PDA

View Full Version : the MLB MUST change.


KruseControl04
07-10-2002, 04:06 PM
It's quite obvious to all fans that there are several things that need to be done to make baseball better and more enjoyable. Here are some of my ideas of what can be done to help baseball.
First off, we need some sort of better revenue sharing. Right now there is some revenue sharing, but not to the extent that there needs to be. Better revenue sharing would mean that the smaller market teams would get more money to hopefull go towards their payroll.
I don't think that we need a salary cap, I just don't like the idea of a salary cap. But as Bud Selig suggested, imposing 50% a luxury tax on the portions of paryrolls above $98 million would be a good idea as well. It would discourage teams from spending as much as the Yankees do (almost 140 mil) on payroll. I think that this might keep the Yankees from buying up every good free agent out there, like they've been doing.
And last. contraction. I think that contracting two teams would be good for the sport because teams like the Twins and the Expos only suck money out of the pool, drying it up. If we remove some of the weaker teams, there will be more money.
I think if baseball does these things, and maybe even more, we will see a more level playing field where teams can go from losers to contenders quite quickly. Maybe not as quick as in the NFL, but I don't want baseball to be like the NFL. I think that in general, these changes will make Major League Baseball more competitive and more exciting to watch. Thank you for your time.

ScottyTheSoxFan
07-10-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by KruseControl04
It's quite obvious to all fans that there are several things that need to be done to make baseball better and more enjoyable. Here are some of my ideas of what can be done to help baseball.
First off, we need some sort of better revenue sharing. Right now there is some revenue sharing, but not to the extent that there needs to be. Better revenue sharing would mean that the smaller market teams would get more money to hopefull go towards their payroll.
I don't think that we need a salary cap, I just don't like the idea of a salary cap. But as Bud Selig suggested, imposing 50% a luxury tax on the portions of paryrolls above $98 million would be a good idea as well. It would discourage teams from spending as much as the Yankees do (almost 140 mil) on payroll. I think that this might keep the Yankees from buying up every good free agent out there, like they've been doing.
And last. contraction. I think that contracting two teams would be good for the sport because teams like the Twins and the Expos only suck money out of the pool, drying it up. If we remove some of the weaker teams, there will be more money.
I think if baseball does these things, and maybe even more, we will see a more level playing field where teams can go from losers to contenders quite quickly. Maybe not as quick as in the NFL, but I don't want baseball to be like the NFL. I think that in general, these changes will make Major League Baseball more competitive and more exciting to watch. Thank you for your time.


a selig resignation could be good too. he has not just shot himself in the foot, he has blown himself off from the head down.

HootieMcBoob
07-10-2002, 04:16 PM
LOL i love the sig, scotty :smile:

trimbo
07-10-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ScottyTheSoxFan

a selig resignation could be good too. he has not just shot himself in the foot, he has blown himself off from the head down.

Problem is, the only person who seems dedicated to changing the salary and revenue structure of baseball is Selig. But he comes from selling cars, so his tactics towards achieving that are about as effective as keeping everyone in the showroom for LONG LONG TIME. :angry:

oldcomiskey
07-10-2002, 06:59 PM
I do not agree----and its beside the point-----you cannot expand in 1993--then contract 10 years later----thats what makes Me so upset-----selig needs to go------so do his milwaukee brewers--what do you base your opinion on the Twins and Expos on?--Minnesota has kicked our butts for 2 years now---and Montreal is in 2nd place

Daver
07-10-2002, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
I do not agree----and its beside the point-----you cannot expand in 1993--then contract 10 years later----thats what makes Me so upset-----selig needs to go------so do his milwaukee brewers--what do you base your opinion on the Twins and Expos on?--Minnesota has kicked our butts for 2 years now---and Montreal is in 2nd place


The owners had to expand,they needed the cash it generated in franchise fees to pay the settlement they owed to players for being found guilty of collusion and improper business tactics.

Iguana775
07-10-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by daver



The owners had to expand,they needed the cash it generated in franchise fees to pay the settlement they owed to players for being found guilty of collusion and improper business tactics.

you mean the owners were playing naughty??? no way!!

MarkEdward
07-10-2002, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by KruseControl04
Better revenue sharing would mean that the smaller market teams would get more money to hopefull go towards their payroll.



There's the problem, though. There's no way to regulate the spending of the revenue sharing money. Owners will just pocket the money.

KruseControl04
07-10-2002, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
I do not agree----and its beside the point-----you cannot expand in 1993--then contract 10 years later----thats what makes Me so upset-----selig needs to go------so do his milwaukee brewers--what do you base your opinion on the Twins and Expos on?--Minnesota has kicked our butts for 2 years now---and Montreal is in 2nd place

No one said that they have to can the Twins or Expos, there are other teams out there that can be contracted. How about the Cubs?

Soxheads
07-10-2002, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by KruseControl04


No one said that they have to can the Twins or Expos, there are other teams out there that can be contracted. How about the Cubs?

As one of my earlier Sound Off columns stated, I think the Angels and Marlins might be canidates for contraction. As much as I hate the Twins, they should not be contracted.


