Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

kutulu · 03-04-2004, 04:11 PM

The cheap owners are just as much of a problem as King George and the Red Sox owner.

Take the Brewers, for example. Their total payroll this year is around $30M. They recieved $20M in revenue sharing. When all is said and done, all they had to kick in of their own money is a measly $10M (HALF OF WHAT THEY GOT FROM REVENUE SHARING!)
I find that ridiculous and offensive (but since I'm a DBacks fan it was nice to take Sexson away from them).

IMO, I would not set a salary cap, but instead have a luxury tax like right now that goes into effect at about $100M. Money collected from the tax goes into the revenue sharing pool. Here is my twist: in order to qualify for any amount of revenue sharing (RS) money, you must have a payroll that is at least 2x the amount of money you get. All of the RS money can only be spent on players. Therefore, if the Brewers wanted to get the full $20M they got this year, they'd have to kick in $40M of their own money and they only get to keep the RS money that they devote to salaries FOR THAT SPECIFIC YEAR.

Someone mentioned a situation where a certain portion of revenue collected by all teams goes to a pool that is distributed evenly. This system rewards cheap owners who do nothing positive for their team (ie Brewers, Pirates, Reds) and penalizes teams that are doing everything they can to suceed (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers).

Money helps, but it guarantees nothing. The last 3 WS Champs did not have the highest payrolls (although the DBacks did spend over $100M). Small market teams CAN compete. Oakland and the Twins have been consistantly in the playoff races despite having smaller payrolls.

It takes a smart GM who is willing to let go of players when their value is peaking and are close to free agency. You can get great prospects by dealing a star that is close to free agency to a team desperate to make the playoffs. You also need to focus on making the most of your farm system.

03-04-2004, 04:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The cheap owners are just as much of a problem as King George and the Red Sox owner. Take the Brewers, for example. Their total payroll this year is around $30M. They recieved $20M in revenue sharing. When all is said and done, all they had to kick in of their own money is a measly $10M (HALF OF WHAT THEY GOT FROM REVENUE SHARING!) I find that ridiculous and offensive (but since I'm a DBacks fan it was nice to take Sexson away from them). IMO, I would not set a salary cap, but instead have a luxury tax like right now that goes into effect at about $100M. Money collected from the tax goes into the revenue sharing pool. Here is my twist: in order to qualify for any amount of revenue sharing (RS) money, you must have a payroll that is at least 2x the amount of money you get. All of the RS money can only be spent on players. Therefore, if the Brewers wanted to get the full $20M they got this year, they'd have to kick in $40M of their own money and they only get to keep the RS money that they devote to salaries FOR THAT SPECIFIC YEAR. Someone mentioned a situation where a certain portion of revenue collected by all teams goes to a pool that is distributed evenly. This system rewards cheap owners who do nothing positive for their team (ie Brewers, Pirates, Reds) and penalizes teams that are doing everything they can to suceed (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers). Money helps, but it guarantees nothing. The last 3 WS Champs did not have the highest payrolls (although the DBacks did spend over $100M). Small market teams CAN compete. Oakland and the Twins have been consistantly in the playoff races despite having smaller payrolls. It takes a smart GM who is willing to let go of players when their value is peaking and are close to free agency. You can get great prospects by dealing a star that is close to free agency to a team desperate to make the playoffs. You also need to focus on making the most of your farm system. Last edited by kutulu; 03-04-2004 at 04:13 PM..