A-Gon May Be Gone

[tzill]

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.

Yosh, I've lost my research trail, but start by wiki'ing "MLB revenue sharing" and go from there. The article I C&P'd was a legit source.

 

[gp956]

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.

That's not how i define better. Better, for me, is the quality of the football i watch - which means mostly the Niners and nationally televised games. With so many mediocre teams, the chance that a nationally televised game is a match between two powerhouses is pretty small.

 

[Heathbar012]

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

I wouldn't doubt that a team of superior legal minds could find a way to test that exemption, but at this point, the sanctioned monopoly that MLB has had for almost a century would make it virtually impossible due to the lack of economic viability. Furthermore, my position remains that antitrust exemptions are good for sports leagues, and eventually good for the fans by producing the highest quality product. It might seem that the ability for a league to essentially control the distribution of their professional sport would harm fans (high ticket prices, merchandise, etc.), but the leagues are competing for the same entertainment dollar against movies, books (to a much lesser extent), music, television (non-sports related, of course), live theatre, hobbies (from coin collecting to fixing up cars), other sports leagues and so on. This provides enough competition, in my opinion, to warrant what would otherwise be viewed as a monopoly. The issue with teams (or anyone) owning various forms of media is a completely different discussion, and one that I handle with kit gloves. Part of me is for a completely free market, but I see the powers of information manipulation being an extremely scary thing (and completely unrelated to baseball, funny gifs or sarcastic quips that I can silently enjoy in my cubicle).

Certainly, there are flaws, such as the ones that we have discussed above, but anytime you're dealing with a potentially trillion dollar industry, there will be people dragging their feet at the mere sniff of something that might lose them money. Hence, the main problem with the MLB and the MLBPA ever adopting a salary minimum and a soft cap.

 

[tzill]

That's not how i define better. Better, for me, is the quality of the football i watch - which means mostly the Niners and nationally televised games. With so many mediocre teams, the chance that a nationally televised game is a match between two powerhouses is pretty small.

Understood, and we can disagree. What chafes me is that at the beginning of the year, EVERY year, Pirate and Royal fans know they're fucked. I think of 7 yo fans in these cities and how it sucks to be them. Not good for the long term health of the game.

 

[calsnowskier]

I understand why the MLBPA would not want a cap (hard or soft), but what would be the downside (for the MLBPA) be in a minimum?

 

[Heathbar012]

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.

This is my definition of better, and that is why gp and I won't agree on this core issue. However, though, I don't have the figures, I'm fairly certain that this era of parity has led to significantly higher revenues for most NFL teams in a time when competition for the entertainment dollar is higher than ever. This could just be a natural progression in the development of an increasingly violent and bourgeois society (see Gladiator, Roman), but I think most would agree that the competitive make-up of the NFL has helped the franchises, players and fans. Now, if they could just figure out what deserves a penalty and a fine... or just play flag football.

 

[gp956]

I wouldn't doubt that a team of superior legal minds could find a way to test that exemption, but at this point, the sanctioned monopoly that MLB has had for almost a century would make it virtually impossible due to the lack of economic viability. Furthermore, my position remains that antitrust exemptions are good for sports leagues, and eventually good for the fans by producing the highest quality product. It might seem that the ability for a league to essentially control the distribution of their professional sport would harm fans (high ticket prices, merchandise, etc.), but the leagues are competing for the same entertainment dollar against movies, books (to a much lesser extent), music, television (non-sports related, of course), live theatre, hobbies (from coin collecting to fixing up cars), other sports leagues and so on. This provides enough competition, in my opinion, to warrant what would otherwise be viewed as a monopoly. The issue with teams (or anyone) owning various forms of media is a completely different discussion, and one that I handle with kit gloves. Part of me is for a completely free market, but I see the powers of information manipulation being an extremely scary thing (and completely unrelated to baseball, funny gifs or sarcastic quips that I can silently enjoy in my cubicle).

Certainly, there are flaws, such as the ones that we have discussed above, but anytime you're dealing with a potentially trillion dollar industry, there will be people dragging their feet at the mere sniff of something that might lose them money. Hence, the main problem with the MLB and the MLBPA ever adopting a salary minimum and a soft cap.

As I've gotten older I've realized there really isn't anything you should do about stupid. The real danger to society is from institutions seeking to protect society form the negative externalities of the mass of stupidity. Keep it simple - enforce the rule of law - and use institutions for mitigating situations where market failures are bound to occur. Bottom line, manipulation without the coercive powers of central authority has a very short half life.

 

[gp956]

Understood, and we can disagree. What chafes me is that at the beginning of the year, EVERY year, Pirate and Royal fans know they're fucked. I think of 7 yo fans in these cities and how it sucks to be them. Not good for the long term health of the game.

I think that is on ownership. And, as has already been pointed out i think, revenue sharing may actually prevent these teams from improving. The problem may be that those particular owners are so far along their own personal declining marginal utility of money curve that they have no motivation for fielding a competitive (and potentially revenue maximizing) team.

