PDA

View Full Version : a rant I wish I had penned


cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 01:08 PM
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ml-cubs&msg=25203.1&ctx=0

MarkEdward
08-22-2002, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
http://www.forums.mlb.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=ml-cubs&msg=25203.1&ctx=0


Wow, this guy managed to get almost everything wrong. Good for him.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Wow, this guy managed to get almost everything wrong. Good for him.

Tom Glavine, is that you?

Yes, his notions about the players not having a grip on reality is pretty far out there.

The gist of his argument is:

-that player salaries vs. those of the "average worker" have skyrocketed.
-that the union is out to benefit the richer players than the average-joe player with only a few years of service
-that the players union hasn't done jack as far as making concessions.

I think his notion of a $50M max and $30M salary is stupid, but how can you fault his basic premises? Surely you don't side with the players in their refusal to accept any sort of reasonable salary tax?

idseer
08-22-2002, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


Tom Glavine, is that you?

Yes, his notions about the players not having a grip on reality is pretty far out there.

The gist of his argument is:

-that player salaries vs. those of the "average worker" have skyrocketed.
-that the union is out to benefit the richer players than the average-joe player with only a few years of service
-that the players union hasn't done jack as far as making concessions.

I think his notion of a $50M max and $30M salary is stupid, but how can you fault his basic premises? Surely you don't side with the players in their refusal to accept any sort of reasonable salary tax?

then you'll think i'm stupid too because i think that's a damn good idea, assuming he's talking about the major league roster. it may be VERY unrealistic ... but it sure isn't stupid.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by idseer


then you'll think i'm stupid too because i think that's a damn good idea, assuming he's talking about the major league roster. it may be VERY unrealistic ... but it sure isn't stupid.

Nevermind, I mis read it...

I think the $50M/$30M levels are too low given the current state of professional sports. Besides if they were set that low, the owners would just pocket the difference and more talented players would try to make it in other sports, leaving an even more diluted talent pool to draft from...

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Nevermind, I mis read it...

I think the $50M/$30M levels are too low given the current state of professional sports. Besides if they were set that low, the owners would just pocket the difference and more talented players would try to make it in other sports, leaving an even more diluted talent pool to draft from...

The $50M maximum this guy suggested is just not feasible. Take a 25-man roster, assume that 8-10 guys are making close to the league minimum (say, $350K apiece), and that leaves an average of about $3M a player for most of your starting 8 + rotation. That's nice money by normal standards, but I think a good player should make $6 - $10M a year, with superstars taking in $12 - $13M. That is reasonable, given the potential of clubs to recoup that $ at the gate. A maximum of $90M or so, escalated for inflation + 1% or so, would be a good compromise, I think.

However, this is pie-in-the-sky talk. This would require the whole economic scheme (TV contracts, ticket prices, merch/food prices) of baseball to be rejiggered to scale it back down to a "reasonable" level. That's money out of the pockets of both the players and the owners. Sure, that's good for the game -- it would help make being a fan a more reasonable proposition -- but I just don't see that happening.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


The $50M maximum this guy suggested is just not feasible. Take a 25-man roster, assume that 8-10 guys are making close to the league minimum (say, $350K apiece), and that leaves an average of about $3M a player for most of your starting 8 + rotation. That's nice money by normal standards, but I think a good player should make $6 - $10M a year, with superstars taking in $12 - $13M. That is reasonable, given the potential of clubs to recoup that $ at the gate. A maximum of $90M or so, escalated for inflation + 1% or so, would be a good compromise, I think.

However, this is pie-in-the-sky talk. This would require the whole economic scheme (TV contracts, ticket prices, merch/food prices) of baseball to be rejiggered to scale it back down to a "reasonable" level. That's money out of the pockets of both the players and the owners. Sure, that's good for the game -- it would help make being a fan a more reasonable proposition -- but I just don't see that happening.

That would also meant that every year you would have to renew the minimum guys at there minimum, leaving them no where to go salary wise. There would be massive turn over on every team every year. Also, add in the fact that a good portion of those guys making minimum would be your relievers. How many good relievers are there who make league minimum these days? In reality, each team has about 19 guys they rely on to play in any given week - 5 SP, 8 Position players, 1 DH and 5 relievers (If you play for JM the number is closer to 25). Those players are never going to be league minimum players except in their very first year, to expect otherwise is as you said unreasonable...

People who expect our entertainers to make the same salaries as the people who actually run society are altruistic, but in general don't seem to understand the basic economics of supply and demand.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


That would also meant that every year you would have to renew the minimum guys at there minimum, leaving them no where to go salary wise. There would be massive turn over on every team every year. Also, add in the fact that a good portion of those guys making minimum would be your relievers. How many good relievers are there who make league minimum these days? In reality, each team has about 19 guys they rely on to play in any given week - 5 SP, 8 Position players, 1 DH and 5 relievers (If you play for JM the number is closer to 25). Those players are never going to be league minimum players except in their very first year, to expect otherwise is as you said unreasonable...

