PDA

View Full Version : Should or salary caps be more like the NFL?


WSoxFanForever
10-28-2005, 03:21 PM
In thinking about the Konerko situation, I get angry that medium and small market teams really lose players fast to the East coast $$$, and I've felt for a while that stricter salary caps would give more teams a chance. Am I alone?

Uncle_Patrick
10-28-2005, 03:33 PM
There aren't salary caps now in baseball now, so you can't make them stricter. My only thought on caps is you need a floor if you are going to have a cap. As unfair as it seems for teams like NY or Boston to overpay for players, I think its just as unfair for teams like Tampa Bay or KC to play as cheap as possible. I realize that many teams don't have the funds that the Yankees or the Mets have but if you can't afford to hire major league talent, you shouldn't own a major league club.

Lip Man 1
10-28-2005, 04:26 PM
WS Fan Forever:

Or here's a radical idea, perhaps those owners who claim 'they can't compete' can sell their teams to those who can and will.

Lip

Tragg
10-28-2005, 04:29 PM
No, to answer the thread starting question.

downstairs
10-28-2005, 05:00 PM
Well... the one thing I hate about the NFL is the parity. Its a joke to me. I consider myself somewhere between a casual fan and a die-hard.

You need to find a balance between pure parity (NFL) and the joke that is the NBA where you know who is going to win 90% of the games.

Secondly... why does everyone think the MLB is broke? Look at the past 10 years of playoffs. Lots of small-market teams made it to the playoffs just fine.

So KC and TB can't compete? I call BS. They're so poorly run, I'd bet those teams would finish no better than .500 if given $200 Million/year free to spend.

maurice
10-28-2005, 05:32 PM
The NFL salary cap punishes teams that are good at developing a large number of very good players and makes it hard to keep a talented team together for more than a couple of years. In that sense, the cap actually accellerates player movement.

Daver
10-28-2005, 05:56 PM
A salary cap achieves only one thing, it guarantees the owners profit margin.

antitwins13
10-28-2005, 06:29 PM
one word...no

TheOldRoman
10-28-2005, 07:52 PM
A floor would never work.
Lets say the floor is $30mil. and Tampa's payroll is at $22 mil. The Devil Rays are going after two mid-level free agents, and miss out on both. At that point, they would need to spend the extra $8mil, but there is nobody worthwhile to spend it on. In order to make the floor, Tampa then promotes a minor leaguer and signs the best guy available at any position - Jose Valentin, to an $8mil contract. I know it sounds ridiculous, but the small market teams like TB, KC, and Pittsburgh don't care about winning. They will drop just enough money to meet the cap, and they wont care how it is spent.

This leads to more trouble, because Jose Valentin is a very poor shortstop, but he is now making $8mil a year. With his salary that high, the Royce Claytons of the world will be demanding $8-10mil a year, and the Juan Uribe's of the world will be demanding $14-16mil. The floor would throw everything off.

WSoxFanForever
10-28-2005, 10:08 PM
Well, without a cap (which is what I meant--and it doesn't have to be like the NFL; just brought that up because it's easier for bad teams to recover), teams that aren't rich can't keep their stars. I don't think a franchise should be penalized for not having as much money as George Steinbrenner nor that the franchise should be sold and maybe moved from a city that loves it's team. I'm thinking of my other team, the Brewers. They have a good team, have developed a good farm team, but when they get really good, they'll be enticed to NY or Boston (not for certain, but it happens a lot). I think there should be some controls. The owners are making money anyways and some players are making way over what they are worth. To be my own devil's advocate, those big spending teams don't always win. A bunch of us were discussing this today. We all had differing opinions.

SoxFan64
10-28-2005, 10:42 PM
I concur with Daver -- salary caps favor the owners.

But more importantly baseball has a tax on the high payroll clubs. That moeny goes into a pool for the rest of the teams. (I do not know the exact process but I have no doubt that someone here can fill us in.)

The compliant of Steinbrenner (sp?) is he has been paying into that fund because of his high payroll and the teams that get the most of the money, i.e. TB and KC, do not spend the money on getting new players. They keep it for themselves in the form of profits. To that I agree with Steinbrenner. :o:

But you can't make the low end teams have a floor because they would over pay for someone just to get to the floor, maybe it would be $8 million for a washed up player.

To me, the salary cap is not the anwser is the one good thing that the NFL did and that is thanks to Wellington Mara -- pool the local radio and tv money.

But the owners won't do that -- self interest.

So we are back to the beginner with no solution.

