully owners will be less able to appeal to the financial disparity excuse and incentives will be in place to sink or swim.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
I agree there's no strict correlation between team success and both media market size and payroll
As you say, this indicates that good management, both in marketing and baseball operations, is the clear path to a competitive franchise. But I think it’s also worth considering the income inequality at the extremes of the league. Florida, despite managing to shrewdly overachieve its league-lowest payroll, has zero margin of error for spending. If they wanted to grow into their media market, they at least need some financial assistance to market the team and prevent the necessity to nuke it every time they get good, alienating their fanbase. This is also assuming DMAs are a good guide for how much potential revenue a team could generate.
By my estimation, Florida has done everything right in managing its baseball operations, but its hamstrung by not being able to retain the good players it develops and having a paltry budget to try to expand its appeal in Miami. Owners should be held accountable for shoddy practices, but they should also have be given some space to take risks that could translate to sustainable talent and market share. It’s clearly to the benefit of the league not to divert some of its resources away from markets that are already saturated.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
The luxury tax is a joke.
It will only apply to one team, the Yankees, since they’re the only team to exceed $162 million. The threshold will go up by another $8 million next year, so once again only the Yankees will pay it.
For what it’s worth, the Yankees pay 40% of the amount over that threshold. This year, that amounts to about $20 million; on top of $200 million in payroll, that’s almost nothing.
At the bare minimum, the payroll tax needs to affect the top third of the payroll distribution, and I’d like to see it be based on the median payroll from the previous year. We could keep it simple: surtax of 50% on all payroll exceeding that amount (so that still, the Yankees would pay the most by far).
Get buy-in from the players’ union in two ways: (1) also add a floor, at some percentage of the cap. Teams that go below this amount are taxed at 100% of the difference, so that they may as well spend up to that amount. And (2) return a chunk of the money taken away by the tax to the players. The rest goes to the other teams, with more redistributed through heavy revenue sharing from all TV and radio contracts.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
i dont like the ideas of caps and floors
it works in the NFL and NBA because their money is spent almost exclusively on the team. they dont have to develop their own talent because they have very convenient developmental leagues (NCAA) that work independently of the pro league. baseball doesnt have this luxury. so putting restrictions on what can be spent on the pro team does little to address the real problem.
as for the luxury tax, i think you are spot on. im not a huge fan of it to begin with, but if it’s going to be done it should be done right. though i think a redistribution of media revenue is the way to fix all of these problems. it reminds me of how the public schools are funded here in Ohio. which is to say, completely unconstitutionally.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 3:36 PM EST up reply actions
The biggest problem with caps and floors
is that there is such a huge disparity right now that no one, not the owners or players, will be able to find common ground on where those numbers should be. I think it is barking up a fruitless tree.
Definitely a good argument.
which could've been averted if baseball were smart like the NFL
They shouldn’t allow the teams to sell their tv rights individually. They should sell the rights to televise MLB baseball as one big package, and distribute the money to each team evenly.
If that were done, a floor and ceiling would be easy to implement.
Made from 100% Recycled Awesome,
if that were done
i dont think a floor or ceiling would be necessary. if Castellini were to take all that extra cash and put it in his pocket his house would be an ash heap.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
I don't really think so.
First, we get everyone to agree that this is kind of a problem. But we aren’t going to set hard floors and caps, so they can keep doing whatever they want if they like; we’re just going to change incentives. I think we can get people to agree to that at least.
So take the numbers I posted upthread. Set a cap at 120% of median payroll: 97.5 million. Set a floor at 80% of median payroll: 65 million. Then we have 10 teams above the cap and six below the floor. We charge a 100% tax on the difference between a team’s payroll and the cap (if above it) or the floor (if below it).
That floor only really hits three teams hard: the Pirates, the Padres, and the Marlins; collectively they’re over $65 million below the floor. All three either need to pay up, increase payroll, or sell to someone who will pay more. The other three teams (Rays, Athletics, Nationals) will probably just add payroll. Fine. Those three then increase payroll by about $10 million.
