Let's Talk Revnue Sharing

[He Hate Me]

Just caught an article that the Sox and Yanks put in $175 mil combined into revenue sharing. Later on caught an article about how Morneau makes some points about how the billionaire oowned Twins are too cheap to give the best pitcher in the majors a decent deal for his services.

 

Does this piss anyone else off?

[ORS]

No, their choice doesn't piss me off, the system does. The NFL is the best for a reason. They share more, but also have a hard cap with mandatory minimums. Everyone makes money, yet everyone has a chance to be good if they are smart in the draft and trades. Baseball will continue to have problems as long as they keep the current system.

[DUSTINMOHR4LIFE]

Now that the Red Sox and Yankees have started to turn towards young talent (btw, how many times did you hear that on FOX and ESPN this weekend?), player development, which is the core of any truly great organization and is the thing that allows you to make a good profit, is now becoming extremely expensive. I love it when the Sox are able to get someone like Lars Anderson in the 19th round or something, but I can see why the rest of baseball is terrified and doesn't like it.

[Rdsxmbnt]

i like it the way it is

[Mr Crunchy]

the league is destined for failure when 75% of the teams are over 100-1 to win the world series

look at all the empty ballparks across the country,its sickening

they need to remove miami and tampa from the sport

they dont deserve franchises and their owners dont deserve to be in business

carl pohlad in minnesota maybe the richest man in the game

he can bankroll the twins into serious contenders but he wont even pay for his own free agents.

 

each year boston both nys both l.a's and the cubs are on top of the payroll wagon

while that doesnt guarantee anything it does make you competetive on paper.

each year pitt cinci kc and the florida teams are at the bottom of this list

 

our friend jackson has been demanding a minimum salary cap be enforced

 

i think the game needs a cap today for its longterm health despite it hurting us in boston and the east coast in general

[Gom]

No' date=' their choice doesn't piss me off, the system does. The NFL is the best for a reason. They share more, but also have a hard cap with mandatory minimums. Everyone makes money, yet everyone has a chance to be good if they are smart in the draft and trades. Baseball will continue to have problems as long as they keep the current system.[/quote']

 

With attendance at an all-time high, I disagree with the fact that they will have problems. With seven different winners in seven years, I think they are doing pretty well.

 

The thing that makes this work is that the big market teams tend to play in the same divisions, pseudo-cancelling each other out. The AL & NL centrals are relatively even in revenue with the exception of the Cubs. The AL & NL Easts have the beasts, but they cancel each other out. The problem is teams that don't fit financially, like the Nationals and Devil Rays. Those teams will never really get anywhere because they can't spend with their division rivals.

 

Not a perfect system by far, but I like it since my team is one of the haves, and not one of the have-nots.

[ORS]

With attendance at an all-time high, I disagree with the fact that they will have problems. With seven different winners in seven years, I think they are doing pretty well.

 

The thing that makes this work is that the big market teams tend to play in the same divisions, pseudo-cancelling each other out. The AL & NL centrals are relatively even in revenue with the exception of the Cubs. The AL & NL Easts have the beasts, but they cancel each other out. The problem is teams that don't fit financially, like the Nationals and Devil Rays. Those teams will never really get anywhere because they can't spend with their division rivals.

 

Not a perfect system by far, but I like it since my team is one of the haves, and not one of the have-nots.

I'm not saying the problems will be financial. I consider the league now problematic. Sure, there are 7 different winners in the last 7 years. But, out of the 56 potential playoff spots, top 10 payroll teams for that year accounted for30 of the spots. Another 10 or so were in the 11-15 range. Only 8 or so teams can be in the top 10 year in, year out. So, whie it's possible the sytem will yield different wnners, it as nothing to do with the system being equitable. All that does is confirm what most say abut the postseason being a crapshoot and the hot team winning.

 

It is absolutey no surprise you like the system. You seem to derive a lot of your self-worth from the success of your team, so it would be harmful to your ego if you wanted an equitable system.

 

Oh, and the Nat's will not be in the cellar for long. Their new ownership has money, a new stadium opening next year, a big market city passionate about sports, and is launching their own network. They just need to recover from MLB's management. They'll be one of the big boys in no time.

[He Hate Me]

I tend to go with the notion that if you're gonna tax teams for spending too much, you should also tax teams for spending too little. It's simplistic and I'm sure many detaisl would have to be ironed out, but I dont think any fan would be against a minimum payroll.