An example:

Player 1 - $11M
2 - $7M
3 - $6M
4 - $6M
5 - $5M
6 - $4M
7 - $4M
8 - $4M
9 - $3M
10 - $3M
11 - $2.5M
12 - $2.5M
13 - $2M
14 - $2M
15 - $1.5M
16 - $1.5M
17 - $1M
18 - $1M
19 - $750K
20 - 25 - $300K each.

Total = $69.25M, average = $2.77M each. Adjust that higher for the "premier" teams and you get to $90M. This puts a ceiling on the max. any one player could make, probably, and teams would be forced to cut bait on 5-7 players a year if they wanted to reward some of their young guys. I don't think is too different than what's happening now in many cities.

People who expect our entertainers to make the same salaries as the people who actually run society are altruistic, but in general don't seem to understand the basic economics of supply and demand.

No one here is expecting players to play the game for $80,000 a year, just as no one expects movie stars to not get their share of the financial pie. The difference between the two industries is that baseball $ is earned almost entirely from the denizens of the city they play in -- you can't duplicate copies of the team and see how they fare, in, say, London or Paris. And some cities have a built-in advantage as far as potential audience and media contracts. But the Yankees can't exist as WS champs without teams to play against. If you keep handicapping 2/3rds of their opponents by allowing teams with more $ to sign up everyone in sight, sooner or later (and I think we are starting to see the results, in poor attendance in many cities) the fans will see the game for what it is -- stacked against smaller markets -- and they will stop supporting it. Without the fans, baseball is nothing, and I think the players have lost sight of that.

Daver
08-22-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice





If you keep handicapping 2/3rds of their opponents by allowing teams with more $ to sign up everyone in sight, sooner or later (and I think we are starting to see the results, in poor attendance in many cities) the fans will see the game for what it is -- stacked against smaller markets -- and they will stop supporting it. Without the fans, baseball is nothing, and I think the players have lost sight of that.

If they can't,(in most cases its won't,not can't) compete financially the answer is simple.Sell.

The players have not lost site of this,but a good number of the owners have,as has Bud to some extent.This is not a case of making the playing feild more level,because the owners are not instituting a salary floor to go along with the salary ceiling.

Do you really think any of the revenue sharing that the owners are fighting for will get Carl Pohlad or Michael Glass to spend more money on their payroll?

That is the reason the players are against salary restraint,because the system they are discussing is flawed,they are not against a move for competive balance,the owners just need to find one that will work.

Dadawg_77
08-22-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice

The gist of his argument is:
-that player salaries vs. those of the "average worker" have skyrocketed.
-that the union is out to benefit the richer players than the average-joe player with only a few years of service
-that the players union hasn't done jack as far as making concessions.

I think his notion of a $50M max and $30M salary is stupid, but how can you fault his basic premises? Surely you don't side with the players in their refusal to accept any sort of reasonable salary tax?

I can fault it because it basically wrong.

1> Baseball is an industry not a singular entity, but MLB has the anti-trust exemption. So while collusion between competitors on labor cost would be illegal in every single other case MLB is exempt because of the anti-trust. Now MLB gave up its right to collude since the owners not wanting players to collude among themselves put the non-collusion clause in the CBA. A union is a perfectly legal entity. Hey, are there any pro-teams in right to work states? I wonder if team/player could take advantage of that.

2> Total lack of understanding of economic law of supply and demand. What does it matter if the players make 100 or 1000 times more then your avg joe. That is Law of Supply and Demand. The only constraint on labor cost in MLB is min salary. If the owners didn't want to pay a player so much, they don't have to. But if owner a and owner b want the same player, who ever has the best offer gets the player. That is way free market economics works.

4> Salary caps don't hurt the highest paid player as much as the middle guys. The great players will still get paid, but the avg joe player won't. Look at football, how many mid level guys are out of a job, because teams could get a cheaper rookie, that may not be as good.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77

I can fault it because it basically wrong.

1> Baseball is an industry not a singular entity, but MLB has the anti-trust exemption. So while collusion between competitors on labor cost would be illegal in every single other case MLB is exempt because of the anti-trust. Now MLB gave up its right to collude since the owners not wanting players to collude among themselves put the non-collusion clause in the CBA. A union is a perfectly legal entity. Hey, are there any pro-teams in right to work states? I wonder if team/player could take advantage of that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


2> Total lack of understanding of economic law of supply and demand. What does it matter if the players make 100 or 1000 times more then your avg joe. That is Law of Supply and Demand. The only constraint on labor cost in MLB is min salary. If the owners didn't want to pay a player so much, they don't have to. But if owner a and owner b want the same player, who ever has the best offer gets the player. That is way free market economics works.