The tax at current payroll levels would amount to $260 million, with the Yankees paying more than $100 million of that. Of course, the incentives are now different, but I imagine that the Yankees will still be willing to go over the cap by a wide margin. I would suspect that the overage would drop by $100-$150 million, though. Let’s say it drops by $145 million: the Yankees probably keep shelling out tons (because they refuse to act rationally), but others probably cut back by more than half.
End result: total payroll drops by $60 million and the league collects $125 million in tax. Turn over half of that to players, and it offsets the payroll hit. Toss the other $63 million into the revenue sharing pool, and give it back to all teams—slightly over $2 million a team.
Who wouldn’t buy into this? The top 7 and bottom 3 teams, maybe, but that still leaves 20 teams. The other teams and the players are better off, since their money is the same or better and the playing field is slightly more level. That seems like plenty of common ground to me.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
It's the economy, though
What if the bottom 3 teams just can’t pay? You can’t force them to sell, can you? And if there’s no buyers, do they just disappear?
I’m not sure I buy into this, just because you can’t force a team to give a Miltonian contract just because they don’t want to pay a tax. It seems like a good idea that needs some tinkering.
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
I agree
I have a feeling that having a floor will actually force teams to make more bad decisions just to avoid paying other team’s players. That’s why I like the idea of taking away their luxury tax money if they don’t want to spend it.
Definitely a good argument.
That's...
exactly equivalent. “Taking away money you would pay them” is the exact same thing as taxing them.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
no, because the money you are taking away is not their money
taxing them is forcing them to generate more revenue on their own to meet the floor
Definitely a good argument.
If they can't generate revenue to meet the floor
then something is very wrong.
And what I mean is, taking $8 million out of the revenue sharing vs. taxing them $8 million for being $8 million short of the floor? That’s exactly the same thing. Either way, they’re out $8 million.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
Mr Redlegs was saying the Reds are losing $14M this year
with a $74ish million payroll, that would mean their revenue wouldn’t meet the floor, though I’m sure the floor would be set to a proper level.
I still disagree on the difference between the two dollar amounts. If your revenue is $70M and you are taxed $8M, you are down to $62M. However, if you lose $8M worth of revenue sharing, you are still at $70M in revenue.
Definitely a good argument.
Let me try again.
Say revenue sharing amounts to $10 million, and your team has a payroll of $55 million. The floor is $60 million. You can either spend $5 million more on payroll or hand that $5 million to the league.
Suppose you refuse to add to payroll. If your team revenue is $30 million, then:
(1) We could take it out of revenue sharing. You get $30 million + $5 million from revenue sharing, for a total of $35 million, and lose $20 million if payroll is your only expense.
(2) We could tax your revenue. So your net revenue is $25 million, plus that $10 million in revenue sharing. You still have $35 million in revenue, and you still have a net loss of $20 million.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
I didn't realize they would still get the revenue sharing and be taxed at the same time
so, as you’ve shown, yes they are the same idea.
Definitely a good argument.
Right, we were talking past each other.
I think the best way to do it would be to dump that tax revenue into the revenue sharing pool, and then simply divide among the teams. Even teams that paid some tax would then receive a net gain, but they would still have a disincentive to spend over the cap or not make it to the floor.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
Not that I'm in favor of caps or floors
but why couldn’t developmental budgets be capped also?
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
i suppose you could
but it seems tremendously more complicated (and therefore less feasible) than just capping team payroll like in the NFL.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
Any salary cap with teeth would
have to control spending for minor league development – a challenge – and, quite possibly, front office payroll. Institute a weak salary cap and you encounter the problems cited above, based on baseball’s current income gap. Stronger salary caps, aside from politically intractable, start to warp the market incentives for both players and owners.
Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show
by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Nov 5, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
First off, international draft would be a must.
Secondly, I really like the idea of adding tournaments and smaller challenges throughout the year. Sure, it would be tougher in baseball because soccer doesn’t have pitchers, but I think it would be a good way to make everyone happy.
The people who are making money off of baseball are making money. Outside of the Diamondbacks’ bankruptcy a few years back, nobody has really had too many issues. The question, it seems to me, ought to be “how do you get fans more involved in the lower-tier teams and still have everyone making money?”
