A-Gon May Be Gone

[iruletheskool]

Not so fast...

Red Sox Acquire Adrian Gonzalez: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com

haha, that's why i edited it

 

[tzill]

To be fair, there is no reason for the Pirates and Padres to spend that little money on their teams. They have the money, they just choose not to spend it. Why reward the teams for being poorly run and being just about profits?

The disparity between the big market clubs and the small market clubs is a LOT more than the luxury tax can make up for. The system is broken and needs a salary cap (and a salary minimum).

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

The disparity between the big market clubs and the small market clubs is a LOT more than the luxury tax can make up for. The system is broken and needs a salary cap (and a salary minimum).

Well it's more than just the luxury tax. Some of these teams start with about $75 million from MLB before any type of sales that bring in revenue for the team. There is no reason that all teams couldn't have a payroll of 70+ million, they just choose not to. The fact that these teams are so poorly run is the problem.

 

[msgkings322]

I agree to an extent. I think that the NBA's system is even MORE broke than the MLBs system. I remember the Donnie Marshall contract absolutely killed the W's for YEARS, and that was one (not THE, but one) reason I am not an NBA fan.

I think they need a soft cap, but a firm minimum. The way the Fish, Pirates, Pads, Royals etc treat their fans is disgusting. They have a monopoly, so they should be forced to add to their product. I am not SOOO against the Spanks having their financial advantage, though. They have EARNED that advantage (to an extent) with the YES network and all the other investments made to the product over the last 100 years or so. Why should they hv to surrender the advantage they earned?

They also need to allow draft pick trading and a firm slotting system for the draft. The way players like Hocham, Posey or Van Popple drop because of finances is another reason the MLB teams are so wide apart. The Spanks never need to worry about what the stud prospects are asking, but the Pads have to draft Matt Bush.

This.

Been saying it for years. Someone needs to show the players union that a minimum + a soft cap = same dollars for players but more parity of teams.

 

[msgkings322]

Well it's more than just the luxury tax. Some of these teams start with about $75 million from MLB before any type of sales that bring in revenue for the team. There is no reason that all teams couldn't have a payroll of 70+ million, they just choose not to. The fact that these teams are so poorly run is the problem.

But it's not 'poorly run' if the goal is making money for your owners. Most of the small payroll teams make a tidy profit. Winning is very much beside the point for those jerks.

The system is indeed broken. Then again, it benefits a team like the Giants who can spend at the top quarter in terms of payrolls and make money. We all want to do something about the Yanks and Red Sox, but we'd lose some advantages in a payroll minimum world.

But I gotta go with principle on this, I want the minimum even if it hurts the Giants.

 

[calsnowskier]

But it's not 'poorly run' if the goal is making money for your owners. Most of the small payroll teams make a tidy profit. Winning is very much beside the point for those jerks.

The system is indeed broken. Then again, it benefits a team like the Giants who can spend at the top quarter in terms of payrolls and make money. We all want to do something about the Yanks and Red Sox, but we'd lose some advantages in a payroll minimum world.

But I gotta go with principle on this, I want the minimum even if it hurts the Giants.

I agree.

I would rather have a league where the Royals can compete with the Spanks, and the Pads can compete with the Giants and Doggies than a league where the Spanks face the Phils every year in the WS with the Giants, Doggies, Red Sox, Mets and Angels competing EVERY year with the Pirates, Royals, Pads, Brewers, and Fish recieving lux tax bonus's

Sure there are the Rays and Twins who look to be solid orgs who do it right and should be perma-contenders (we will see about the Rays), but there are always exceptions to the rule.

I say we go back to the 80s when the Spanks were the perma-cellar-dwellers!!

 

[tzill]

Well it's more than just the luxury tax. Some of these teams start with about $75 million from MLB before any type of sales that bring in revenue for the team. There is no reason that all teams couldn't have a payroll of 70+ million, they just choose not to. The fact that these teams are so poorly run is the problem.

interesting factoid. Where did you dig that up?