Ol' No. 2
10-28-2005, 11:23 PM
I concur with Daver -- salary caps favor the owners.

But more importantly baseball has a tax on the high payroll clubs. That moeny goes into a pool for the rest of the teams. (I do not know the exact process but I have no doubt that someone here can fill us in.)

The compliant of Steinbrenner (sp?) is he has been paying into that fund because of his high payroll and the teams that get the most of the money, i.e. TB and KC, do not spend the money on getting new players. They keep it for themselves in the form of profits. To that I agree with Steinbrenner. :o:

But you can't make the low end teams have a floor because they would over pay for someone just to get to the floor, maybe it would be $8 million for a washed up player.

To me, the salary cap is not the anwser is the one good thing that the NFL did and that is thanks to Wellington Mara -- pool the local radio and tv money.

But the owners won't do that -- self interest.

So we are back to the beginner with no solution.You can't make a team spend its money wisely. But if you make them spend it, they have a built-in incentive to spend it wisely, i.e. putting a good team on the field increases their revenues. As it is now, they have a perverse incentive. Putting the money in their pocket is a sure profit as opposed to an uncertain profit if they spend it on the team.

I believe a floor with sufficient revenue sharing is the way to go. IMO, teams like TB that pocket the revenue sharing money do more harm than Steinbrenner.

Parrothead
10-28-2005, 11:34 PM
I think there should be a cap. But it should have been done many years ago. There is no way it would be done now due to teams owning thier own broadcasting rights. Sure the owners may have a bigger profit margin and marginal players may move around more but the prices of stuff might be more reasonable for the family who goes everyonce in awhile. And it would give teams the ability to overcome thier own stupidity. Parity is a good thing. Also, they should not have expanded as much as they did. That would have helped too.

Daver
10-28-2005, 11:59 PM
Well, without a cap (which is what I meant--and it doesn't have to be like the NFL; just brought that up because it's easier for bad teams to recover), teams that aren't rich can't keep their stars. I don't think a franchise should be penalized for not having as much money as George Steinbrenner nor that the franchise should be sold and maybe moved from a city that loves it's team. I'm thinking of my other team, the Brewers. They have a good team, have developed a good farm team, but when they get really good, they'll be enticed to NY or Boston (not for certain, but it happens a lot). I think there should be some controls. The owners are making money anyways and some players are making way over what they are worth. To be my own devil's advocate, those big spending teams don't always win. A bunch of us were discussing this today. We all had differing opinions.

Without complete revenue sharing, you can't compare baseball to the NFL.

Bill Veeck called for revenue sharing in baseball in the 60's,and was ostracized for his opinions, but he was on the path of being right.

FarWestChicago
10-29-2005, 01:09 AM
The NFL is completely boring because it's a giant cauldron of mediocrity. Too much parity is a bad thing. Hell, for all of Steinbrenner's money, baseball ain't doing too bad.

Railsplitter
10-29-2005, 09:00 AM
The NFL is completely boring because it's a giant cauldron of mediocrity. Too much parity is a bad thing. Hell, for all of Steinbrenner's money, baseball ain't doing too bad.

I'm not so sure there is parity in the NFL any more. Maybe I'm paying more attention to it, but it seems to me there lots more 30 point victory margins in the NFL this year than there have been in recent years.

rbeze09
11-02-2005, 05:13 PM
I think the MLB definitely needs to do something to control how much players can be paid and how much teams can pay. Obviously spending money doesnt necessarily guarantee sucess, but it doesnt hurt. I think MLB is in jeopardy of having a strike on their hands soon if they dont fix some of the financial issues

WestSox
11-02-2005, 05:29 PM
You can't make a team spend its money wisely. But if you make them spend it, they have a built-in incentive to spend it wisely, i.e. putting a good team on the field increases their revenues. As it is now, they have a perverse incentive. Putting the money in their pocket is a sure profit as opposed to an uncertain profit if they spend it on the team.

I believe a floor with sufficient revenue sharing is the way to go. IMO, teams like TB that pocket the revenue sharing money do more harm than Steinbrenner.

I'd like to see a cap and a floor (for the aforementioned reasons). MLB and the MLBPA could negotiate raises in both every few years to ensure that player salaries don't stagnate. Owners that couldn't meet the floor would be forced to sell.

Daver
11-02-2005, 05:39 PM
I'd like to see a cap and a floor (for the aforementioned reasons). MLB and the MLBPA could negotiate raises in both every few years to ensure that player salaries don't stagnate. Owners that couldn't meet the floor would be forced to sell.

