Saving Baseball

[DarkCloud]

the one that really gets my goat is a-rod, who gets 252 million for being craptacular. that's one investment they wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy overpaid for. he's not alone, either, you've got people who're making fistfuls of money complaining about it at a time when the common, average joe is worried about losing his pension, his 401k, and his frikkin' job...

Remember Alex Rodriguez came to Texas "Not becuase they offered the most money" (Which they did) "But becuase I think they will win"
NO ONE THOUGHT THE ****ing rangers would win! And they didn't.

Which is one reason I hate him.

-
Revenue Sharing isn't a good idea- we want to see well managed teams. Not a communist-leage. We are capitalists are we not.

The same goes for salary caps.

But for DEFACTO SALARY CAPS the idea is different. People CAN pay as much as they want, but they get taxed for amounts over a certain amount, thus solving all problems and keeping the game clean

Salary caps would ruin the game and revenue sharing would drastically change it
Teams can climb up from the cellar (excepting the expos)
and at least make it to the playoffs every 15 years as the system is nowadays.

[Arrian]

Imran,

I do prefer revenue sharing to the luxury tax. I don't particularly care about the NFL, since I don't like football much, but I will say I don't want total parity. That, in it's own way, is just as boring as the Yankees winning every year. What I want is for each team to have the opportunity to improve and then sustain that higher level of play if they make good decisions (develop good players, and then be able to keep them). The main problem for teams like the A's is that despite excellent player development, they don't have the dollars to keep them. That is what needs to be fixed. The major problem with ANY form of wealth re-distribution, though (sorry if I sound like a broken record), is getting the poorer teams to use the money they get to improve their teams. A payroll "floor" presents all sorts of problems, and enforcing it or anything like it would require transparency of the teams' books. I think that would be a good thing on a number of levels.

You have a good point about each team being a franchise rather than a seperate company. That's true. At the same time, however, the nature of the sport requires direct competition between franchises, unlike McDonald's. The Yankees are SUPPOSED to try and beat the Red Sox.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

re: the Braves. Ah, finally somebody brought them up. Anyone care to have a look at that particular franchise in the 1980s? They were awful (for the most part) and poor. Now they're successful and rich. Why? Good decisions, coupled with a good market. In some ways, they mirror the Yankees, who didn't win for most of the '80's and were downright terrible from the late '80s through the early '90s. They made terrible decisions and paid the price for it, "large market" notwithstanding. No complaints then, were there?

Back to the issue at hand: fine, let's redistribute some of the wealth to help competition. How do we ensure this is the result of such redistribution? In my opinion, the anwer is that we can't. We cannot force owners to spend on their teams, let alone spend wisely.

Unfortunately, we aren't the ones doing this. The owners and players are. The players want higher salaries, so they don't want a salary cap or luxury tax (their proposal is deliberately devoid of teeth). The owners want to hold down salaries and grab as much of Steinbrenner's money as possible (tell me I'm lying!). Neither side gives a good goddamn about most of the issues WE care about, because they aren't looking at this from a fan's perspective.

-Arrian

ps Wanna hold down ticket prices? Don't pay them. EVER. I go to one game per year typically. I will probably stop doing that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

To allow teams like the A's to keep more of the money they make, revenue sharing is essential. Of course, this is coupled with a minimum payroll floor, and open bookkeeping, which would make sure that the shared money would be used for salaries or revnovations to the stadium, or kept in a safe for future Free Agent acquisions. This is one of the MAIN reasons I like revenue sharing and minimal payrolls. It'll open the books. Yes, it might hurt some players in the short run, but it'll make the league more competitive. It won't make everyone equal, but it'll narrow the gap. The Yankees will still have more money than anyone else, but not as much.

In the end it always comes down to scouting and development, and teams with money can spend more on those aspects as well. Sharing the revenue might allow for those small market teams to keep their young players that they've developed. Without any revenue sharing, a team like the A's in 4-5 years will be bare again. They need to be given a chance to resign Tejada, Chavez, their young pitchers to deals that are close to what they would be worth on the market.

Every team develops good players (even the Royals ), but the problem is if they don't have the money to keep them, what good is it? Sure, good management is needed, but you also need the money to keep your young stars, or you just end up trading them away for more prospects or losing them to Free Agency.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go get something to eat before I go to my Torts class .

[Arrian]

Oh no, you're in law school? Imran, Imran, Imran... *sigh* Just promise me 1 thing: never, EVER, use the phrase "cutting the baby." I hate that particular lawerese expression.