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

interesting factoid. Where did you dig that up?

I don't have a link, but it was kind of a big deal not too long ago. ESPN even had a few articles on it. It's revenue sharing, money is paid into a central fund by teams (and I think MLB kicks in money too) and then MLB distributes it to teams that don't make as much revenue.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

But it's not 'poorly run' if the goal is making money for your owners. Most of the small payroll teams make a tidy profit. Winning is very much beside the point for those jerks.

The system is indeed broken. Then again, it benefits a team like the Giants who can spend at the top quarter in terms of payrolls and make money. We all want to do something about the Yanks and Red Sox, but we'd lose some advantages in a payroll minimum world.

But I gotta go with principle on this, I want the minimum even if it hurts the Giants.

It is poorly run even if the goal is to make owners money. Some of the idiots that run teams throw millions of dollars at no talent FAs, instead of investing money in the draft and international players.

Think about this...In the 2007 draft the Pirates took Daniel Moskos with the 4th overall pick because they didn't want to spend money in the draft. They passed on players like Wieters, Heyward, Bumgarner, etc. Yet that same year they had 37 year old Jeremy Burnitz making $6 million. Sean Casey was making about $8.5 million. Think about a 3 and 4 of Heyward and Alvarez, that isn't a bad start to a team.

 

[tzill]

I don't have a link, but it was kind of a big deal not too long ago. ESPN even had a few articles on it. It's revenue sharing, money is paid into a central fund by teams (and I think MLB kicks in money too) and then MLB distributes it to teams that don't make as much revenue.

Oh, I knew that, but I was shocked that you think it's on the order of $75MM...

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

Oh, I knew that, but I was shocked that you think it's on the order of $75MM...

Pittsburgh Pirates win by losing, financial documents show - ESPN

In 2008 the Pirates got about $70 million from MLB sources. Still that shocked?

 

[tzill]

Pittsburgh Pirates win by losing, financial documents show - ESPN

In 2008 the Pirates got about $70 million from MLB sources. Still that shocked?

But the topic at hand was the luxury tax and distribution thereof. The key phrase in that article was this:

including revenue sharing, network TV, major league merchandise sales and MLB's website.

So, yeah, I would be shocked if any team got $75MM from the luxury tax.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

But the topic at hand was the luxury tax and distribution thereof. The key phrase in that article was this:

including revenue sharing, network TV, major league merchandise sales and MLB's website.

So, yeah, I would be shocked if any team got $75MM from the luxury tax.

Ok I think some clarification is in order here. Here is how I see things written...

You saying that the Luxury Tax wasn't enough to make up for the differences in money teams earned.

I said that it wasn't just the Luxury Tax that was trying to make up the difference, there are also other MLB revenue sources that these teams get that teams like the Yankees don't get. Some of these smaller market teams start with about $75 million before they generate any revenue and that they should be able to support much higher payrolls.

You thought that the $75 million was an interesting factoid.

I found an old article that showed that the Pirates had gotten about $70 million from MLB.

You said the article said included other revenues.



I was saying that teams get more than just the Luxury Tax, that some of the teams receive as much as $75 million TOTAL (I think you misunderstood what I meant by "It's more than just the luxury tax." maybe?) before they make any money on their own. Instead of teams using this money to improve the team, they put it in the owners pockets.

 

[tzill]

Ok I think some clarification is in order here. Here is how I see things written...

You saying that the Luxury Tax wasn't enough to make up for the differences in money teams earned.

--As it turns out, the Luxury Tax isn't distributed to the small market clubs at all, but rather all that money goes into an "international development fund."

I said that it wasn't just the Luxury Tax that was trying to make up the difference, there are also other MLB revenue sources that these teams get that teams like the Yankees don't get. Some of these smaller market teams start with about $75 million before they generate any revenue and that they should be able to support much higher payrolls.