None of this is evenly remotely feasible without revenue sharing.

I nominate you to tell George Steinbrennar he has to share his revenue with the 29 other teams.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 05:41 PM
None of this is evenly remotely feasible without revenue sharing.

I nominate you to tell George Steinbrennar he has to share his revenue with the 29 other teams.

Isn't he already doing that via the "luxury tax"?

Daver
11-02-2005, 05:45 PM
Isn't he already doing that via the "luxury tax"?

No.

The luxury tax is paid directly to the office of the commisioner, and is doled at as the commisioner sees fit.

Revenue sharing is commiting X percentage of all revenue to a common pool and writing a check of 30 equal shares of that pool at the end of the season.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 05:49 PM
No.

The luxury tax is paid directly to the office of the commisioner, and is doled at as the commisioner sees fit.

Revenue sharing is commiting X percentage of all revenue to a common pool and writing a check of 30 equal shares of that pool at the end of the season.

So, does anybody know what Selig does with it?

I understand the difference, but the end result in both cases still takes money out of George's pocket.

IMO, it's just a matter of time before George stops getting his way.

Daver
11-02-2005, 06:04 PM
So, does anybody know what Selig does with it?

I understand the difference, but the end result in both cases still takes money out of George's pocket.

IMO, it's just a matter of time before George stops getting his way.

Ask Bud Selig, but he does not have to tell anyone. I would guess a chunk of it is being used for operating capital for the Nationals.

I would bet some of it is being used to replenish MLB's "emergency fund", which they dipped into when they shouldered the cost of moving the Nationals, as well as the ongoing legal representation in Montreal.


The reason behind a salary cap is to guarantee the owners profit margin, it serves no other purpose, and if the owners are not willing to commit to revenue sharing, they have no reason to commit to a salary cap.


What baseball needs more than anything else is an automous commisioner.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 06:25 PM
The reason behind a salary cap is to guarantee the owners profit margin, it serves no other purpose, and if the owners are not willing to commit to revenue sharing, they have no reason to commit to a salary cap.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. Then again, the absence of a cap has allowed Steinbrenner to buy the AL East for the past decade. And, as was mentioned earlier, the current system already guarantees a profit margin for cheapskate franchises like the Devil Rays. They can put crap on the field year after year and still make money.

IMO, the best solution is a soft cap (similar to what the NBA has) with a floor to get rid of the cheapskates. And revenue sharing can be included in that as well. To ensure that the players don't get hosed, the cap and floor will be raised every few years and the amount will be negotiated in the CBA.

If a cap is completely out of the question, some teams should be downsized. Franchises like the Devil Rays are worse for the sport than King George's limitless pockets.

Daver
11-02-2005, 07:02 PM
I think there's a lot of truth to that. Then again, the absence of a cap has allowed Steinbrenner to buy the AL East for the past decade. And, as was mentioned earlier, the current system already guarantees a profit margin for cheapskate franchises like the Devil Rays. They can put crap on the field year after year and still make money.

IMO, the best solution is a soft cap (similar to what the NBA has) with a floor to get rid of the cheapskates. And revenue sharing can be included in that as well. To ensure that the players don't get hosed, the cap and floor will be raised every few years and the amount will be negotiated in the CBA.

If a cap is completely out of the question, some teams should be downsized. Franchises like the Devil Rays are worse for the sport than King George's limitless pockets.

Not all teams benefit from the limited revenue sharing that MLB has now, the Nationals are a prime example of this, even the small sum they were getting in revenue sharing from MLB was not enough to offset the fact that they had no revenue from TV or radio while in Montreal.

You cannot compare baseball with any of the other sports, because all of them, including hockey, share far more revenue than MLB does, baseball shared revenue is limited to MLB branded merchandise, and national TV and Radio contracts, that is all.

If MLB owners really wanted a level playing field, they could easily have it, obviously they don't, which is why I brought up the point that they need to start with an automous commisioner and work from there.

Hendu
11-02-2005, 07:10 PM
I don't think MLB needs a salary cap. An idea I'd like to see (but will never happen) is a system where baseball clubs could force underperforming players into arbitration that could decrease their salary. For example, 3 years into a player's contract, the club could opt to take them to arbitration and have the contract decreased or voided. The player could refuse arbitration and would become a free agent.