Duh. This argument fails to take into account the pragmatics of the 30-team setup we have today as it pertains to the good of the game, the same argument that "free market" types made when A-rod got his contract.

As long as one team is willing to vastly outspend everyone else, baseball will have a fundamental problem. Statistics back up the basic fact that the teams who spend money generally go to the playoffs, and that teams that spend in the top 4-5 generally win the World Series. Why is it that the NFL and NBA have salary caps and revenue sharing and MLB can't? After all, these are all "free market" sports, right?

According to the "free market" wisdom, then, owners that aren't willing to spend the money should get out of the game. Great. So what this will mean is we'll be paying $85 a ticket in 5 years. Wonderful.

Face it: there are very basic inequalities that won't go away unless there is FORCED competitive balance instituted. The Royals and Tigers and Pirates should be able to compete just as much as the Yankees and D-backs can. With the free market system unchecked, this will almost never happen. I'm not saying the owners don't have responsbility here -- Tom Hicks and Reinsdorf have both contributed to their own morass.

4> Salary caps don't hurt the highest paid player as much as the middle guys. The great players will still get paid, but the avg joe player won't. Look at football, how many mid level guys are out of a job, because teams could get a cheaper rookie, that may not be as good.

You might be right here. I don't have a solution for this.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by daver

Do you really think any of the revenue sharing that the owners are fighting for will get Carl Pohlad or Michael Glass to spend more money on their payroll?

The owners should be accountable for any shared revenue, and this money should be forced to be spent on players' salaries, period. Subsidizing poorly-run franchises should not be an object of a salary tax.

Daver
08-22-2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


The owners should be accountable for any shared revenue, and this money should be forced to be spent on players' salaries, period. Subsidizing poorly-run franchises should not be an object of a salary tax.

But the plan that Bud has on the table makes no provisions for this,so do you agree with the players that they have a cause to refuse it?

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by daver


But the plan that Bud has on the table makes no provisions for this,so do you agree with the players that they have a cause to refuse it?

I guess I do!

MarkEdward
08-22-2002, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice

Face it: there are very basic inequalities that won't go away unless there is FORCED competitive balance instituted. The Royals and Tigers and Pirates should be able to compete just as much as the Yankees and D-backs can.


Teams like the Royals can compete under this current system. The Royals choose to spend money on crappy players instead of useful talent. A cap won't keep them from trading Jeremy Giambi for crap, Jermaine Dye for Niefi Perez (then re-signing him, those Royals can't sign *any* free agents), and trading Johnny Damon for Robby Hernandez and A.J. Hinch.

There is neither an economic nor competitive balance problem in Major League Baseball. There's no point in trying to fix a problem that's not there.

Daver
08-22-2002, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Teams like the Royals can compete under this current system. The Royals choose to spend money on crappy players instead of useful talent. A cap won't keep them from trading Jeremy Giambi for crap, Jermaine Dye for Niefi Perez (then re-signing him, those Royals can't sign *any* free agents), and trading Johnny Damon for Robby Hernandez and A.J. Hinch.

There is neither an economic nor competitive balance problem in Major League Baseball. There's no point in trying to fix a problem that's not there.

Ding!!!!

Don Pardot,tell him what he's won!!


(Don) Well uh not a damn thing,sorry,the prizes were contracted to help achieve competetive balance..........

nut_stock
08-22-2002, 05:48 PM
What I don't understand is, how some people think that Baseball should be run like any other industry. I have always looked at the MLB this way: Each team is a franchise of the same Corporation. While it is good to compete among franchises the Corporation does not want to see a bunch of it's franchises fold due to unfair competitive practices of another franchise. If simple hands off economics were in place here, only a few teams could survive (due to the unequal amounts of local revenue). While any business owner would love to get away with owning a monopoly, it doesn't work in baseball. Without competition, there is no baseball! I simply believe that the players should have no say about revenue sharing whatsoever. If they wish to complain about a luxury tax, fine.

hold2dibber
08-22-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Teams like the Royals can compete under this current system. The Royals choose to spend money on crappy players instead of useful talent. A cap won't keep them from trading Jeremy Giambi for crap, Jermaine Dye for Niefi Perez (then re-signing him, those Royals can't sign *any* free agents), and trading Johnny Damon for Robby Hernandez and A.J. Hinch.

There is neither an economic nor competitive balance problem in Major League Baseball. There's no point in trying to fix a problem that's not there.

Huh?

