A-Gon May Be Gone

[tzill]

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?

Nope, although that's a natural consequence of the current system. What I AM saying is that we need complete revenue sharing, a salary cap, and a salary floor.

 

[tzill]

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.

Indeed. If anything, MLB is moving in the opposite direction with the latest plans to add an additional WC team to the mix (to insure the Yanks and Red Sox get in every year). Meaning more money for the big budget clubs, who make up the vast majority of playoff teams.

 

[gp956]

Indeed. If anything, MLB is moving in the opposite direction with the latest plans to add an additional WC team to the mix (to insure the Yanks and Red Sox get in every year). Meaning more money for the big budget clubs, who make up the vast majority of playoff teams.

Yes. And with revenues and team values going up, can you really say baseball needs to institute salary restrictions? For instance, I don't think salary caps/floors have resulted in a better football product.

 

[filosofy29]

First off: I love this board. So many intelligent pov's that I would have never thought of.....

Secondly: I don't know how to feel about the situation honestly. On one hand, I feel like there should be a salary minimum along with an amendment (or at least an addendum) to change the revenue sharing so that the playing field levels a bit. Then, on the other hand, I'm kind of against handing out participation awards to teams who are only worried about the bottom line. I don't know, tbh, I really don't think I'm educated enough on the subject to even have an enlightened opinion on the matter. So really.....you all should have not wasted the 2 minutes of your life reading this post

 

[Yoshi]

Hey Tzill, where did you get those numbers - those are excellent factoids about revenues associated with baseball. I've always been in a quandry in regards to the lack of a salary cap in baseball. From reading the posts on this thread, I'm getting the idea that this whole salary cap issue is a lot more complex than my prior belief with the number of owners not commited to building a winning product to the tv stations certain teams own and the amount of dollars generated as a result.

Football has had more parity over the years, esp. after many were crying foul over the Niners, who were quite honestly as close to the Yanks in football for a stretch. The Pats are the closest thing to a dynasty but that's because of a very well run organization along with a coach who knows how to draft/sign even the most unheralded player who fits the scheme to a tee.

Here's an interesting article about salary caps:
Small Market Baseball Teams Proving They Can Play - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

They make a very solid case about the NBA. It's interesting to note that up to 2008, 30 of the World Series were won by 19 different teams.

P.S. Filo, thanks for the memo about the Sharks forum.

 

[msgkings322]

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.

Wow, that is eye-popping. I wonder what the Giants get from CSNBA, and when that $ is up for renewal/increase...

 

[msgkings322]

First off: I love this board. So many intelligent pov's that I would have never thought of.....

Secondly: I don't know how to feel about the situation honestly. On one hand, I feel like there should be a salary minimum along with an amendment (or at least an addendum) to change the revenue sharing so that the playing field levels a bit. Then, on the other hand, I'm kind of against handing out participation awards to teams who are only worried about the bottom line. I don't know, tbh, I really don't think I'm educated enough on the subject to even have an enlightened opinion on the matter. So really.....you all should have not wasted the 2 minutes of your life reading this post

If it took anyone here 2 minutes to read this post of about 75 words, you have a lot bigger problems than wasting time on the intertubes.

 

[msgkings322]

Hey Tzill, where did you get those numbers - those are excellent factoids about revenues associated with baseball. I've always been in a quandry in regards to the lack of a salary cap in baseball. From reading the posts on this thread, I'm getting the idea that this whole salary cap issue is a lot more complex than my prior belief with the number of owners not commited to building a winning product to the tv stations certain teams own and the amount of dollars generated as a result.

Football has had more parity over the years, esp. after many were crying foul over the Niners, who were quite honestly as close to the Yanks in football for a stretch. The Pats are the closest thing to a dynasty but that's because of a very well run organization along with a coach who knows how to draft/sign even the most unheralded player who fits the scheme to a tee.

Here's an interesting article about salary caps:
Small Market Baseball Teams Proving They Can Play - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

They make a very solid case about the NBA. It's interesting to note that up to 2008, 30 of the World Series were won by 19 different teams.

P.S. Filo, thanks for the memo about the Sharks forum.

So to update, up to 2010 32 of the WS were won by 20 different teams? Because the GIANTS JUST WON THE WS! I love every excuse to type that.

 

[Heathbar012]

First off: I love this board. So many intelligent pov's that I would have never thought of.....

Secondly: I don't know how to feel about the situation honestly. On one hand, I feel like there should be a salary minimum along with an amendment (or at least an addendum) to change the revenue sharing so that the playing field levels a bit. Then, on the other hand, I'm kind of against handing out participation awards to teams who are only worried about the bottom line. I don't know, tbh, I really don't think I'm educated enough on the subject to even have an enlightened opinion on the matter. So really.....you all should have not wasted the 2 minutes of your life reading this post

I usually only waste 30 seconds on your posts and then move one...

 

[Heathbar012]

Nope, although that's a natural consequence of the current system. What I AM saying is that we need complete revenue sharing, a salary cap, and a salary floor.