So we agree on opening the books and forcing teams to invest in themselves. Good. It'll never happen, of course, but we can dream.

How does one handle the teams that own their own networks or visa-versa? The Braves/AOL Time Warner, the Yankees & YES, etc. I could see those teams "charging" themselves almost nothing to air the games on TV so their broadcast revenue looks small, and then making a killing on the network side of things. YES would make a killing, whereas the Yankees would lose money. Steinbrenner owns both, and could just shift money between the two. The same goes for several other teams. How do you stop that?

The Royals do, in fact, occasionally develop a good player (though they seem to have real problems developing pitchers). They then don't want to and/or cannot pay him and send him to the big, bad, rich.... A's Damon, Dye... Billy Beane is a master. Damon is now with the Red Sox, of course, but you see what I'm getting at, right? The Royals could have $100 million to burn and that's exactly what they would do: burn it.

-Arrian

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Arrian

The Royals do, in fact, occasionally develop a good player (though they seem to have real problems developing pitchers). They then don't want to and/or cannot pay him and send him to the big, bad, rich.... A's Damon, Dye... Billy Beane is a master. Damon is now with the Red Sox, of course, but you see what I'm getting at, right? The Royals could have $100 million to burn and that's exactly what they would do: burn it.

-Arrian

Jermaine Dye came up through the Braves organization.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep... the Royals made a brilliant trade... giving Michael Tucker for Jermaine Dye.

And yes, the A's got Damon... but then he went to the Red Sox, like you said. Dye will soon be gone (I bet on it).

As for the teams that own networks, that is a difficult decision. Of course, one of the ways to solve that is the idea that has been stated about having a MLB national digital cable channel. One of the things you can't do, though, is fake your payroll . If revenue comes up less than payroll itself, then the payroll should be used instead of revenue in sharing proposals.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep... the Royals made a brilliant trade... giving Michael Tucker for Jermaine Dye.

And I wonder why my Braves have only won 1 World Series in the last 12 years.



And yes I was even a Braves fan in the late '80's when they were losing 100+ games a year.

[Q Classic]

And I wonder why my Braves have only won 1 World Series in the last 12 years.

honestly, i couldn't tell ya. i love the braves... i don't know why, but they just suck in the post-season... no matter how good of a regular season they have.

[Arrian]

I think the Braves problems (such as they are... most teams would KILL to be as successful as they have been for the past eleven years) come down to the fact that in the postseason, they run into teams that can actually match their pitching.

During the regular season, the Braves can play .600 ball because more often than not, their pitching is superior (at times FAR superior) to that of their opponents. But teams that make the playoffs usually have good pitching too, and the Braves haven't been very balanced on offense, so they run into problems. Have a look at the Braves-Yankees games in the 2 WS they played. What you will see are a bunch of really close games. The Yanks managed to out-pitch the Braves, just barely, largely due to equal starting pitching, but a superior NY bullpen.

I didn't know Jermaine Dye's history, sorry, but I brought him up to display Beane's ability. And Man are the A's kicking ass right now... with that outrageous $45 million (?) payroll.

Tuberski, were you a fan of Joe Torre when he managed the Braves? The headlines when Steinbrenner hired himm were hilarious... "Clueless Joe" being the best.

-Arrian

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Arrian


Tuberski, were you a fan of Joe Torre when he managed the Braves? The headlines when Steinbrenner hired himm were hilarious... "Clueless Joe" being the best.

-Arrian

As amatter of fact, yes I was, So when he beat the Braves that first time I was happy for him.

Now, of course, I wish Steinbrenner would fire him!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And Man are the A's kicking ass right now... with that outrageous $45 million (?) payroll.

Wait a few years and the collective parts of this years A's (who will be all around the league by that point) will be making combined $100 mil. At least.

[Ming]

Only 3:45 left in the deadline. While they are saying both sides are getting closer, a few of the teams are already heading for their games later today

There is a report that a deal will be agreed to shortly.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Just heard on MSNBC that they reached a deal.

/me wishes he had a link

[Ming]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
Just heard on MSNBC that they reached a deal.

* Vlad Antlerkov wishes he had a link

I'm watching ESPN's live coverage, and they say a deal is just a rumor at this point. But everybody agrees that a deal is possible shortly.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Yeah, MSNBC is the only one reporting it. CNN says a deal hasn't been reached yet, either.