First of all, what do you mean that they can "compete"? I agree that they can, if they are EXCEPTIONALLY well run (and a little lucky) such a team can catch lightening in a bottle and win for a few years here and there (see the A's for an example), but they will always be at a huge disadvantage and will be extremely hard pressed to win it all or to continue winning year after year. Using the A's as an example again, if they had the same financial resources that the Yankees have, they would still have Giambi and Damon (and perhaps would have picked up another starter or two) and would be significantly better than they are today and would be set for a decade-long ride of excellence. They're still good, but, despite the fact that the organization is extremely well-run, they've suffered serious player losses that big $ teams never have to worry about. While they're still competitive, they're at a huge disadvantage as compared to a well run team (like the Yankees) that also happens to have oodles of $. The Yankees can go sign Giambi and Mussina and Clemens, and take on Venture's big contract, without hesitation, and therefore can easily keep plugging any holes in the team that crop up. It is true that a well run team can be competive. However, a well run team that has $ not only can "compete" - it can win lots of world series. Even if a low-revenue team were able to do so, it would be awfully hard pressed to keep that team together for more than a year. And that's just not fair.

Additionally, the fact that since the Divisional playoff format was instituted, something like 5 games total have been won by low payroll teams, screams out that there is an economic and competitive balance problem in MLB. I don't understand how you can contend otherwise.

Daver
08-22-2002, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by nut_stock
I simply believe that the players should have no say about revenue sharing whatsoever. If they wish to complain about a luxury tax, fine.

So if the company you worked for allied itself with twenty other companies,12 of which were in the red,and you were told that there would be no more raises for anyone till all twenty companies were in the black,you would accept this without question.

Sorry I ain't buying it.

Daver
08-22-2002, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber

Additionally, the fact that since the Divisional playoff format was instituted, something like 5 games total have been won by low payroll teams, screams out that there is an economic and competitive balance problem in MLB. I don't understand how you can contend otherwise.

Easy,if they do not wish to make the commitment to compete,sell.


The A's are in the hunt every year and their payroll is a quarter of what the Yankees payroll is.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Teams like the Royals can compete under this current system. The Royals choose to spend money on crappy players instead of useful talent. A cap won't keep them from trading Jeremy Giambi for crap, Jermaine Dye for Niefi Perez (then re-signing him, those Royals can't sign *any* free agents), and trading Johnny Damon for Robby Hernandez and A.J. Hinch.

There is neither an economic nor competitive balance problem in Major League Baseball. There's no point in trying to fix a problem that's not there.

Wow, your one example has sure convinced me that I'm wrong.

I am well aware of the glaring examples of poorly-run small market teams as well as poorly-run large market teams like Baltimore or L.A. the past few years. However, the facts remain that teams in the lower payroll brackets don't do well in the playoffs (if they ever make the playoffs). This didn't used to be the case, but beginning in the early/mid '90s, it's become obvious. If you don't think there's a systemic problem with baseball as it currently stands, then I certainly hope you'll enjoy the remaining World Series matchups in the 2000s: The Yankees/Braves, Yankees/Dodgers, Yankees/Braves, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

hold2dibber
08-22-2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by daver


Easy,if they do not wish to make the commitment to compete,sell.


The A's are in the hunt every year and their payroll is a quarter of what the Yankees payroll is.

Yes, but if they had the same resources the Yankees had, they'd be much much better (i.e., they'd still have Giambi and Damon, and perhaps others). The A's have to be extremely resourceful to keep playing at a competitive level whereas the Yankees don't - they just have to go sign Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens and Mike Mussina. A poorly run organization, no matter how much $ they have, will have be a bad team. But a well run organization with money will always have a huge advantage over a well run organization that doesn't have money. I don't think that's fair, particularly where the team with money may have money not because its well run, but because its in the right market. And to say "if they're not going to pay the $ to be competitive, they should sell" disregards the fact that some teams simply cannot generate the revenues of others, no matter how well run they are. Oakland would have to find an owner that is willing to spend all of his own money to compete, whereas the Yankees can compete using money the team generates.

Daver
08-22-2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Yes, but if they had the same resources the Yankees had, they'd be much much better (i.e., they'd still have Giambi and Damon, and perhaps others). The A's have to be extremely resourceful to keep playing at a competitive level whereas the Yankees don't - they just have to go sign Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens and Mike Mussina. A poorly run organization, no matter how much $ they have, will have be a bad team. But a well run organization with money will always have a huge advantage over a well run organization that doesn't have money. I don't think that's fair, particularly where the team with money may have money not because its well run, but because its in the right market. And to say "if they're not going to pay the $ to be competitive, they should sell" disregards the fact that some teams simply cannot generate the revenues of others, no matter how well run they are. Oakland would have to find an owner that is willing to spend all of his own money to compete, whereas the Yankees can compete using money the team generates.

So you are saying the Yankees should be punished because their owner is a good businessman that knows how to turn a profit,while Jeff Loria and Michael Glass should be rewarded for being terrible businessmen.

