Esen

I always here about how it is so so unfair that some teams have mega salries and the other teams don't

Why doesn t the blame go to the owners who are too cheap and uninventive to find ways to generate funds and loyalty.
I mean some of these teams have had decades and decades to do so.

WHy dont they cut there profits a little.
DO what they need to do as an owner and get there payrols up a little.
It can be done
Maybe not all at once but Im sure any of those owners can find ways yo expand payroll

__________________
~Esen
What is everyone doing in my room?

Blackthorn

The economic facts of the landscape that is baseball do not and will not ever allow "cheap owners" as you call them to simply go into the back yard and rattle the money tree to generate cash flow to pay $190 million dollars in salary unless perhaps you have a concetrated fan base in a major media market the size of New York. It's just that simple.

These "cheap owners" are all individuals who have made a living out of making money. None of them are afraid of working hard, none of them are afraid of being innovative or inventive, none of them are afraid at trying new ways to raise revenue. When you analyze the facts about where the cash flow comes from to support the large market teams it's simple. The very lucrative local television contracts and advertising that is paid in those markets to be on during the broadcasts. Subscribtion TV packages and the like also play a part. Smaller cities don't have the econimic base to support that form of revenue.

I live in a city where the average week night attendance for games, when the divisional race is usually well on it's way to being decided, is still over 22 thousand. Weekend attendance depending on the series still approaches 30 thousand. I'd say we have a loyal fan base for 81 games a year. It certainly starts with putting butts in the seats but it's also about butts in seats in TV land that generate the highly lucrative cash flow to support big dollar player contracts.

Study up....the facts are pretty clear. Owners aren't in this to lose money (at least most of them).

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

djtestudo

The problem with your argument, Chauncey, is that most of the owners are buisnessmen. They built businesses, and made a lot of money by knowing what makes money.

They aren't willing to spend money on a baseball team just to spend the money, because it goes against everything they have done with their lives. Their goal is to maximize their return from this investment. If that means spending less on players and fielding a less competetive team, then so be it.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

MontanaXVI

djtest,

some owners are cheap and it is well known, however, most as you stated are just businessmen.

I remember when barry bonds was due a few years back to have possibly been a FA and of course the Yankees were the talk of the town as the frontrunners for him, he replied by saying that
SF is one of the major markets in the world, money is there it is up to the owner to spend it.

not all markets are the same and not all owners think the same.
Some are just a buncha tight asses though.

__________________
Spank you very much

SiphonX

cheap owners rock. it just doesn't make any sense trying to buy a world series. after seeing the marlins and angels win with a salary around the 55 mil range, stocking up on big names doesn't make sense, baseball isn't played on paper, anything can happen at any given time. the one drawback though is attendance if the team is doing poorly, with big names people still come out regardless of record, but every team has at least one star.

__________________
/Knowledge is Power/

djtestudo

Both of those teams spent money, but did have good young guys who contibuted a lot as well. Those aren't small-market payrolls, they're around the middle of the pack. Not like Minnesota, Kansas City and Milwaukee at the end of the '90s, which are situations where the problem arises.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Esen

Kjroh

I see from your tag that you are from Ohio , not for nothing, but Ohio has some teams around a while , They could have done more through the years to expand there fan base.

DJ Testudo.
I understand what you mean about them being business men and want to make a profit. I think because of that they can t complain. Stainbrenner still makes a profit. He is just bringing the competition to a new level

Eventually though a salary cap will remedy everything

__________________
~Esen
What is everyone doing in my room?

djtestudo

The difference is that he has so much more he can draw from; he could take on a couple A-rod-sized contracts and still make a hefty profit due to the media deals he has. Other teams don't have that kind of base to draw from, and being businessmen controlling an investment, often just don't spend and keep whatever money they bring in just to make a profit.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

JohnnyRoyale

I'm sure the fans on Boston (like me) are thinking that...every time we see A-Rod in a Yankees jersey. All the BoSox had to do was agree to pay off the existing contract, but they wouldn't.

__________________
I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

pan6467

The only solution for baseball is to realize the whole MLB is a corporation and the teams just subsidiaries.

All monies (except merchandise which 1/2 should go to the team) should go into a pot, each team getting 1/30th. Then The owners set a spending limit (salary cap) of 75% of the monies and a spending minimum of 65% of the monies. (To spend the minimum tho your next year has to achieve at least 70%)

Then each team puts 10% into the farms. 10% the owners and front offices can pocket as profit and the rest goes for advertising and community services.

