That's basically what they have now, only you lower where the tax kicks in and add a rule about getting the shared revenue.
Problem is, that does nothing to stop the guys at the very top like Steinbrenner. If they were worried about the tax, they would've stopped spending.
Quote:
Originally posted by kutulu
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).
|
I think you ment what I proposed, and I can see where you would draw that conclusion.
My theory is that the owners would spend if they thought they could compete. Look at Kansas City. Last year they had a very cheap team and competed for the AL Central title. This offseason they spent some money and brought in some guys that can help them to continue to compete.
I think that by forcing a team to spend a certain amount while limiting the amount a more financially able team can spend, you get more teams competeing, which will get more owners to spend, which will bring in more revenues, which will allow owners to spend more, and so on.