Sorry that argument holds no water,if the owners of the small market teams are losing that much money(which they aren't) then sell and quit whining.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by daver


Easy,if they do not wish to make the commitment to compete,sell.

The A's are in the hunt every year and their payroll is a quarter of what the Yankees payroll is.

And when they can't afford to resign Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Tejada, etc. they'll be mediocre again. Meanwhile, Steinbrenner will pick up their table scraps and field another 100-win team.

Below are the payrolls at the beginning of 2002 organized by division and their respective rank. As you can see, generally the teams with a lot of digits after the $ sign do pretty well. The 2 glaring exceptions are the Rangers (who still have no pitching) and the Mets, whose collapse the past few weeks is bewildering. And the Twins and A's, to a lesser extent

AL EAST:
1. Yankees $125,928,583
2. Red Sox $108,366,060
16. Orioles $60,493,487
11. Blue Jays $76,864,333
30. Devil Rays $34,380,000

AL CENTRAL:
27. Twins $40,225,000
18. White Sox $57,052,833
9. Indians $78,909,448
22. Royals $47,257,000
20. Tigers $55,048,000

AL WEST:

15. Angels $61,721,667
8. Mariners $80,282,668
28. Athletics $39,679,746
3. Rangers $105,302,124

NL EAST:
7. Braves $93,470,367
29. Expos $38,670,500
17. Phillies $57,955,000
25. Marlins $41,979,917
6. Mets $94,633,593

NL CENTRAL:
13. Cardinals $74,098,267
14. Astros $63,448,417
23. Reds $45,050,390
24. Pirates $42,323,598
12. Cubs $75,690,833
21. Brewers $50,287,833

NL WEST:
4. D-Backs $102,820,000
5. Dodgers $94,850,952
10. Giants $78,299,835
19. Rockies $56,851,043
26. Padres $41,425,000

Saying the owners should "make a commitment to compete" (a euphemism for spending $?) means, what, that the owners of the Royals get wild and crazy and spend $65M instead of $47M, even if the market they're in can't support that? Again, you free market types make it seem as if every city is created equal, while the truth is far from that. Without the Royals, Tigers, Padres, Brewers, Pirates, etc., baseball would cease to be the "national" pasttime. Not that I don't think there shouldn't be some paring down going on, but with the 30 team structure the way it is, baseball needs to find a way to correct some of the system problems inherent with the big-market/small-market dichotomy.

Daver
08-22-2002, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


Saying the owners should "make a commitment to compete" (a euphemism for spending $?) means, what, that the owners of the Royals get wild and crazy and spend $65M instead of $47M, even if the market they're in can't support that? Again, you free market types make it seem as if every city is created equal, while the truth is far from that. Without the Royals, Tigers, Padres, Brewers, Pirates, etc., baseball would cease to be the "national" pasttime. Not that I don't think there shouldn't be some paring down going on, but with the 30 team structure the way it is, baseball needs to find a way to correct some of the system problems inherent with the big-market/small-market dichotomy.

The A's don't spend,and they compete,the 2000 White Sox did not spend,yet they could compete.

Show me a revenue sharing system that does not reward the slugs that would rather pocket their MLB check every year and I may agree with you,till then if they want to whine,sell.

cheeses_h_rice
08-22-2002, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by daver


The A's don't spend,and they compete,the 2000 White Sox did not spend,yet they could compete.

Show me a revenue sharing system that does not reward the slugs that would rather pocket their MLB check every year and I may agree with you,till then if they want to whine,sell.

I agree with you on that one. I think there should be a minimum required team salary and that any payroll-tax funds would have to go to teams' salaries. That's where the owners and I differ.

But let's face it, the 2000 Sox caught lightning in a bottle. (And then KW let it all out.)

MarkEdward
08-22-2002, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


Wow, your one example has sure convinced me that I'm wrong.

I am well aware of the glaring examples of poorly-run small market teams as well as poorly-run large market teams like Baltimore or L.A. the past few years. However, the facts remain that teams in the lower payroll brackets don't do well in the playoffs (if they ever make the playoffs). This didn't used to be the case, but beginning in the early/mid '90s, it's become obvious. If you don't think there's a systemic problem with baseball as it currently stands, then I certainly hope you'll enjoy the remaining World Series matchups in the 2000s: The Yankees/Braves, Yankees/Dodgers, Yankees/Braves, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

3 points:

1. Playoff wins are an awful way to judge competitive balance. Playoffs, because of the short series, are mostly based on luck.

2. You're saying that baseball had perfect competitive balance for 90 years, but beginning in 1990 it collapsed?

3. Must be pretty cool to have a crystal ball. Seriously, you do know a small market team won the World Series last year, right? Meanwhile, in the glorified salary cap sports, two teams from large markets won the championships.