+1. I did a 115 page paper on baseball's antitrust exemption when I was in college. Though, that isn't necessarily at issue here, I would think that exemption keeps Congress or any other governing body from attempting to step in. Of course, it didn't stop them on the steroids issue, but that had less to do with the business of baseball than the legal issues surrounding the use of what are, essentially, prescription drugs (while still a giant waste of tax payer dollars, but I digress).

Even in the case of the NFL and NBA (that don't have an antitrust exemption), didn't the changes come about naturally? I don't recall Congress saying "contracts are getting out of hand" or anyone within the organizations saying "we are ruining or product with a lack of parity." At the very least, it appears the owners or the Players Association would have to want the minimum and the soft cap for anything to move forward. Even if Congress wanted to get involved, they couldn't.

It also appears that neither side involved wants either the minimum or the cap because of the implied effect it would have on their wallets. To that I say to MLB, if it improves your product, the money will follow. I don't see how a salary minimum and a soft cap would really hurt any but the top 10 markets, and it isn't like they're going to lose fans or many more top free agents. Certainly, competition for those free agents would be stiffer, but that is the idea. This way 20 teams aren't immediately out of any discussion for a great player, which explains why salaries won't be adversely effected. This brings in what filo brought up (I was actually paying attention ), where the amount of revenue sharing, cap and minimum need to be re-evaluated on a yearly basis. This seems to make way too much sense for the MLB to ever adopt it, and in my opinion, there is no motivation to do so, partly because of the antitrust exemption.

 

[Heathbar012]

So to update, up to 2010 32 of the WS were won by 20 different teams? Because the GIANTS JUST WON THE WS! I love every excuse to type that.

Yeah.

 

[gp956]

Wow, that is eye-popping. I wonder what the Giants get from CSNBA, and when that $ is up for renewal/increase...

The Giants own 30% of their RSN.

45% owned by Comcast
25% by Fox.

 

[gp956]

+1. I did a 115 page paper on baseball's antitrust exemption when I was in college. Though, that isn't necessarily at issue here, I would think that exemption keeps Congress or any other governing body from attempting to step in. Of course, it didn't stop them on the steroids issue, but that had less to do with the business of baseball than the legal issues surrounding the use of what are, essentially, prescription drugs (while still a giant waste of tax payer dollars, but I digress).

Even in the case of the NFL and NBA (that don't have an antitrust exemption), didn't the changes come about naturally? I don't recall Congress saying "contracts are getting out of hand" or anyone within the organizations saying "we are ruining or product with a lack of parity." At the very least, it appears the owners or the Players Association would have to want the minimum and the soft cap for anything to move forward. Even if Congress wanted to get involved, they couldn't.

It also appears that neither side involved wants either the minimum or the cap because of the implied effect it would have on their wallets. To that I say to MLB, if it improves your product, the money will follow. I don't see how a salary minimum and a soft cap would really hurt any but the top 10 markets, and it isn't like they're going to lose fans or many more top free agents. Certainly, competition for those free agents would be stiffer, but that is the idea. This way 20 teams aren't immediately out of any discussion for a great player, which explains why salaries won't be adversely effected. This brings in what filo brought up (I was actually paying attention ), where the amount of revenue sharing, cap and minimum need to be re-evaluated on a yearly basis. This seems to make way too much sense for the MLB to ever adopt it, and in my opinion, there is no motivation to do so, partly because of the antitrust exemption.

115 pages in an undergraduate class? Holy shit. But isn't the antitrust exemption moot in an era of CBAs?

I'm not convinced salary restrictions actually result in a better product. I think the level of football I see throughout the NFL is pretty dismal. I preferred when their were 5 to 7 great teams who played huge December games on MNF. The only team these days that can hang with those great pre-salary cap teams is the Patriots, but they're cheaters.

 

[gp956]

First off: I love this board. So many intelligent pov's that I would have never thought of.....

Secondly: I don't know how to feel about the situation honestly. On one hand, I feel like there should be a salary minimum along with an amendment (or at least an addendum) to change the revenue sharing so that the playing field levels a bit. Then, on the other hand, I'm kind of against handing out participation awards to teams who are only worried about the bottom line. I don't know, tbh, I really don't think I'm educated enough on the subject to even have an enlightened opinion on the matter. So really.....you all should have not wasted the 2 minutes of your life reading this post

Bam!!!...... Post of the Day!!!!

 

[Heathbar012]

115 pages in an undergraduate class? Holy shit. But isn't the antitrust exemption moot in an era of CBAs?

I'm not convinced salary restrictions actually result in a better product. I think the level of football I see throughout the NFL is pretty dismal. I preferred when their were 5 to 7 great teams who played huge December games on MNF. The only team these days that can hang with those great pre-salary cap teams is the Patriots, but they're cheaters.

Hehehehe. All users of technology for a sports advantage are cheaters.