Wasted money on guys like Albert Belle, Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Derek Belle, Mo Vaughn, etc. can kill a club for years. If a player can no longer live up to their end of the contract, then they do not deserve their salary. This also forces small market teams to pass on signing (or re-signing) free agents because, a few years down the road when the player suddenly sucks, it will handcuff a franchise that doesn't have the revenue to make up for bad contracts.

Daver
11-02-2005, 07:18 PM
I don't think MLB needs a salary cap. An idea I'd like to see (but will never happen) is a system where baseball clubs could force underperforming players into arbitration that could decrease their salary. For example, 3 years into a player's contract, the club could opt to take them to arbitration and have the contract decreased or voided. The player could refuse arbitration and would become a free agent.

Wasted money on guys like Albert Belle, Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton, Derek Belle, Mo Vaughn, etc. can kill a club for years. If a player can no longer live up to their end of the contract, then they do not deserve their salary. This also forces small market teams to pass on signing (or re-signing) free agents because, a few years down the road when the player suddenly sucks, it will handcuff a franchise that doesn't have the revenue to make up for bad contracts.

It would be much easier if all contracts were guaranteed for one season at a time, you can sign a player for five years, but you have to guarantee his contract at the end of the season for the next, or release him to FA, and repeat that for every year of the contract.

asindc
11-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Not all teams benefit from the limited revenue sharing that MLB has now, the Nationals are a prime example of this, even the small sum they were getting in revenue sharing from MLB was not enough to offset the fact that they had no revenue from TV or radio while in Montreal.

You cannot compare baseball with any of the other sports, because all of them, including hockey, share far more revenue than MLB does, baseball shared revenue is limited to MLB branded merchandise, and national TV and Radio contracts, that is all.

If MLB owners really wanted a level playing field, they could easily have it, obviously they don't, which is why I brought up the point that they need to start with an automous commisioner and work from there.

The only reason the Nats did not have revenue from radio and TV is that MLB negotiated a sweetheart media deal for Angelos to mollify him for having the Nats move down the road from him. Angelos actually owns a huge part of media partnership that broadcasts Nats games. It could be an interesting issue in the sale of the team.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Wasted money on guys like Albert Belle

Albert Belle :roflmao:

As ridiculously cheap as the Sox front office has been in the recent past, they've done a great job of not ruining their payroll with financial albatrosses. The "out" in Belle's contract is a great example.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 07:28 PM
It would be much easier if all contracts were guaranteed for one season at a time, you can sign a player for five years, but you have to guarantee his contract at the end of the season for the next, or release him to FA, and repeat that for every year of the contract.

That's not a bad idea, but the MLBPA would never agree to that. Hell, the NFLPA didn't agree to non-guaranteed contracts until the players received signing bonuses up front.

Daver
11-02-2005, 07:33 PM
That's not a bad idea, but the MLBPA would never agree to that. Hell, the NFLPA didn't agree to non-guaranteed contracts until the players received signing bonuses up front.

It could be done, if they played their cards right in 2007, tie it into even stricter drug testing than what the changes they will announce soon are, and then ease back on the drug testing and demand the salary guarantee as a concession on the drug testing issue.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 07:40 PM
It could be done, if they played their cards right in 2007, tie it into even stricter drug testing than what the changes they will announce soon are, and then ease back on the drug testing and demand the salary guarantee as a concession on the drug testing issue.

That may explain why Selig's drug-testing policies are so incredibly stringent. That could generate a significant amount of leverage.

But I still don't think that the MLBPA would ever agree to standard non-guaranteed contracts without signing bonuses. They wouldn't accept any less than what the NFLPA (who are still being criticized by some for caving in on this issue) have settled for.

Hendu
11-02-2005, 07:44 PM
Albert Belle :roflmao:

As ridiculously cheap as the Sox front office has been in the recent past, they've done a great job of not ruining their payroll with financial albatrosses. The "out" in Belle's contract is a great example.

Yup...but it was the Orioles who got stuck with the albatross Albert Belle contract. But then again, the O's have been a financial mess for almost a decade.

JR looks like a genius for putting that clause in the contract, as well as Big Hurt's diminished skills clause.

Daver
11-02-2005, 07:45 PM
That may explain why Selig's drug-testing policies are so incredibly stringent. That could generate a significant amount of leverage.

But I still don't think that the MLBPA would ever agree to standard non-guaranteed contracts without signing bonuses. They wouldn't accept any less than what the NFLPA (who are still being criticized by some for caving in on this issue) have settled for.

Then allow signing bonuses, but stick with the provisions of deferred money in the last CBA, in which deffered money has to be paid within two years of defferment, and the owners would keep them small. The NFL allows bonuses to be defferred for a much longer period, they only stipulate the amount must apply to the cap.