Jerry_Manuel
08-22-2002, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
seriously, you do know a small market team won the World Series last year, right? Meanwhile, in the glorified salary cap sports, two teams from large markets won the championships.

Arizona has an owner willing to lose his ass to win. Having a packed ballpark every damn night, doesn't hurt either.

Yeah, and if Jordan didn't fall into their lap, Portland would've won. Big time market right there.

MarkEdward
08-22-2002, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Arizona has an owner willing to lose his ass to win. Having a packed ballpark every damn night, doesn't hurt either.


Doesn't change the fact that Arizona's a small market team.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward



Doesn't change the fact that Arizona's a small market team.

With the 4th highest payroll taking huge losses to field that team. It's a bad example, period.

While I agree that owners who feel they cannot compete should sell the team and take the profits, I also feel that more revenue sharing should occur. I wouldn't object to a salary cap whatever form that takes (tax on payrolls, hard cap, etc.). The union has stated that they are not interested in a salary floor, which is just there way of saying no cap either.

Why are you so against revenue sharing and salary limitations, just curious...

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by daver


So if the company you worked for allied itself with twenty other companies,12 of which were in the red,and you were told that there would be no more raises for anyone till all twenty companies were in the black,you would accept this without question.

Sorry I ain't buying it.

What if your company was dependent on those other companies to provide a service or product that your company cannot provide for itself? What if those companies were really all owned by one corporation and that corporation was dependent on the health of all of the companies, not just yours? What if the system was geared to guarantee the financial success of only a few of those companies?

That is the situation that confronts MLB. All of the teams must exist for any of them to have fans. Maybe a few of them could go away, but how many should be contracted? Every one that hasn't turned a profit recently? Everyone that hasn't made the playoffs recently? Where do we draw the line?

You mention the example where the other companies are losing money. But, in MLB the employees in those other companies are all members of your union. If those companies go broke, cease to exist or go deeply in debt, it will effect your union brethren in a really bad way. Do you think that is fair?

Daver
08-22-2002, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


What if your company was dependent on those other companies to provide a service or product that your company cannot provide for itself? What if those companies were really all owned by one corporation and that corporation was dependent on the health of all of the companies, not just yours? What if the system was geared to guarantee the financial success of only a few of those companies?

That is the situation that confronts MLB. All of the teams must exist for any of them to have fans. Maybe a few of them could go away, but how many should be contracted? Every one that hasn't turned a profit recently? Everyone that hasn't made the playoffs recently? Where do we draw the line?

You mention the example where the other companies are losing money. But, in MLB the employees in those other companies are all members of your union. If those companies go broke, cease to exist or go deeply in debt, it will effect your union brethren in a really bad way. Do you think that is fair?

In regards to MLB,it is easy,open your books.Prove to all that you are losing money,cause until I see evidence disproving it I will continue to beleive that MLB teams are cooking their books,and Bud says its OK to do so since he testified on Capitol Hill with those cooked books.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by daver


In regards to MLB,it is easy,open your books.Prove to all that you are losing money,cause until I see evidence disproving it I will continue to beleive that MLB teams are cooking their books,and Bud says its OK to do so since he testified on Capitol Hill with those cooked books.

Okay, now that is a fair point. I'm curious. Do you think almost all MLB teams are making money? Do you believe the current system is the best for MLB? If not, how would you like to see the system changed for the better?

Daver
08-22-2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, now that is a fair point. I'm curious. Do you think almost all MLB teams are making money? Do you believe the current system is the best for MLB? If not, how would you like to see the system changed for the better?

I think two teams are losing money,the Expos,and the Marlins,isn't it strange that Jeff Loria has owned both of these franchises?

How to change it for the better?

That is a loaded question,how far are the owners willing to go in proving their point?

Are they willing to open the books to the MLBPA,not in the limited fashion that they do now,but truly open the books and prove that guys like Carl Pohlad and Micheal Glass are up front with what they are making against what they are spending?

Are the owners going to continue to stand behind guys like Tom Hicks,who calls in his opinion on the labor battle from his yacht offsea while saying he is getting raped AFTER he paid Alex Rodriguez a record contract in a market in which he was bidding against himself.

Asking the MLBPA to police themselves against the owners is ridiculious.

voodoochile
08-22-2002, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by daver


I think two teams are losing money,the Expos,and the Marlins,isn't it strange that Jeff Loria has owned both of these franchises?

How to change it for the better?

That is a loaded question,how far are the owners willing to go in proving their point?

Are they willing to open the books to the MLBPA,not in the limited fashion that they do now,but truly open the books and prove that guys like Carl Pohlad and Micheal Glass are up front with what they are making against what they are spending?