 

[tzill]

I think that is on ownership. And, as has already been pointed out i think, revenue sharing may actually prevent these teams from improving. The problem may be that those particular owners are so far along their own personal declining marginal utility of money curve that they have no motivation for fielding a competitive (and potentially revenue maximizing) team.

As usual, I don't disagree. And since we don't have a free market in MLB in which the Pirates would fold, I think a salary floor is necessary, just as it is in the NFL.

 

[tzill]

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.

Yosh: here you go.

Revenue sharing a mess - ESPN

 

[Heathbar012]

I understand why the MLBPA would not want a cap (hard or soft), but what would be the downside (for the MLBPA) be in a minimum?

None, in my opinion. There in lies the problem: where is the middle ground if one side will never submit to a cap and the other side will never favor a minimum? One without the other would be almost useless, and I don't think there are any concessions that could be made over other impasses that would get either side to cave. I could certainly be wrong, though.

 

[gp956]

As usual, I don't disagree. And since we don't have a free market in MLB in which the Pirates would fold, I think a salary floor is necessary, just as it is in the NFL.

The pirates wouldn't fold... they'd just pass to ownership that was a little more motivated and/or talented.

As for as enforcing a salary floor... that's just adding another layer of regulation, which doesn't actually ensure that a better team is fielded.

 

[Heathbar012]

As I've gotten older I've realized there really isn't anything you should do about stupid. The real danger to society is from institutions seeking to protect society form the negative externalities of the mass of stupidity. Keep it simple - enforce the rule of law - and use institutions for mitigating situations where market failures are bound to occur. Bottom line, manipulation without the coercive powers of central authority has a very short half life.

Too true. Unfortunately, the increasing amount of less than adequate education systems in this country makes it more and more difficult for me to support a system that doesn't try to protect stupid people. Either help educate them or save them from themselves. I prefer the former, but will not immediately dismiss the latter. Of course, there are instances where an education system can do nothing for those incapable of learning, and I believe those are the people that require protection that too often does come from institutions instead of families or society as a whole (which is certainly more ideal and cost effective).

Most people on this board understand the world better than I do (definitely including you, gp), and I admit that it will always be a work in progress for me. However, my heart still overrules my brain when it comes to the less fortunate. Maybe that will change with age and a family of my own. We shall see.

 

[calsnowskier]

The pirates wouldn't fold... they'd just pass to ownership that was a little more motivated and/or talented.

As for as enforcing a salary floor... that's just adding another layer of regulation, which doesn't actually ensure that a better team is fielded.

I agree, in principle. But nothing will fix anything 100%.

Also, this is not a disinterested government stepping in with regulation to either a) APPEAR like they care and are fixing things or b) fixing the game for a smaller group of people to get a larger piece of the pie. This would be an entirely interested, connected party working to improve it's own overall product.

That said, I agree that nothing will be done anytime soon. The players are making money hand-over-fist (where did that saying come from, btw?) and the owners are increasing their wealth, as well as playing their big toys. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is only broke in the fans eyes, and they do not have a vote.

 

[Heathbar012]

I agree, in principle. But nothing will fix anything 100%.

Also, this is not a disinterested government stepping in with regulation to either a) APPEAR like they care and are fixing things or b) fixing the game for a smaller group of people to get a larger piece of the pie. This would be an entirely interested, connected party working to improve it's own overall product.

That said, I agree that nothing will be done anytime soon. The players are making money hand-over-fist (where did that saying come from, btw?) and the owners are increasing their wealth, as well as playing their big toys. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is only broke in the fans eyes, and they do not have a vote.

+1. This is the sad truth.

Hand over fist

Apparently, it's a naval expression originally having to do with rope or something. I'm too lazy to actually read it, and I need to go on my lunch break.

 

[gp956]

I agree, in principle. But nothing will fix anything 100%.

Also, this is not a disinterested government stepping in with regulation to either a) APPEAR like they care and are fixing things or b) fixing the game for a smaller group of people to get a larger piece of the pie. This would be an entirely interested, connected party working to improve it's own overall product.

That said, I agree that nothing will be done anytime soon. The players are making money hand-over-fist (where did that saying come from, btw?) and the owners are increasing their wealth, as well as playing their big toys. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It is only broke in the fans eyes, and they do not have a vote.

Yes and no. If you you want to define "100%" as that state where resources are combined to their highest valued use given omniscient knowledge of all individual utilities and the power to create all possible states of the world - then no "it's" not 100%.

However, if we're talking about "100%" as being equivalent to pareto optimality given limited dispersal of knowledge and non-zero transaction costs - then yes, local control by individual optimizers is 100%. Government, per se, and/or motivations have nothing to do with the central issue.

 

[gp956]

Too true. Unfortunately, the increasing amount of less than adequate education systems in this country makes it more and more difficult for me to support a system that doesn't try to protect stupid people. Either help educate them or save them from themselves. I prefer the former, but will not immediately dismiss the latter. Of course, there are instances where an education system can do nothing for those incapable of learning, and I believe those are the people that require protection that too often does come from institutions instead of families or society as a whole (which is certainly more ideal and cost effective).