WestSox
11-02-2005, 07:48 PM
Then allow signing bonuses, but stick with the provisions of deferred money in the last CBA, in which deffered money has to be paid within two years of defferment, and the owners would keep them small. The NFL allows bonuses to be defferred for a much longer period, they only stipulate the amount must apply to the cap.

OK, I can see that. I agree that the system of signing bonuses and non-guaranteed contracts are a better alternative to MLB's current system.

getonbckthr
11-03-2005, 01:05 AM
Teams like Tampa and KC do recieve money from the league, however the owners see it as a way of making profit. the league gives them X amount of dollars, the teams then use the league's money and very little of profit money to field a team. The moment they spend over a certain limit they begin losing money from the league thus causing them to spend more from their own pocket. The formula needed is some sort of a floor. Like someone mentioned earlier, if you're told to spend a certain amount your gonna realize at some point, "you know what coke and pepsi taste better than president's choice cola therefor i'm gonna spend the extra money for the better quality."

getonbckthr
11-03-2005, 01:10 AM
That may explain why Selig's drug-testing policies are so incredibly stringent. That could generate a significant amount of leverage.

But I still don't think that the MLBPA would ever agree to standard non-guaranteed contracts without signing bonuses. They wouldn't accept any less than what the NFLPA (who are still being criticized by some for caving in on this issue) have settled for.

the non-guarenteed contract was created so teams can protect themselves. With football being such a violent sport filled with injuries the risk of someone having their career ended is much higher than that of baseball. You look at guys who have gotten paralysed in the nfl. If they had guarenteed contracts those teams would be responsible for still paying them if they had guarenteed contracts. That is part of the reason you see many sports putting the "no extra-curriculars" stipultion into contracts. Like the Jay Williams incident with the bulls.

WestSox
11-03-2005, 09:28 AM
the non-guarenteed contract was created so teams can protect themselves. With football being such a violent sport filled with injuries the risk of someone having their career ended is much higher than that of baseball. You look at guys who have gotten paralysed in the nfl. If they had guarenteed contracts those teams would be responsible for still paying them if they had guarenteed contracts. That is part of the reason you see many sports putting the "no extra-curriculars" stipultion into contracts. Like the Jay Williams incident with the bulls.

Given how often pitchers suffer elbow and shoulder injuries, I think that the same logic can be applied to baseball. And lot of people underestimate how many hamstrings, quads, and groins get pulled every year after players stand still for a half inning and then have to sprint after fly balls.

MadetoOrta
11-03-2005, 10:00 AM
Until there's revenue sharing, TB and KC will not compete. Period. They will occasionally get to .500 or a little better. At that point, their best players will be signed by the big dogs. I have always supported revenue sharing. However, in our position today, revenue sharing would hurt the Sox so screw it! Finally, ownership and GMs have a lot to do with it. Look at the moron from Pittsburg who gave away Ramirez to the cubs for little or nothing.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2005, 11:46 AM
Made:

You do realize don't you that the Royals are owned by David Glass, heir to the Wal-Mart fortune and one of the top ten wealthiest individuals in the U.S. according to Forbes Business Magazine?

If Glass wanted to he could spend 300 million a year on payroll and not bat an eye.

The Royals 'can't compete' because HE doesn't want to. He'd rather take his revenue sharing checks and deposit them in his bank. End of story.

Lip

BNLSox
11-03-2005, 11:55 AM
This thread is very thought provoking. I never really considered the fact that the bottom feeders not attempting to win causes just as many problems as the New York's of the league.

I am all for players getting their share since they are the ones who make the sport what it is... But I agree that contracts should not be guaranteed and mostly should be incentive based.

Perhaps many of you are uninterested in the product the NFL has created today, but because of the revenue sharing and non-guaranteed contracts the league has a lot of success keeping fans allover the country glued to their seats.

Now football and baseball are very different products when you look at the simple fact that there are 10 times more home games for a baseball team a majority of which are during the work week. But that doesn't mean MLB can't learn a thing or two on the successful economics and marketing of the NFL.

Lip:

Thats really sad that the KC owner just collects his checks. Why bother owning something you're not passionate about? Does the guy really need the extra money? That's sad for KC fans and players stuck in that system.

soxfanatlanta
11-03-2005, 02:09 PM
A thought...

I do like the idea of the luxury tax, but I'd like to add wrinkle on this one. The stipulation is that when you get the $, you spend it on the organization, either at the majors, or (more imporantly for the KC's out there) on the farm system.