Are the owners going to continue to stand behind guys like Tom Hicks,who calls in his opinion on the labor battle from his yacht offsea while saying he is getting raped AFTER he paid Alex Rodriguez a record contract in a market in which he was bidding against himself.

Asking the MLBPA to police themselves against the owners is ridiculious.

Why, every other sport does it. Of course every other sport has open books, too. So it does swing both ways.

Hicks is a moron, on that we can agree. Boys and their toys...

hold2dibber
08-23-2002, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by daver


So you are saying the Yankees should be punished because their owner is a good businessman that knows how to turn a profit,while Jeff Loria and Michael Glass should be rewarded for being terrible businessmen.

Sorry that argument holds no water,if the owners of the small market teams are losing that much money(which they aren't) then sell and quit whining.

That is not at all what I'm saying; the Yankees should share the wealth (not as a "punishment") because they happen to exist in a market in which it is infintely easier to make money than it is, in say, K.C. or Montreal. The Mets bring in massive amounts of revenue; is it because they're run by such good business people? No, it's because they're in New York. The A's don't bring in much money - is it because they're run by such bad business people? No, it's because they're in a lousy market. What you seem to be saying is that small market teams need to be owned by people who are willing to spend their own money, beyond what the team itself earns, in order to stay competitive, whereas owners of teams from big markets, like the Yankees, should not have to dig into their own pockets. That seems absurd to me, especially since the Yankees are dependent upon K.C. and Detroit and Oakland, etc.

And you still haven't responded to the fact that the A's, who are run by very smart, very resourceful people, have gotten absolutely screwed because they don't have money. The Yankees have $ and are run by smart people. Therefore, they can sign Giambi and Mussina and take on Ventura's contract and win lots of world series. The A's don't have $ and are run by smart people and they lose Giambi and Damon and Isringhousen. Why? Because the Yankees happen to exist in a market that is easy to make money in, whereas the A's do not. Being smart alone isn't enough.

It is horrible, IMHO, that teams like the current A's, the Pirates of the early '90s, the 2002 Central Division Champion Minnesota Twins, etc., can't stay together. It's bad for the sport and its bad for the fans. These teams were all run by smart people, but exist in bad markets and therefore all were/will be dismantled without reaching their potential because they don't make enough $. That's why the system needs to be reformed.

MarkEdward
08-23-2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


With the 4th highest payroll taking huge losses to field that team. It's a bad example, period.

Why are you so against revenue sharing and salary limitations, just curious...

Well, Arizona is still small market, so people shouldn't complain about small markets never having a chance to win. Second, I'm not actually against a revenue sharing program. I'm against a program that has the Cleveland Indians giving money to the Philadelphia Phillies. I'm also against a revenue sharing program that lets small market franchises pocket the money instead of investing it in their team.

voodoochile
08-23-2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


Well, Arizona is still small market, so people shouldn't complain about small markets never having a chance to win. Second, I'm not actually against a revenue sharing program. I'm against a program that has the Cleveland Indians giving money to the Philadelphia Phillies. I'm also against a revenue sharing program that lets small market franchises pocket the money instead of investing it in their team.

Okay, now that I agree with, but the players have flat out rejected a minimum team salary requirement to date.

The point about Arizona was: The only way this small market team wins the WS and competes again this year is by having a very rich owner who is willing to take huge personal losses to achieve the end. How many people like that are out there? How long before AZ has a huge sell off and sees no benefits other than the financial losses to show for their 1 or 2 year joy ride? Remind me again how much Forida has reaped the benefits of their improbable and costly run to the WS a few years ago...

MarkEdward
08-23-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Okay, now that I agree with, but the players have flat out rejected a minimum team salary requirement to date.

I don't think there should be minimum payroll. It would force teams to sign overpaid veterans when they have younger, cheaper talent available.


The point about Arizona was: The only way this small market team wins the WS and competes again this year is by having a very rich owner who is willing to take huge personal losses to achieve the end. [/B]

Well, Arizona may fall back to earth after a few years, but that's more of management's fault. They traded Brad Penny for Matt Mantei. It's true that the D-Backs will lose some players this offseason, like Jay Bell and Mark Grace, but they do have young talent to replace them (Spivey, Overbay, and Durazo).

hold2dibber
08-23-2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward


I don't think there should be minimum payroll. It would force teams to sign overpaid veterans when they have younger, cheaper talent available.




Well, Arizona may fall back to earth after a few years, but that's more of management's fault. They traded Brad Penny for Matt Mantei. It's true that the D-Backs will lose some players this offseason, like Jay Bell and Mark Grace, but they do have young talent to replace them (Spivey, Overbay, and Durazo).