But that's just what I think and I'm sure no one really cares. :smile:

ISUSoxfan
07-11-2002, 05:26 AM
Revenue sharing has to go past just the owners. All of the income after expenses needs to be split between the owners and players, say 90% to players and 10% to owners and staff. Players need to be paid not by set $ amounts, but in percentages of total money taken in by MLB. Owners should not pay players. They should both profit directly from the money MLB brings in. The more money MLB makes, the more the players make. Set each team up in 5 tiers of salary levels so that the top 5 players make the most, and so on. Base team percentages of the total revenue on their finish in the standings so that all teams have the same chance to sign the best players regardless of their market. I posted a more in depth version of this plan last month. I think it is the best way to solve baseball's problems.

LongDistanceFan
07-11-2002, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
Revenue sharing has to go past just the owners. All of the income after expenses needs to be split between the owners and players, say 90% to players and 10% to owners and staff. Players need to be paid not by set $ amounts, but in percentages of total money taken in by MLB. Owners should not pay players. They should both profit directly from the money MLB brings in. The more money MLB makes, the more the players make. Set each team up in 5 tiers of salary levels so that the top 5 players make the most, and so on. Base team percentages of the total revenue on their finish in the standings so that all teams have the same chance to sign the best players regardless of their market. I posted a more in depth version of this plan last month. I think it is the best way to solve baseball's problems.

interesting, but in essence isn't it like a salary cap? in this system how is the owners going to profit, esp when they have to pay for the minor league?

ISUSoxfan
07-11-2002, 06:13 AM
There is no salary cap. There is no limit to what players can earn because they get a percentage, not a set salary. If they promote the game better, they get more money.

Minor Leagues would be considered an expense, and therefore come off the top before either the players or owners get paid.

LongDistanceFan
07-11-2002, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by daver



The owners had to expand,they needed the cash it generated in franchise fees to pay the settlement they owed to players for being found guilty of collusion and improper business tactics. i didn't know that. where did you hear that?

Paulwny
07-11-2002, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i didn't know that. where did you hear that?

Part of an article from business week:

Former baseball commish Fay Vincent places some of the blame for failures in Florida on the notorious collusion among owners in the 1980s that led to a players' award of $280 million. "Owners steal $280 million from the players. Players get a judgment against them. Owners have to come up with that [money] fast, so too many [expansion] franchises are sold," says Vincent.

LongDistanceFan
07-11-2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny


Part of an article from business week:

Former baseball commish Fay Vincent places some of the blame for failures in Florida on the notorious collusion among owners in the 1980s that led to a players' award of $280 million. "Owners steal $280 million from the players. Players get a judgment against them. Owners have to come up with that [money] fast, so too many [expansion] franchises are sold," says Vincent. jeeze, how you you say " they are idiots"

trimbo
07-11-2002, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
Players need to be paid not by set $ amounts, but in percentages of total money taken in by MLB. Owners should not pay players. They should both profit directly from the money MLB brings in. The more money MLB makes, the more the players make. Set each team up in 5 tiers of salary levels so that the top 5 players make the most, and so on. Base team percentages of the total revenue on their finish in the standings so that all teams have the same chance to sign the best players regardless of their market. I posted a more in depth version of this plan last month. I think it is the best way to solve baseball's problems.

I understand what you're getting at, since this is a way to keep owners in small markets from just hanging onto the income they make from revenue sharing, rather than make competitive teams with that dough. But it's never gunna happen.

Only sales people working on commission can really get paid this way, and that only works because sales people are the ones directly trying to bring in the money. While you can say that Bonds and Sosa bring in money directly, solid unknown players like the Damien Millers of the world don't go out and bring in money directly for baseball.

On some level, this may work, but you still have to have base salaries--for some players above $10m--as well. It can't all be percentage.

MarkEdward
07-11-2002, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
jeeze, how you you say " they are idiots"


Read "Lords of the Realm." It only goes up to 1993, but still shows the continuous stupidity of the owners through 100+ years of baseball.

KruseControl04
07-11-2002, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
Revenue sharing has to go past just the owners. All of the income after expenses needs to be split between the owners and players, say 90% to players and 10% to owners and staff. Players need to be paid not by set $ amounts, but in percentages of total money taken in by MLB. Owners should not pay players. They should both profit directly from the money MLB brings in. The more money MLB makes, the more the players make. Set each team up in 5 tiers of salary levels so that the top 5 players make the most, and so on. Base team percentages of the total revenue on their finish in the standings so that all teams have the same chance to sign the best players regardless of their market. I posted a more in depth version of this plan last month. I think it is the best way to solve baseball's problems.

That's not a bad idea at all. The problem is, I don't think either the owners or the players would go for anything like that, ever. Like I've said before, a strike may not be the worst thing for baseball right now. They really need to restructure their economics. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a strike. I'd rather see the players and owners try and fix this before there is a need for a strike, or maybe in the off-season. But if a strike is the only way to fix baseball, then I'll allow it to happen.