PDA

View Full Version : Idea to Motivate Owners


FightingBillini
10-19-2004, 05:45 PM
I know this isnt likely to happen, because some owners never plan on winning, but its logical. Every team can spare $2mil a season. I say, the MLB should take an extra $2mil a season from every team, and hold it as the "prize" for winning. Out of the $60mil, $5mil could go to each division winner, $3mil to each wild card, $8mil to the league champions, and an extra $8mil to the series winner. This would go the the teams, not to the players. They already get shares. My reasoning is, miserly owners, ahem, Jerry, will be more likely to take that big risk and make a trade if they have a possible prize of $21million for winning the world series. $21 million can pay for several very good players. A trade for say, Randy Johnson would more than pay for itself if it won you the series. Your thoughts?

Meixner007
10-19-2004, 05:54 PM
I know this isnt likely to happen, because some owners never plan on winning, but its logical. Every team can spare $2mil a season. I say, the MLB should take an extra $2mil a season from every team, and hold it as the "prize" for winning. Out of the $60mil, $5mil could go to each division winner, $3mil to each wild card, $8mil to the league champions, and an extra $8mil to the series winner. This would go the the teams, not to the players. They already get shares. My reasoning is, miserly owners, ahem, Jerry, will be more likely to take that big risk and make a trade if they have a possible prize of $21million for winning the world series. $21 million can pay for several very good players. A trade for say, Randy Johnson would more than pay for itself if it won you the series. Your thoughts?Increased revenue is going to happen if you win the series/divison in the first place. Plus that's gonna be a tough sell to the small mkt. teams in the league. This would just encourage the spending habits similar to the Yanme's and red cubs.

Ol' No. 2
10-19-2004, 06:01 PM
Nice idea, but in practice it becomes reverse revenue sharing - you tax all the teams and give the money to the Yankees.

FightingBillini
10-19-2004, 06:08 PM
Nice idea, but in practice it becomes reverse revenue sharing - you tax all the teams and give the money to the Yankees.
For that to happen the Yankees would have to win the World Series, which they wont. Its not going to motivate the Yankees, Cubs, Red Sox, and other big payroll teams. They already spend money. It will motivate teams like the White Sox, Pardes, Rangers and Marlins to go out for extra player(s) that can help them win.

illinibk
10-19-2004, 06:15 PM
I can just imagine the players union wanting a piece of that pie at the end of every season.

wdelaney72
10-20-2004, 08:22 AM
There are 2 problems with the league's so-called revenue sharing policy.

1) The luxury tax isn't steep enough
2) You can't have a salary cap without a salary floor. There needs to be some kind of minimum set in place for each team. The Brewers had a payroll of 27.5 million this year... pathetic.

Tekijawa
10-20-2004, 09:38 AM
I don't see Commisioner Jerry Reinsdorf agreeing to a Salary floor.... His puppet Bud wouldn't like it either.

Ol' No. 2
10-20-2004, 03:45 PM
2) You can't have a salary cap without a salary floor. There needs to be some kind of minimum set in place for each team.The NFL figured that out a while back. Without it, the cheap teams just get cheaper, and you have no more competitive balance than before. As part of the NFL salary cap structure there is a minimum, currently set at 55% of average gross revenues. Translated to baseball, the minimum would be about $60-65M. So while a handful of teams would have to reduce payroll, almost half the teams would have to increase their payrolls. The problem is, how do you tell teams like Pittsburgh or Kansas City that they have to raise their payrolls to $60M? If you do that you really will have teams going broke. The NFL and NBA salary cap systems work only because most of the revenues are shared equally. Without more revenue sharing, there's no way a system like that can work.

benjamin
10-20-2004, 07:14 PM
I know this isnt likely to happen, because some owners never plan on winning, but its logical. Every team can spare $2mil a season. I say, the MLB should take an extra $2mil a season from every team, and hold it as the "prize" for winning. Out of the $60mil, $5mil could go to each division winner, $3mil to each wild card, $8mil to the league champions, and an extra $8mil to the series winner. This would go the the teams, not to the players. They already get shares. My reasoning is, miserly owners, ahem, Jerry, will be more likely to take that big risk and make a trade if they have a possible prize of $21million for winning the world series. $21 million can pay for several very good players. A trade for say, Randy Johnson would more than pay for itself if it won you the series. Your thoughts?Teams with more money can afford better players.

Teams with better players have a better chance at winning.

Teams that win have an opportunity to get a few extra million bucks just for winning.

How exactly does this give incentive to teams unable to spend like the Yankee$???

Are the Brewers suddely going to spend $100 million and more on a team, lose about $70 million dollars in the process, just to make a measley $2 million back if they stay healthy and survive all the other pitfalls on the way to winning a wild card?

Get real.

This would just give the Yankee$ more money to play with.

doublem23
10-20-2004, 08:24 PM
http://www.yankeetradition.com/trophy.jpg

If that doesn't motivate owners, they shouldn't own a Major League Baseball team.

Foulke29
10-21-2004, 12:26 PM
There are 2 problems with the league's so-called revenue sharing policy.

1) The luxury tax isn't steep enough
2) You can't have a salary cap without a salary floor. There needs to be some kind of minimum set in place for each team. The Brewers had a payroll of 27.5 million this year... pathetic.
Pathetic or not, the Brewers showed signs of being a competetive team - and I would have loved to have seen what they would have done with Sexton in the lineup for the whole season.

Foulke29
10-21-2004, 12:27 PM
http://www.yankeetradition.com/trophy.jpg

If that doesn't motivate owners, they shouldn't own a Major League Baseball team.
Amen brother. Do we have an image of this saved in our smile faces/photos?

Flight #24
10-21-2004, 12:59 PM
There are 2 problems with the league's so-called revenue sharing policy.

1) The luxury tax isn't steep enough
2) You can't have a salary cap without a salary floor. There needs to be some kind of minimum set in place for each team. The Brewers had a payroll of 27.5 million this year... pathetic.
I don't see Commisioner Jerry Reinsdorf agreeing to a Salary floor.... His puppet Bud wouldn't like it either.
Actually, owners proposed a salary floor in the last CBA negotiations, nixed by Der Fehrer because it was too close conceptually to a salary cap for his liking.

IIRC, they also proposed a greater % of revenue sharing but were again dinged by the MLBPA. Why would the MLBPA care about owners sharing revenues??? Because anything that takes away from the Yanks/BoSox ability to bid up FA costs (and the associated costs by players who will be compared to big-$$$ FAs in arbitration) is inherently evil, according to them.