Most people on this board understand the world better than I do (definitely including you, gp), and I admit that it will always be a work in progress for me. However, my heart still overrules my brain when it comes to the less fortunate. Maybe that will change with age and a family of my own. We shall see.

I think the rub for me is what does "being educated" mean. For me - it means being equipped to learn how to learn. I see very few undergraduate programs actually teaching students how to vet information. Further, with what I believe is the dumbing down of our educational system combined with the proliferation of grade inflation, I see a lot of younger "educated" students who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect - which from my perspective is setting up these individuals for manipulation.

I'm not sure what "protection" stupid people would really need in a "free market" outside an enforcement of the current rule of law. Can you explain what you have in mind?

BTW, for me a "free market" is far from laissez faire. In a world of non-zero transaction costs and an inability to costlessly enforce individual rights, the creation of various forms of government is an inevitable outcome of any optimizing free market.

 

[tzill]

The pirates wouldn't fold... they'd just pass to ownership that was a little more motivated and/or talented.

As for as enforcing a salary floor... that's just adding another layer of regulation, which doesn't actually ensure that a better team is fielded.

I think in a truly free pro baseball market, we'd end up with about 22-24 teams. The Pirates would likely fold.

A salary floor wouldn't be another layer of regulation -- it'd be part of the existing layer. There should be a cheap tax for failing to spend the minimum just as there is a luxury tax now. That'd get owners in line.

 

[gp956]

I think in a truly free pro baseball market, we'd end up with about 22-24 teams. The Pirates would likely fold.

A salary floor wouldn't be another layer of regulation -- it'd be part of the existing layer. There should be a cheap tax for failing to spend the minimum just as there is a luxury tax now. That'd get owners in line.

You might call it "fine-tuning" the possible negative effects of revenue sharing, i.e. one set of regulations to fix the deficiencies and/or new problems resulting from a previous set. Layers/fine tuning - same thing to me. Next round would be to enact a requirement to get X number wins per dollar spent ( a "productivity tax" if you will) - something a competitive market would have optimized naturally.

Don't see how you can conclude any particular team would fold with any certainty.

 

[Heathbar012]

I think the rub for me is what does "being educated" mean. For me - it means being equipped to learn how to learn. I see very few undergraduate programs actually teaching students how to vet information. Further, with what I believe is the dumbing down of our educational system combined with the proliferation of grade inflation, I see a lot of younger "educated" students who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect - which from my perspective is setting up these individuals for manipulation.

I'm not sure what "protection" stupid people would really need in a "free market" outside an enforcement of the current rule of law. Can you explain what you have in mind?

BTW, for me a "free market" is far from laissez faire. In a world of non-zero transaction costs and an inability to costlessly enforce individual rights, the creation of various forms of government is an inevitable outcome of any optimizing free market.

The enforcement is the key. Our country recently went through (and might still be going through) a period where regulation of media ownership was largely unenforced. Maybe that is due to a basic lack of understanding of what direction one medium might be heading in relation to another (ie. the death of radio as we know it vs. the rapid expansion of internet marketing via social networking sites). My problem is with conglomerates such as Clear Channel, General Electric, Time Warner, Fox, Viacom, etc. and their control of news as entertainment rather than public service.

Network news is a requirement by the FCC to provide a public service, but with 24-hour news networks and the call of the almighty dollar, the quality of journalism has fallen by the wayside. Whereas a Utopian free market would dictate that the company providing the best product would survive, a lack of enforcement of regulation of media monopolies has made news a public disservice.

For an educated person, it is easy to maintain one's own information filter, and seek out publications and news shows that inform from various points of view. If media conglomerates own the dispensing of information, and the masses are stupid as you say (which I agree with), that makes for a society of people spoon-fed "the truth" by companies solely looking to line their own pockets. There is certainly nothing wrong with people trying to be successful, and being a good capitalist, I encourage it. It is the potential manipulation of the masses by major media conglomerates that worries me. What happens if NBC doesn't report on a General Electric recall of some sort? Right now, the other companies do, but what if there is a reason to keep something quiet that benefits all of them? That sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy theory, but if regulation of media-buying isn't strictly enforced, it is absolutely a real possibility.

The bottom line for me is living in an age where information is so readily accessible, we should be more informed, not less. I realize that is mostly due to our own laziness, but I certainly blame the education system, media conglomerates and the FCC for some of that laziness. Who cares about curse words? Monitor what your children watch and listen to. Explain to them that the use of those words can be offensive to other people. Who cares about nudity? We have the technology to block channels and individual shows. We need a society of people that actually understands, rather than fears, sex. Maybe that could lead to lower teenage pregnancy. I realize, again, that I will probably change my tune once I have kids, but I think the FCC's time would be better served enforcing the regulations that are in place regarding media ownership rather than fining Howard Stern (though not anymore) for saying "shit." How do you then fund the FCC? Fines for the attempted monopolies. Fees to pay for the investigation necessary to evaluate potential purchases and mergers. I may be naive, and I definitely don't think this is the biggest problem facing our nation, but I believe it is still a problem. (Sorry about the length; four years of journalism classes rear their ugly head)