This way the teams also develop a TRUE bond with thier city.

The owners know they will get thier profit, (some would get more then they do now). The players know they would get thiers. That way every team spends relatively the same amount. Then the game becomes what it should be about, not money but GM's making trades and drafting and the farm systems. And the fans can have hope every year that thier team may contend.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

djtestudo

That seems a little bit much.

I still prefer the plan from Bob Costas: all media revenue goes into a pot. Each team takes an equal amount from it, which becomes the salary floor. A number twice that amount is the salary cap. Each team keeps all their other revenue, except for ticket sales, part of which go to visiting teams at the same splits used now.

Every team has to spend a certain amount on players, while limiting the amount a guy like a Steinbrenner, Henry, Angelos, etc. can spend overall. The amount is variable, since the media income changes every year, and with the added fan support from the competive balance to be found in this new system, will likely rise. That will placate the MLBPA by allowing salaries to increase, though at a lower rate then before.

Overall, it fits perfectly into the system, and should be put into place ASAP. I know it won't happen soon, and it might take another strike to get it in there, but something like it will happen eventually, and I want it to be this.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Qazwsxedc

everyone's gotta live within their own means. It's hard to generate huge cash flows like hte Yankees when it's not there.

Could "cheap owners" cut out some of their profits?? i'm sure they could but they have to be fiscally responsible and realize that it IS a business they run - all stakeholders have to be accounted for, not just the fans.

jobu

I don’t think that cheap owners are necessarily the problem with baseball. They are just totally greedy. There are cheap owners in all sports. The problem is that everyone is not playing on a level playing field. Small market teams can’t compete with the larger markets. Is Kansas City going to be able to draw the same kind of revenue as the Yankees? No way. Therefore KC has do things differently than the Yanks. We can’t expect someone like KC to spend like the Yanks. Baseball is a business and owners aren’t going to go out and spend themselves into the red. Look what happened to the Marlins when Heizinga owned them. He spent like crazy and eventually had to sell the team. It isn’t in the owners nature to lose money. Even with the 200 mil the Yankees are spending Steinbrenner is still making money. If the owners would stop being so selfish and look at the big picture I think they could actually make more money. You need to have competitive balance to keeps the fans interest. Every year you can take 3-4 teams and say that they have no chance of making the playoffs (Brewers, Tigers, Pirates). People see this and say they aren’t going to any of the games. Why would you want to root for a team that you know has no chance of succeeding? Look at the Expos. They are owned by MLB. People in Montreal know that they can’t compete so they don’t bother going to the games. Before salaries got totally out of control people used to show up at Expo games. Why? Because the team was competitive and people thought they had a chance. The owners don’t care about this though. They want to get their money. They implemented this luxury tax to stifle the Yankees and to dip into George’s profits. Without doing any research I think the Yankees and maybe the Red Sox are the only teams that will have to pay it. This money goes back to the owners and they aren’t putting it into their own teams because they don’t need to. Baseball should have put in a minimum on the team salaries. A couple of years ago you heard owners crying that they needed new stadiums to draw the revenue to compete with the big market teams. Look at the Brewers, Tigers and Pirates. They all have cut their payrolls and gotten worse since they have had new stadiums built. All the money generated form these stadiums went right into the owners pockets. Bud Selig pulled one of the greatest scams on the people of Milwaukee. Now this comes straight form the commissioner of baseball. If I was a tax payer/fan of the Brewers I would pissed. There would be no way I would ever go see a game there. See, these owners aren’t cheap. They’re just greedy and they don’t care about the players, the fans or the game itself.

kutulu

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.

djtestudo

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.

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.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

kutulu

I think it's kinda fucked up that the Yanks are able to spend $200M, but it doesn't guarantee a WS. The only thing it guarantees is that they have to put in a lot of money toward revenue sharing.

Any team can compete, they just get stuck in bad situations because they didn't keep the right players or signed players to stupid contracts. I think that it's far worse for the Brewers to be spending only $10M of thier own money on a $30M payroll than it is for the Yanks to spend $200M of their money plus whatever the RS money will be.

With $20M extra, they could have got some really great players:

Miguel Batista SP 3 years, $13.1M (average of $4.37M/yr)
Travis Lee 1b 1 year, $2.25M
Todd Walker 2B 1 year, $1.75M
Raul Mondesi OF 1 year, $1.75M
Jay Payton OF 2 years, $5.5M (avg $2.75M/yr)
Jeff Nelson RP 1 year, $1.5M
Eddie Guardado CL 3 years, $13M (avg $4.33)

That comes to only $18.71M. Teams can compete with small budgets. They just need to make smart signings.