As far as the modern NFL, that will be a difference of opinion that you and I won't be able to reconcile. I like the idea that literally any team can logically make the playoffs at the beginning of every year. One could have even made a case for the Lions or Panthers at the beginning of this year, barring injuries. Of course, the Giants winning the World Series, competitive nature of the Padres and the Rangers winning a pennant weaken my argument, but I only need to point to the Royals, Pirates, Blue Jays and Orioles to prove that a case could not have been made for at least some teams making the playoffs this past year. I understand your reasons for liking the 5 to 7 dominant team sports leagues. I like the NBA and English Premier League. Maybe, I'm just a socialist (an economic debate that you would surely win, sir). .

As far as the 115 page paper, to be fair it was 100 pages of Annotated Bibliography that vigorously dissected the sources and their possible motivations/incentives for producing such material (journalism degree). The 15 pages was generally explaining that all sports leagues should have an antitrust exemption because the umbrella of the league is the company with various franchises, much like McDonald's. Obviously, that's the super-abbreviated version.

As far as the CBA-era, I wouldn't say that it makes the antitrust exemption moot. In general, the exemption allows MLB free-reign over all things professional baseball in America. You will never see something similar to the USFL or AFL in terms of baseball (and you certainly won't see anything like the XFL, yet probably for different reasons). Independent leagues are for college guys hoping to snatch a real contract in the minor league affiliates of MLB or hone their skills for next season. Granted, successful competing sports leagues rarely sprout up or maintain popularity, but keeping that from ever happening is the true reason for the exemption. That, and past commissioners have found ways to squeeze every last bit of power they can out of that now over-used and untrue moniker, "the national pastime."

 

[gp956]

Hehehehe. All users of technology for a sports advantage are cheaters.

As far as the modern NFL, that will be a difference of opinion that you and I won't be able to reconcile. I like the idea that literally any team can logically make the playoffs at the beginning of every year. One could have even made a case for the Lions or Panthers at the beginning of this year, barring injuries. Of course, the Giants winning the World Series, competitive nature of the Padres and the Rangers winning a pennant weaken my argument, but I only need to point to the Royals, Pirates, Blue Jays and Orioles to prove that a case could not have been made for at least some teams making the playoffs this past year. I understand your reasons for liking the 5 to 7 dominant team sports leagues. I like the NBA and English Premier League. Maybe, I'm just a socialist (an economic debate that you would surely win, sir). .

As far as the 115 page paper, to be fair it was 100 pages of Annotated Bibliography that vigorously dissected the sources and their possible motivations/incentives for producing such material (journalism degree). The 15 pages was generally explaining that all sports leagues should have an antitrust exemption because the umbrella of the league is the company with various franchises, much like McDonald's. Obviously, that's the super-abbreviated version.

As far as the CBA-era, I wouldn't say that it makes the antitrust exemption moot. In general, the exemption allows MLB free-reign over all things professional baseball in America. You will never see something similar to the USFL or AFL in terms of baseball (and you certainly won't see anything like the XFL, yet probably for different reasons). Independent leagues are for college guys hoping to snatch a real contract in the minor league affiliates of MLB or hone their skills for next season. Granted, successful competing sports leagues rarely sprout up or maintain popularity, but keeping that from ever happening is the true reason for the exemption. That, and past commissioners have found ways to squeeze every last bit of power they can out of that now over-used and untrue moniker, "the national pastime."

Yeah... personally i prefer to see great players on great teams playing against one another. Cinderellas not so much.


As far as competing leagues.... and antitrust.....I wouldn't mind seeing a "open division" in baseball - any and all PEDs allowed (and encouraged).

 

[Heathbar012]

Yeah... personally i prefer to see great players on great teams playing against one another. Cinderellas not so much.


As far as competing leagues.... and antitrust.....I wouldn't mind seeing a "open division" in baseball - any and all PEDs allowed (and encouraged).

SBL. The Steroid Baseball League. I have no problems with people taking drugs as long as their safety is monitored, which is certainly possible with steroids. Can't happen, though. If I recall correctly, you can thank Kennesaw Mountain Landis for that one... among other things.

 

[gp956]

SBL. The Steroid Baseball League. I have no problems with people taking drugs as long as their safety is monitored, which is certainly possible with steroids. Can't happen, though. If I recall correctly, you can thank Kennesaw Mountain Landis for that one... among other things.

I had no idea one could not start another professional level league in baseball.

 

[gp956]

Now.....

If all players were free-agents - no draft - free to sign long term contracts. Would this result in higher or lower overall salaries, and more or less concentrated talent?

Given that drafted players are locked up until their prime years - this reduces the availability of top free-agents, which ensures they will receive salaries at the very top of the top spending teams "reservation price". And arbitration ensures that "lessor" player's salaries will be pegged to these reservation prices - so I'm not sure small market teams actually benefit much a draft and reserve clause.

 

[tzill]

Yes. And with revenues and team values going up, can you really say baseball needs to institute salary restrictions? For instance, I don't think salary caps/floors have resulted in a better football product.

I guess it's how you define "better." If you mean that there is a decent chance for all NFL francshises to compete for a championship then it's indeed better.

The disparate team salary structure in MLB is deplorable.