So that’s why I’m a fan of tournaments going on throughout the year. The Indians-Reds series are already some of the biggest draws for those teams. What if it was built into something a bit more? There could even be a Midwest Cup featuring all the AL and NL teams…it could just be done with a rejiggering of the schedule, not even adding more games: In August, when the bad teams start to swoon, they can load up for the smaller tournaments while the better teams give their stars a break while they gun for the playoffs.
There could also stand to be a lot more international tournaments. Wouldn’t Reds-Tigres del Licey be a much more compelling matchup than another Brewers series? Or just something to watch during the winter? There could even be a rule that teams could use their entire 40-man roster or something to make a 25-man squad for the game. And the television rights and tourism would add some dough to each country. Someone could even be really ballsy and play a Cuban team in Havana. Of course, international players couldn’t play on both teams, but that’s fine! Caribbean leagues would make more money off of American tourists to keep some players, and some players would probably want to stay stateside. I really don’t see a problem with this. And of course, all of this goes for Korean/Japanese/Chinese leagues, too. Ummm, does Israel still have a league?
I’m also a fan of a shorter season, but I think that small tournaments and international tournaments could make it a lot of fun. The teams would make more money, the fans could watch more baseball, and younger players could get some more “feet-wet” sort of games in without having to be thrown into the fire. The only real problem is pitchers, but I think that if you make a rule expanding the number of pitchers you could use for particular tournaments, it wouldn’t be a problem.
I could easily write a 10-page paper on this, but this’ll do for now.
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
Tournaments could be organization-wide
In the same way that soccer teams will field reserves in some tournaments (both as rest for regular starters, and because they put more importance on the regular season), teams could call up some players from AAA or AA to round out their rosters. Perfect opportunity for a guy like Chris Heisey to play alongside some major leaguers in a meaningful game. However, I would think that the tournaments would have to be structured in a way that if you did include minor leaguers, it wouldn’t start their big league service clocks ticking.
The other issue of course is the schedule. League soccer games are held once a week, typically on Saturday or Sunday. Tournament games are then scheduled in the middle of the week. The MLB season would have to be cut down to 150 games, and maybe fewer than that to really accomodate tournaments that ran concurrently.
you could have a 60-man tourney roster
and still keep the standard 40-man roster for big league service issues and such. that way you could use Heisey as your CF in the Budweiser Cup and not start his service clock.
and who are we kidding anyway? baseball is the most conservative tradition-oriented sport in the universe. no way anything this bold would ever happen.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
World Baseball Classic happened
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
I really like this
The natural counter-argument is schedule integrity, but there’s already an unbalanced schedule. Plus, some divisions are significantly stronger than others. A Midwest Cup and its equivalents could really liven up August.
by ken on Nov 5, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
BTW
Bobby Abreu re-signed with the Angels today for 2 years, $19M with an $8M option for a 3rd year. He made $5M last year.
Also, the Royals trade Mark Teahen to the White Sox for Chris Getz and Josh Fields.
The Hot Stove is on, baby!
Definitely a good argument.
Girardi's a good guy for doing that
but he’s still a Yankee douche. He said Steinbrenner deserves another championship. Total douche statement.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
aw, be nice
Steinbrenner is suffering dementia and other health problems. I don’t think we’ll have him to kick around for too much longer.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
Nice to Steinbrenner?
Please, when was he ever nice? Go check out Posnanski’s blog. Big post by him and comments about Girardi’s statement. Interesting reading.
And an owner who has already won SIX WS titles does not deserve a seventh. There are 29 teams (ok maybe not the Red Sox) more deserving of a title than the Yanks.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 5:51 PM EST up reply actions
eh
I think you’re reading too much into it.
Steinbrenner’s old and doesn’t have much time left. As Posnanski noted, we tend to lionize people like that. It’s natural. Can’t blame Girardi for doing it.
And I think Posnanski is wrong about Steinbrenner having more money to put into the team. As Arroyo said, Steinbrenner was actually willing to lose money to win. He’s not richer than other owners; the Mets owners had a lot more money. (Or did, before that Madoff thing.) They were in the same market; they could have spent the same money if they wanted to.
In any case, the Yanks won most of their titles when their payroll was not out of step with the rest of the league.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
True the disparity wasn't as great as it is now
But the Yanks have generally always been at the top of the payroll charts. Amazing how crazy the money has gotten in the last 20 years. Back in 1990 when the Reds won, they had one of the highest payrolls.