Blackthorn

One thing is true. I am from Ohio as Chauncey pointed out. We have two professional teams here. Some might argue that it's one professtional team and one semi-professional team but that's an argument for a different thread

I submit that our fan base(s) and their collective size isn't the problem as Chauncey proposes. The vast majority of the dollars that flow into the likes of the Yankees pockets are from the local media deals and cities like Cincinnati and Cleveland...well...they just don't match NYC for that sort of media market.

Attendance figures in both of the Ohio cities are always strong throughout the season so that's clearly not the issue. The total revenue picture in either of these cities will never support $252MM for a single player. Never is a long time so why don't I change that to "not for a very long time will....." -- you get the idea.

23 days 23 hours 57 minute and 30 seconds to opening day... Yup ... still a fan.

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

shaq=ignorance

I will give you the two magical words that are going to be used in the future to save baseball, SALARY CAP! With out a major, financial overhaul, in my opinion, baseball is doomed. Obviously not right now, but as the league becomes more polarized between the haves and the have nots more and more fans could become disinterested, unless your team is one of the haves. New York Yankee fans will be happy every year b/c their owner shells out more money than a fat chick at a Mc Donalds. But after so many years of watching the teams w/ all the cap room dominate, I find the regular season and the playoffs (unless there is an underdog to root for..Marlins) boring and stale.

__________________
Tenacious D, the other white meat

Kurant

There is no such thing as cheap owners.

Selig said like 3 years ago only 6 teams in Major Leauge Baseball that year made money. True or not, who else is to argue that's not true? Did you see Tiger Stadium this year when the Yankees or Red Sox weren't in town? They had 2/3rds the stadium empty. I woulden't doubt it one bit very few teams made money.

Baseball needs a salary cap. There are markets that are huge, New York and Chicago to name just 2. Some do much better then others (Again, yankers and the cubbies) and some do very poorly (Flordia for being the WS Champs, realy didn't draw well this season).

With that said, caps, and revenue sharing are somthing that has to happen. It's good for baseball.

Esen

Well if they are going to do a salary cap on what manager s can spend they should really look at putting a salary cap on what players can earn.

It would be awesome if playuers salaries were tiered.

Like scrub
800k
1 million
2 million
3 million
5 mil
6 mil tops

Each contract you fall into a tier
ach team gets 50 mil salary cap. That would be awesome

Never ever ever happen but wpuld be awesome.

The top players would have to accept the 6 mil or no team would pick them up.
Of course that would be instastrike
And then of course with all th emoney the owners are saviing they can lower our ticket prices

__________________
~Esen
What is everyone doing in my room?

shaq=ignorance

I think I could live off of 8 million tops a year. Hey, but I am not Mike Tyson.

kutulu

So you people see nothing wrong with a shitty team like the Brewers getting $20M in revenue sharing while only having a $30M payroll? You see nothing wrong with the rich teams having to pay 2/3 of their payroll?

The Devil Rays also spent about $18M. You see nothing wrong with a team doing nothing to help itself out?

The money you spend doesn't guarantee that you will win. Look at the Mets, Red Sox, and the Dodgers. They have been in the top five for quite some time and only have a few playoff games to show for it. In the meantime, the DBacks (high salary at the time), Angels, and Marlins have won the last three WS.

Hell, Steinfucker didn't start going mad with the checkbook until the DBacks beat them. What has it got them? Out in first round 2002, lost WS in 2003.

The A's have been in the bottom of the spending and have made the playoffs the last 4 years. They should be in there this season too. The Twins have had reasonable salaries and were there the last two years.

Owners wouldn't lower prices. Businesses don't cut profits for no reason. Limiting salaries would be wrong. The players make mlb, not the owners. They deserve a substantial share of the money.

There are all sorts of ways to make up losses. Anything less than full attendance is a loss of potential earnings. Those "facts" were likely based on some bs logic like that. Actual losses are when your income is less then your expenditures, it's highly doubtfull that Selig was talking about that. If that were the truth, and they really were actually losing millions, they would have happily shown the players their books. Instead they resisted.

I like a luxury tax system. But to have it really work, you have to force cheap owners to spend the money they need to compete.