Thank goodness for salary caps

[LongTimeListener]

This is my favorite argument, that because the Twins make the playoffs, or the Reds one every few years, things are fair. The Yankees have been in the postseason for nearly 15 years running. How many times have the Reds been in the Postseason since 1995? The Royals? Pirates? The Rays sucked for their entire existence until two years ago. Let's see what happens when it's time for their entire young roster to get paid.

In the NFL, a team from Indianapolis can have a run of sustained success because it can keep its top players, if they choose to stay. In MLB, a team from the midwest can maybe keep one player or two. The Yankees and Sox can not only keep all of theirs, but take some of everyone else's. They can also sign all kinds of other people and not have to worry about whether they suck. They toss them aside and get someone else.

To continue with the Twins as an example, there was no reason they couldn't have signed Johan Santana other than their own greed. They would have continued to make money, just not as much as they wanted to. It's just a convenient excuse.

There's no reason I can't buy a Ferrari, either. Well, other than I DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY.

But the Twins DO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY. That is my point. They chose to tell their fans they couldn't afford Santana. What they didn't say, but is true, is that they would have continued to make a profit even if they had signed him.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

TSP, so when Brady missed the whole year and the Patriots went 11-5 with a backup QB, they crumbled? We'll never know how the Colts will do without Manning until they're without him. But it's not like they've had a collection of stiffs playing with him the last 10 years. Edgerin James, Joseph Addai, Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, and a collection of top-flight offensive linemen would have made things a lot easier for any QB.

The NBA is apples to oranges. Take the best player off any team in a 5-player sport and the difference is going to be huge.

The Patriots missed the playoffs. So while 11-5 might look pretty, within the context of that season it wasn't good enough.

We'll know soon enough how the Colts will be without Manning. He's getting up there. Now that breathing on WRs is a penalty, all you need in the NFL to compete is a great QB. Watch how the Cardinals fare without Kurt Warner this year.

 

[cranberry]

And Cranberry, where is that $100 million coming from?

Revenue sharing plus luxury tax.

What revenue are they sharing? And $100 million is still less than $4m per other team.

You're probably forgetting the central fund to which the Yankees contribute more than $100 million (31 percent of revenue) before the luxury tax is even considered.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3765:mlb-cant-have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too-revenue-sharing&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

This year, approx. $400 million will be distributed from high revenue making clubs such as the Yankees and Red Sox to those at the low end of the spectrum, such as the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, and Royals.

Revenue-sharing figures for each of the 30 clubs have not been leaked to the media since 2002-2003, and 2005 (see the complete set of figures), which saw revenue transfers of $169 million, $220 million, and $308.4 million respectively.

So, just over $190 million more in revenues will move between payors and payees this year compared to the last year that full figures were available in 2005, an increase of 22.9 percent.

There's no shortage of revenue sharing in baseball.

 

[cranberry]

And Cranberry, where is that $100 million coming from?

Revenue sharing plus luxury tax.

What revenue are they sharing? And $100 million is still less than $4m per other team.

You're probably forgetting the central fund to which the Yankees contribute more than $100 million (31 percent of revenue) before the luxury tax is even considered.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3765:mlb-cant-have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too-revenue-sharing&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

This year, approx. $400 million will be distributed from high revenue making clubs such as the Yankees and Red Sox to those at the low end of the spectrum, such as the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, and Royals.

Revenue-sharing figures for each of the 30 clubs have not been leaked to the media since 2002-2003, and 2005 (see the complete set of figures), which saw revenue transfers of $169 million, $220 million, and $308.4 million respectively.

So, just over $190 million more in revenues will move between payors and payees this year compared to the last year that full figures were available in 2005, an increase of 22.9 percent.

There's no shortage of revenue sharing in baseball.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that, regardless of sharing -- again $100m, gives each other team an extra middle infielder -- the Yankees can still outspend everyone else by a huge margin. The lack of a cap allows for this and creates a competitive imbalance.

The Yankees aren't the only team that contributes. The total pool is more than $400 million.

To cap (limit) investment in the product would be a growth-killing disaster in an baseball. Steep revenue growth in baseball (now well over $6 billion annually) in recent years is a byproduct of most teams competing better not just in their divisions but in their local entertainment markets.

Bottom line: In baseball's system of locally generated revenue there is always going to be disparity from market to market. Baseball as an industry needs the Yankees to fuel growth. To be working on all cylinders, in fact, all teams need to be competitive in their local entertainment markets by putting the best possible product on the field.

The Yankees create 10 times more revenue for the industry than the Marlins, so the slight edge provided by their additional resources is easily justifiable to the other 29 owners. That edge in resources to invest is insignificant compared with the additional revenue and customer base the Yankees bring to the industry.

 

[outofplace]

And Cranberry, where is that $100 million coming from?

Revenue sharing plus luxury tax.

What revenue are they sharing? And $100 million is still less than $4m per other team.

You're probably forgetting the central fund to which the Yankees contribute more than $100 million (31 percent of revenue) before the luxury tax is even considered.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3765:mlb-cant-have-their-cake-and-eat-it-too-revenue-sharing&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

This year, approx. $400 million will be distributed from high revenue making clubs such as the Yankees and Red Sox to those at the low end of the spectrum, such as the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, and Royals.