--here's the actual distribution:

• Central fund (includes national TV, radio, Internet, licensing, merchandising, marketing, MLB International money): Each team, from the Marlins to the Yankees, gets the same central-fund payout. And that check comes to slightly over $30 million per team if you deduct the $10 million in pension and operations fees, or just over $40 million if you don't.

• Revenue sharing: Only income-challenged teams get a revenue-sharing check. MLB shared $400 million in revenue this year. Now every club's payout is different. But the five neediest teams -- which are believed to be the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Blue Jays and Royals -- averaged somewhere in the vicinity of $35 million in revenue-sharing handouts per team. And that still left over $200 million -- more than $20 million a club -- for the rest of the "payees" to divvy up.

• Local TV/radio/cable: Good luck getting these exact figures. But it's known that 29 of the 30 teams make at least $15 million a year in local broadcast money, and no team rakes in under $12 million. Obviously, some clubs collect much, much more than that. Or own their networks. Or both.

You thought that the $75 million was an interesting factoid.

I found an old article that showed that the Pirates had gotten about $70 million from MLB.

You said the article said included other revenues.



I was saying that teams get more than just the Luxury Tax, that some of the teams receive as much as $75 million TOTAL (I think you misunderstood what I meant by "It's more than just the luxury tax." maybe?) before they make any money on their own. Instead of teams using this money to improve the team, they put it in the owners pockets.

--Understood. As it turns out, NO teams get ANY money from the Luxury Tax pool. All teams get equal distribution from the Central Fund. The difference is in the Revenue Sharing Fund and Local Broadcast revenue.

Bottom line, NO team gets $75MM more than another team from MLB. The biggest disparity is about $45MM, as ALL teams get $30MM from the central fund.

Great topic, though. Glad it spurred me to look things up.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

--Understood. As it turns out, NO teams get ANY money from the Luxury Tax pool. All teams get equal distribution from the Central Fund. The difference is in the Revenue Sharing Fund and Local Broadcast revenue.

Bottom line, NO team gets $75MM more than another team from MLB. The biggest disparity is about $45MM, as ALL teams get $30MM from the central fund.

Great topic, though. Glad it spurred me to look things up.

Well I guess my overall point was that I don't think teams should be rewarded for not doing everything they can to win. If teams are not going to invest in the draft or spend money on the big league team I don't see any reason to try and help them out.

 

[tzill]

Well I guess my overall point was that I don't think teams should be rewarded for not doing everything they can to win. If teams are not going to invest in the draft or spend money on the big league team I don't see any reason to try and help them out.

I understand that this is your point, but the topic at hand was the amount MLB actually distributes to lower income clubs.

MY larger point was that $45MM doesn't even begin to close the gap between the Pirates and the Yankees.

 

[Heathbar012]

I understand that this is your point, but the topic at hand was the amount MLB actually distributes to lower income clubs.

MY larger point was that $45MM doesn't even begin to close the gap between the Pirates and the Yankees.

So then, are you saying it makes more sense for the Pirates' ownership group to then pocket that money rather than re-investing it in the product that they put on the field?

 

[msgkings322]

So then, are you saying it makes more sense for the Pirates' ownership group to then pocket that money rather than re-investing it in the product that they put on the field?

Undeniably. Is there any other way to see it? That's precisely what they and the other small market teams do. It is a very efficient and frankly easy way to make money for your investors. Winning is completely beside the point.

Sad.

A salary minimum is so necessary and will never happen.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

Undeniably. Is there any other way to see it? That's precisely what they and the other small market teams do. It is a very efficient and frankly easy way to make money for your investors. Winning is completely beside the point.

Sad.

A salary minimum is so necessary and will never happen.

I wouldn't mind seeing a minimum, but I wouldn't be a fan of a maximum.

 

[gp956]

I just don't see MLB instituting min or max salaries. Baseball attracts too many gunslinger owners for many of them to willingly submit to salary limits.

Just a note: it's been reported the rangers signed a 20 year local broadcasting deal with their fox owned rsn - somewhere between 1.6 and 3 billion. Gives you an idea of the kind of local revenue available in even second tier markets.