Think about it: all the big name players (Weaver, etc.) that came up in the draft were passed up by TB, and KC because of "signability" issues: they could not afford giving them an $x million dollar bonus. If they get some coin from the luxury tax (aka Steinbrenner), and they required to reinvest, they now have the resources to develop "cheap" talent. Put this in place, and in several years You have a healthy farm system (like the Indians, Athletics) producing good players without spending top dollar in the free agent market. -Or- you can sign that veteran player to put you into contention.

You lose your third year player to the Yankees? It sucks, but now you have a guy in AAA ready to take his place. You have a good product, people get interested, they show up to the games, the community likes you, and you get the girl/ride off into the sunset. All of this on somebody else's dime.

(Ok, you don't get the girl - got carried away)

Pipe dream?

MadetoOrta
11-03-2005, 03:13 PM
Made:

You do realize don't you that the Royals are owned by David Glass, heir to the Wal-Mart fortune and one of the top ten wealthiest individuals in the U.S. according to Forbes Business Magazine?

If Glass wanted to he could spend 300 million a year on payroll and not bat an eye.

The Royals 'can't compete' because HE doesn't want to. He'd rather take his revenue sharing checks and deposit them in his bank. End of story.

Lip

Didn't know that Lip. Wal-Mart money? The fans should be up in arms. My admiration for JR goes up and up.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2005, 03:49 PM
BNL, made and others:

The better story then Glass however concerned the Reds Carl Linder who told both the Cincinnati Post and the Inquirer a few months before the Great American Ballpark opened that he ordered then GM Jim Bowden to cut the payroll. When asked by the reporters why he explained that with the new stadium opening, attendence was going to go way up, and therefore the amount of revenue sharing money the Reds got would go down. In other words if they spent more on improving the team the profit margin would drop.

Nice guys eh? That's why I don't trust any owner as far as I can throw them be it in sports or business. They are all alike when it comes to money. I have no issue with turning a profit, that's the American way, but when profit turns to greed especially with tax supported franchises many of whom got new stadiums paid by the city and state then I have an issue.

Anyone now want to rething their 'salary cap' comments?

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Soxfanatlanta:

That is 'supposedly' already in place. Here's my interview with the Tribune's Phil Rogers:

ML: Revenue sharing and competitive balance were the central issues in this discussion but the agreement makes no provisions that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on players. What safeguards are there that owners will try to get better?

PR: "There isnít a minimum payroll requirement because the union objected to having one, the owners tried to get one put in. That being said, it has recently come out that clubs who get revenue sharing money must file a report every year to the commissionerís office detailing where and how that money was spent. The commissioner then has the power, if he doesnít like where the money is going, to levy substantial fines on teams. The money has to be spent on things like player salaries, adding minor league teams or stadium improvement."

ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Lip

soxfanatlanta
11-03-2005, 08:12 PM
ML: Then how does that square with published accounts quoting Jerry Reinsdorf as saying in the owners ratification meeting, that teams should use that money towards reducing operating debt rather then going to player acquisitions or salaries?

PR: "Iíve seen that story. All I can tell you is that I was at that meeting and all reporters were outside the conference room. I know that when Iíve tried to get comments from owners afterwards in these kind of situations, they were always tight lipped. I canít vouch for the veracity of that story. Assuming that comment was made, I donít think reducing team debt would fall under the guidelines of where revenue sharing money has to go, therefore the commissioner would get involved to stop it."

Lip

I hate to be cynical, but I doubt Bud would ever levy a fine on an owner for not properly allocating the money. Perhaps if MLB lost it's monopoly status, competiton would create a league that would encourage a better all-around product: more incentive to invest in one's own team. But that is just crazy-thinking, and way off topic here. Perhaps in another thread somday...

Great info, thanks.

asindc
11-03-2005, 08:58 PM
I hate to be cynical, but I doubt Bud would ever levy a fine on an owner for not properly allocating the money. Perhaps if MLB lost it's monopoly status, competiton would create a league that would encourage a better all-around product: more incentive to invest in one's own team. But that is just crazy-thinking, and way off topic here. Perhaps in another thread somday...

Great info, thanks.

...or if baseball had an actual Commissioner, rather than a "pretend" one.

Lip Man 1
11-03-2005, 09:14 PM
Soxfanatlanta:

That's why I put supposedly in quotes. In fact it is not being used the way it was supposed to and yet Selig does nothing. Big surprise eh?

Lip