And bottom line, they bought this title. No question.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
Bing.com
Has the Yankees as its background photo today.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
"Money still gives some teams a perhaps unfair advantage"
Perhaps…PERHAPS? Way to go out on a limb there, Slyde. Here’s an edit: "Money still gives some teams a HUGE advantage. Yankees have the highest or next-to-highest paid players at a number of positions. They BOUGHT 2/3 of their starting rotation in the World Series, and the AL home run leader this offseason. Just outbid everyone. Most teams couldn’t afford even one of those players.
To have a truly level playing field, MLB has to copy the NFL model. Just compare the situation between the Steelers and the Pirates. Steelers are a dynasty in the NFL. The Pirates are a small-market joke in MLB. Same city. The NFL business model (Salary cap and full TV revenue sharing) is the No. 1 reason for the leagues wild success and popularity. Every team has a chance. Every fan has reason to believe their team can win a Super Bowl, as long as they are smart (and lucky). Even the Bengals fans! Smart teams don’t get punished by having to let their best players go while in their prime. If the NFL was ran like baseball, the Steelers would never win, and Brett Favre would’ve left Green Bay for the Jets in his prime….at age 28 or something.
The MLB model is so ridiculous. Hey I have an idea. I’m starting a new 10-team fantasy baseball league next season and inviting all the Red Reporters. Oh yeah, it’ll be an auction. No, not everyone has the standard $260 to bid on their 23 players. Here’s the breakdown:
BubbaFan: $780
Jch24: $680
Madville: $400
Scrabbles: $400
Crolfer: $260
Cesarhernandez: $260
Boobs: $200
Brendanukkah $130
Gray: $100
Slyde: $100
Guess what? Bubba should win every year! If she doesn’t, it’s a failure. Slyde and Gray? Sorry guys, you’re screwed. Point is, joining a league like that would be moronic.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
the problem with your example is that MLB is not an auction every year
Most of the Reds roster is their’s for a reasonable price for 6 years.
Definitely a good argument.
Oh I know that.
Just showing a simple example. Of course, that also means in my example the lower teams wouldn’t be able to afford Votto, Cueto etc, because they’d be paid what they are actually worth.
The free agency system also kills the small market teams and drives up salaries. Charlie Finley’s radical idea would be more equitable than the current system: Make all the major leaguers free agents every year.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions
I'd also say that the reason I said "perhaps an unfair advantage"
is because one team having an advantage won’t ruin the league. The question is whether there are 5-10 teams that have a clear advantage every year because they can spend more. If that’s the case, then you are basically closing the prime free agents off from the rest of the league. I’m not sure if we are there or not though. I’d like to see the breakdown before I make a statement like that.
Definitely a good argument.
Well one team (the yankees)
did just go out and buy 2/3 of their rotation and their league’s home run leader…..and they won the league. That kind of ruins things.
And I do think there are at least 5 teams that have a clear advantage….Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Red Sox, Angels…Phillies are good, but they have benefitted by the Mets complete ineptness. White Sox and Cubs also have an advantage as well.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
they did
But it wasn’t money that lured Teixeira. Other teams offered him more than the Yankees did. His wife wanted to live in NY.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
What if his wife wanted to live in Pittsburgh?
Or Miami, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Detroit, Oakland, Denver or San Diego? Guess what. He ain’t going to those places. They couldn’t come close to making a competitive offer. There’s only a few teams that can afford the kind of contracts the Yankees have littered their team with.
Trust me, money was the lure….so Baltimore might’ve offered him a bit more, but what’s a few million when you’re in that stratosphere?
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
What team offered more than NYY?
Not buying this; sounds like Mike Hampton signing with Denver because his wife liked the public schools. The rumor was Teixeira was going to take a hometown discount to sign with Baltimore or Washington. As I recall it the Yankees got him because they outbid the field. Which is fine. I don’t begrudge them for that, but let’s be honest about it.
by ken on Nov 5, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
well, hypothetically
let’s assume that Tex signed with the Yanks strictly because his wife likes the town. what about CC? Burnett? Mussina? Giambi? Damon? Matsui?