The reason they will fall back to earth is not because of a few bad trades, but because their owners cannot continue to suffer massive personal financial losses ad infinitum. At some point, they'll have to pull the plug by not bringing in expensive veterans to replace their current expensive veterans when those expensive veterans (i.e., Bell, Williams, Johnson, Schilling, Grace, etc.) move on.

As to the minimum payroll, I think it is a necessary "evil" to make revenue sharing work properly. And I don't think it would force teams to overpay mediocre veterans - it would, if complimented by a salary cap or strict luxury tax, allow the talent to be spread more evenly from team so that good veteran ball players would be signing all over the place, and not just with the New York teams and the Rangers (like in football).

Daver
08-23-2002, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


The reason they will fall back to earth is not because of a few bad trades, but because their owners cannot continue to suffer massive personal financial losses ad infinitum. At some point, they'll have to pull the plug by not bringing in expensive veterans to replace their current expensive veterans when those expensive veterans (i.e., Bell, Williams, Johnson, Schilling, Grace, etc.) move on.

As to the minimum payroll, I think it is a necessary "evil" to make revenue sharing work properly. And I don't think it would force teams to overpay mediocre veterans - it would, if complimented by a salary cap or strict luxury tax, allow the talent to be spread more evenly from team so that good veteran ball players would be signing all over the place, and not just with the New York teams and the Rangers (like in football).

What owners suffering personal losses?

Sorry I ain't buying that one either.


Like I said before,come up with a revenue sharing plan that does not put cash directly into Carl Pohlad's pocket and I will listen,but what MLB is trying to push now is an utter joke,that does nothing but punish the Yankees and other large market teams for doing business well.

As far as I am concerned,let the teams that can't make it financially file for bankruptcy.

ma-gaga
08-23-2002, 04:36 PM
Daver I want to jump in, but you've gotten all the bases covered. The current revenue sharing plan, or the one that has been implemented in the past basing sharing on payroll is a joke.

I like the ones based on population potential, but that'll never fly. I just hate what Bud is doing to the sport. If they get the agreement done before the 30th, you'll see high revenue owners suddenly getting 'screwed' by their cable tv deals. Amazingly enough, they'll "just barely" be able to get by after making all those 'other' payments on their expense list.

This is nothing new. It's sad that they continue to get away with it, because of the mis-interpretation of the general public thinking that the PLAYERS are the greedy ones. Sad.

:tool
bu-wahahahahaha! I rule with an iron fist!

MarkEdward
08-23-2002, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


The reason they will fall back to earth is not because of a few bad trades, but because their owners cannot continue to suffer massive personal financial losses ad infinitum. At some point, they'll have to pull the plug by not bringing in expensive veterans to replace their current expensive veterans when those expensive veterans (i.e., Bell, Williams, Johnson, Schilling, Grace, etc.) move on.

First, please show me how the Diamondbacks are losing money. Second, why do they need to bring in expensive talent to replace leaving free agents? Jay Bell has been *below* replacement level this year; shouldn't be too hard to find someone to replace him. Matt Williams is signed through 2003. Randy Johnson is signed through 2003, Schilling through 2004. Durazo can replace Grace.


As to the minimum payroll, I think it is a necessary "evil" to make revenue sharing work properly. And I don't think it would force teams to overpay mediocre veterans - it would, if complimented by a salary cap or strict luxury tax, allow the talent to be spread more evenly from team so that good veteran ball players would be signing all over the place, and not just with the New York teams and the Rangers (like in football). [/B]

Let's use the KC Royals as an example. The team payroll is at 38 million, 2 million short of the floor. They have a chance to pick up Adam Melhuse for 600,000$, or Joe Girardi for 3 million. The obvious choice is Melhuse, except that the Royals would need to sign Girardi to fill payroll obligations. The patroll floor would actually hinder the Royals from being competitive.

Jerry_Manuel
08-23-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
First, please show me how the Diamondbacks are losing money.

They don't get any of the tv revenue I do believe.

Daver
08-23-2002, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


They don't get any of the tv revenue I do believe.

They do starting this season,that is what Coangelo was banking on when he bought last years team.

Daver
08-23-2002, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Daver I want to jump in, but you've gotten all the bases covered. The current revenue sharing plan, or the one that has been implemented in the past basing sharing on payroll is a joke.

I like the ones based on population potential, but that'll never fly. I just hate what Bud is doing to the sport. If they get the agreement done before the 30th, you'll see high revenue owners suddenly getting 'screwed' by their cable tv deals. Amazingly enough, they'll "just barely" be able to get by after making all those 'other' payments on their expense list.

This is nothing new. It's sad that they continue to get away with it, because of the mis-interpretation of the general public thinking that the PLAYERS are the greedy ones. Sad.

:tool
bu-wahahahahaha! I rule with an iron fist!

I posted this before,but this system is the fairest I have seen yet.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020816pappas.shtml