Revenue-sharing figures for each of the 30 clubs have not been leaked to the media since 2002-2003, and 2005 (see the complete set of figures), which saw revenue transfers of $169 million, $220 million, and $308.4 million respectively.

So, just over $190 million more in revenues will move between payors and payees this year compared to the last year that full figures were available in 2005, an increase of 22.9 percent.

There's no shortage of revenue sharing in baseball.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that, regardless of sharing -- again $100m, gives each other team an extra middle infielder -- the Yankees can still outspend everyone else by a huge margin. The lack of a cap allows for this and creates a competitive imbalance.

The Yankees aren't the only team that contributes. The total pool is more than $400 million.

To cap (limit) investment in the product would be a growth-killing disaster in an baseball. Steep revenue growth in baseball (now well over $6 billion annually) in recent years is a byproduct of most teams competing better not just in their divisions but in their local entertainment markets.

Bottom line: In baseball's system of locally generated revenue there is always going to be disparity from market to market. Baseball as an industry needs the Yankees to fuel growth. To be working on all cylinders, in fact, all teams need to be competitive in their local entertainment markets by putting the best possible product on the field.

The Yankees create 10 times more revenue for the industry than the Marlins, so the slight edge provided by their additional resources is easily justifiable to the other 29 owners. That edge in resources to invest is insignificant compared with the additional revenue and customer base the Yankees bring to the industry.

Which would all be fine if baseball would institute a salary floor and cap along with its current revenue sharing. But it won't, in part because franchises like the Yankees fight to protect their built-in advantage and in part because MLB thinks it is prudent to fix the game so the bigger markets have more success, thus getting on television more often.

It's funny how the MLB fanatics on here argue about how spending more money could help the smaller markets make more money, but spreading the current wealth isn't an option? Wouldn't that be an investment in the sport as whole?

Oh yeah. That gets back to the idea of giving up some of the built-in advantage. Wouldn't want that to happen.

 

[outofplace]

Haven't followed this thread but saw the Santana reference.

The Twins did offer Santana four years at $20 mil per and he turned it down.

Shhhhh. Don't go confusing LongTimeListener with facts.

 

[outofplace]

It's the short, 16-game schedule which creates competitive balance in the NFL, not the salary cap.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? I would think it would eventually start to bother you.

 

[heyabbott]

This is my favorite argument, that because the Twins make the playoffs, or the Reds one every few years, things are fair. The Yankees have been in the postseason for nearly 15 years running. How many times have the Reds been in the Postseason since 1995? The Royals? Pirates? The Rays sucked for their entire existence until two years ago. Let's see what happens when it's time for their entire young roster to get paid.

In the NFL, a team from Indianapolis can have a run of sustained success because it can keep its top players, if they choose to stay. In MLB, a team from the midwest can maybe keep one player or two. The Yankees and Sox can not only keep all of theirs, but take some of everyone else's. They can also sign all kinds of other people and not have to worry about whether they suck. They toss them aside and get someone else.

To continue with the Twins as an example, there was no reason they couldn't have signed Johan Santana other than their own greed. They would have continued to make money, just not as much as they wanted to. It's just a convenient excuse.

There's no reason I can't buy a Ferrari, either. Well, other than I DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY.

But the Twins DO MAKE ENOUGH MONEY. That is my point. They chose to tell their fans they couldn't afford Santana. What they didn't say, but is true, is that they would have continued to make a profit even if they had signed him.

What teams like the Twins need to do is to tell their fans that Santana isn't worth what he wants. he's 40-25 with the Mets and he's owed 80 million over the next 3 years, with the Mets buying out the team option. Overpaying players is almost never worth it over the length of the contract.

 

[Machine Head]

Haven't followed this thread but saw the Santana reference.

The Twins did offer Santana four years at $20 mil per and he turned it down.

Shhhhh. Don't go confusing LongTimeListener with facts.

To be fair, they let Hunter walk.

Edit: They did offer $15 mil a year for three years.

 

[outofplace]

What LongTimeListener fails to understand is that teams like the Twins have to make choices. Do you pay Santana and Torii Hunter? Or do you keep Morneau, Nathan and Cuddyer and try to hold on to Mauer when his deal is up?

 

[cranberry]

Which would all be fine if baseball would institute a salary floor and cap along with its current revenue sharing. But it won't, in part because franchises like the Yankees fight to protect their built-in advantage and in part because MLB thinks it is prudent to fix the game so the bigger markets have more success, thus getting on television more often.

Again, it would be a financial disaster for the industry to limit the Yankees ability to invest in their product because they compete in the most competitive local entertainment market (New York) in terms of attendance, television, sponsorships, etc.

MLB needs the Yankees to create stars and fuel revenue growth for the industry. Nobody in baseball thinks it's so bad that the Yankees have an edge in financial resources when they're also producing about 30 percent more revenue than their closest competitor and 10 times more revenue than the laggards of the league.

Salary caps limit investment in the product and promote mediocrity on the playing field, something that would severely stunt revenue growth for both the Yankees and the industry.

 

[Bubbler]

But it won't, in part because franchises like the Yankees fight to protect their built-in advantage ...

OK. I can see that argument.

... and in part because MLB thinks it is prudent to fix the game so the bigger markets have more success, thus getting on television more often.

Totally batshirt.