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 10:20 PM EST up reply actions
Mussina
also wasn’t interested in playing for another team. He’s from Pennsylvania. It was going to be the Yankees or retirement for him. But he is admittedly strange for a baseball player. A lot of the things that matter to most players didn’t matter to him.
Matsui…I think for him it was the “Yankees mystique” as much as the money. He had a no-trade. Should be interesting to see what happens if the Yanks don’t re-sign him.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
It was all over the news
Boras and Teixeira both said they did not take the best financial offer.
Supposedly, Boston offered more. But the most money was offered by the Nationals. They claimed afterwards they offered him 184 million and were willing to go higher, but he didn’t give them the chance.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
Boston offered less
Then they called Boras’ bluff, thinking the Yankees had already shot their wad on the CC and Burnett deals. Turns out Boras wasn’t bluffing.
Boras informed [Boston] that Teixeira had received better offers than the eight-year, $168 million proposal Boston had placed on the table. In essence, the Red Sox called Boras’ bluff, challenging the agent to produce an offer better than theirs.
Baltimore and Washington also bid lower than NYY. Teixeira took the highest offer.
by ken on Nov 6, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
the Nats
said they were willing to go higher (ten years, more than $20 million a year, according to the LA Times), and Teixeira said he didn’t take the highest offer. (Though he did say that money was part of it – he wouldn’t take half as much to go to NY.)
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
Still don't buy it
That LA Times article was a week earlier than the ESPN article I linked and misstates Baltimore’s offer. Also, I don’t think Jim Bowden would’ve been shy about making a $200M offer public. Simply because Boras said they took less money to play with New York doesn’t make it so.
Bowden did say it
He’s the one who said they were willing to go higher. Boras couldn’t know that.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
It's all third-hand from your cites
Washington “apparently” offered $200M, or Boras says a higher offer was out there. My point was that Jim Bowden would have made it widely known if he was offering $200M to a local boy. That way he can say, “see, I tried!” when the player signs somewhere else. Maybe some GMs would play it close to the vest, but Bowden isn’t that kind of negotiator (Griffey trade, Larkin re-signing, etc.).
If you don’t think Boras would publicly speculate about phantom offers, you are more trusting of him than I.
by ken on Nov 8, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Out of date, but still relevant.
But, if anyone here ever doubts the fundamental "unfairness"* of a salary cap, go read the fantastic book Lords of the Realm. Slyde is dead on about a salary cap. Nonetheless, an international draft is a great idea. There should a more formal structure to draft slotting, although it should be noted, MLB draftees deserve their only chance to make oodles of cash at least one (see Mark Prior).
Somewhere along the lines of re-establishing the draft as a true reservoir of talent open to all clubs and increasing the luxury tax should be possible, I would think
*It’s hard to call any system unfair when it rewards its particpants with millions of dollars
How about a system like the old NBA system with a soft cap
i.e., you can sign your own players for whatever you want. Like Shaq did with the Lakers, as motivated player could still go to another team if he wished, but small market teams could sign players over the cap and big market teams couldn’t. If the player wants the cash, under the old NBA system, he can stay in town and be richly paid. If he REALLY wants to move, he can.
It always seems to me that the problem with free agency isn’t affording other teams’ players; it’s affording your own, throughout arbitration and that sixth year.
Jeremy Hermida has been traded to the Red Sox
and the Teahen to White Sox deal is currently up in the air.
Definitely a good argument.
well.......
1. Salary cap – around $110M ……….would be fun watching the Yanks dismantle…….and no taxes for going over. You just can’t go over.
2. Draft to include all international players.
3. Draft slot price already determined like the NBA. (The NFL should do this)
$110M is plenty enough. Over the half the league can hardly pay $70M, so the big spenders will still prevail most of the time, but they wouldn’t be able to afford EVERYBODY like the Yankees did. Yankees currently have the top 5 most prolific contracts ever signed in A-Rod (twice), Jeter, Texeira, and Sabathia. They just overpay everyone so other teams can’t touch them. There needs to be a way to force some of the better players into being affordable for smaller market teams. Of course the players and agents would never stand for it, because it would more than likely bring salaries down (which they should be). Salaries are out of hand.
by Dude Rock on Nov 5, 2009 5:51 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
rec'd
Works for me….no way Boras and the union goes for it. Maybe if there was a salary floor of around $60 or $70 million to make teams spend money. It’s a joke that Akinori Iwarnuma is now the Pirates highest paid player for next season….$4.85 million.
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
by cesarhernandez on Nov 5, 2009 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
technically, salaries are only out of hand if there isn't money there to pay them
I think we’ll find out this off-season if that is true. I think last off-season saw lower salaries out of fear. This off-season, with a weak free agent class, will tell us whether or not the owners really don’t have any money to spend.
Definitely a good argument.
I don't think that would make the Yankees dismantle
They’d just hire some accountants from the NFL. You know, the ones skilled at spreading payments out for decades after the player has retired.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
the NFL's non-guaranteed contracts are what make their salary cap tick
and sure, it screws the players, but nobody cares about them anyways.
"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander
1,3, and 4 I've been wanting for awhile now
not sure I’m on board with any sort of realignment, but I might think about certain scenarios where some expansion teams were added and possibly realign some teams to better fit into the west/central/east categories
I love that not even he knew that he scored and he continued to try to put it in - Evilducks
Reds News!!!
I didn’t see this announced, but Kevin Barker has been outrighted and Danny Richar has filed for free agency. Two spots open up on 40-man.
Definitely a good argument.
dang. I always forget about the 60-day DL.
Mike Lincoln though? really?
"If it wasn't this, it'd be something else."
Posnanski on the Yankees payroll
Good stuff…
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/05/the-yankees-payroll/#more-2799
My fantasy football team this year? Lippincott's Shorts
So the big spenders should be in the Premier League
and the small market teams can be in the AAAA league
Instead of a an all star game there can be a mid November Challenger’s Cup best of 5 series between the WS champs and the winner of the AAAA league, played in a domed stadium. This allows for the small market teams to pretend that they matter.
This would bring baseball full circle to the days when there were only like 16 total teams. Back when only the top ciities could really afford to have teams.
Problem solved.
To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)
i dont think the union will ever accept a cap
and the owners won’t accept a proposal to share broadcast revenue. therefore, its an inherently flawed system. Free Agency allows the feeder teams to draft and develop great ballplayers but lose them to larger market teams that can pay them more after a few scant years service.
im a little surprised a couple teams haven’t contracted in this current economic environment. casual fans can’t afford the ballpark experience, therefore, rabid baseball fans in smaller markets really can’t even the playing field. less and less youngsters are playing baseball and the fan base is dwindling. No one in my neighborhood plays backyard baseball, or wiffle ball, and i wonder where the future baseball fans are.
my youngest son played organized football, baseball and basketball for the first time this year. the basketball and baseball teams lost every game and his football team plays this weekend in their Super Bowl. They’re undefeated and have only allowed points in one game. Guess what his favorite sport is now?
"I have found me a home"
Soccer? Field Hockey Swimming? So you're saying that winning is what its all about...hmmmmmm
How Old is your son?
To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)
Regarding that last question...
you can be kind of creepy sometimes, Madville.
Let me write out a formal proof for you.
soooo awesome
he totally Phelps it!
by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 5, 2009 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
nice thats pretty funny
I love that not even he knew that he scored and he continued to try to put it in - Evilducks
Marijuana is illegal!
“And we do not listen to that.”
by Brendanukkah on Nov 5, 2009 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
not in California
Maybe he forgot he wasn’t in Cali any more.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
I offered you a position as wheelman...
To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)
the only thing is
I think the Astros and Phillies are in a bigger market than the Cardinals.
Definitely a good argument.
Baseball is a cultural addiction in St. Louis
Not unlike it once was in Cincinnati. It is difficult to get into a goodly amount of Cardinal games and almost impossible to get decent seats even from the the street vendors.
I gave up working out. My philosophy: No pain... no pain. ...
Mads.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Braves ditch insensitive patch on new throwbacks
- Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s
- Create-a-Caption: Kevin Youkilis shows up to the Super Bowl, gets ComicCon instead
- Baltimore flips Jeremy Guthrie to Colorado for Jason Hammel and Matt Lindstrom
- Justin Verlander’s Super Bowl XLVI pick was perfect: Giants 21, Patriots 17
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
