While I do think baseball needs some kind of modification as to the amounts spent (on both ends of the scale), I do have an idea or two I would like to see implemented.

I’m not sure the problem is the Yankees spending too much money; I think it’s more of a problem of other teams not spending what is necessary to field a winning team. And before y’all start pointing out the Rays as an example of small market efficiency, I don’t think having 10 years of crappy teams enabling you to draft a half dozen top prospects is really the way to build a team. I’m glad it’s working out now, but it’s not the optimal way of doing it.

Yes, the Yankees and other big market teams have a bunch of financial resources helping them. But even when they didn’t, when Steinbrenner took over, he was willing to put his own money up to field a winning team. Other owners have shown a willingness to dig deep if necessary. Others show a willingness to receive and not put back in.

However, there are inequities that need to be addressed.

1) Get rid of the luxury tax completely. It’s not working. The Yanks ignore it and the other teams, for the most part, avoid it.

2) Increase the amount of revenues going to the visiting teams for televised games. There are two teams on the field. If the game is televised, they both need to be there. If the Yankees and the Rays are playing on the Yankee network, the Rays should be paid a higher percentage of the money made then they currently do. The Yankees have a huge TV contract generating a huge amount of revenue, while the Rays receive a much more modest amount. I’m waiting for an owner with enough balls to simply say “increase our percentage or we don’t take the field”.

3) MLB needs to earmark a high percentage of these type of funds to be put onto the product on the field. If you aren’t going to spend it to put a good product on those television networks, you should forfeit your right to receive it. I understand some teams may take a year or two to retool, and that’s fine. Some type of formula can be written having to do with wins and payroll to make sure teams are following the rules. If a good faith effort is being made, I’d hate to see teams penalized. But teams like the Pirates and the Rays (under the old regime) weren’t (and aren’t).

4) More freedom of movement for the MLB clubs needs to be allowed. If a team can do better for itself than where they are, they need to be allowed to move. This, however, needs to be monitored in such a way that cities that support their teams aren’t left out in the cold. Let’s say if a team stays at 75% capacity over a 3 year span, the franchise cannot move.

5) And lastly, teams that are traditionally non-competitive need to have their franchises pulled and new ownership found. Mark Cuban wants to buy the Cubs. Ask him if he’d be interested in his hometown Pirates. Offer him some incentives.

just look at the NBA and the “parity” -ha ha

Interesting

I agree that they will spend the money elsewhere, except some already have. Case and point the Boston Red Sox. Look at what their player development is doing. It’s only a matter of time before the Yankees snub their nose at the system and pay well above ‘top dollar’ for their draft picks and players that have ‘signability’ issues will not play for anyone but the Yankees. If a non-salary cap system is to work, then there needs to be a rookie cap to prevent the teams with larger revenues from exploiting the one system that is meant to be equal and specifically geared for teams at the bottom to get better.

Something needs to change if no salary cap. I do agree with one very excellent point so far: the visiting team should take in more revenue from the opposing tv deal—and to treat it fairly—it should be on a percentage scale, not a dollar scale.

If these two points would be accomplished, then no one even needs to mention salary cap and the players would have a hard time rejecting that sort of deal, especially in this economy.

Sorry to make this longer, but one final point: We will soon reach the point when the public will vilify the sporting arena for its greed. The escalating prices with owners nickle and diming the public in new areas are getting to the point where only the rich can afford a seat. It is no longer a family game and hasn’t been for some time. But New York will see the first crash. Seat licenses, forcing the public to pay for stadiums, it is only a matter of time. Just because a business can make more money, doesn’t necessariy mean that’s ‘good business’. At this point, I could see the sports business take a very ugly turn in the next 50 years.

Frankly I dislike the NFL because of the high turnover. I like it when organizations are able to shine for long periods of time. I really hate it that some sports have structural aspects that do not allow better run organizations to beat out poor organizations on a yearly basis.

That being said I want a system where a better run organization can turn a better result year in and year out than a organization that is poorly run. That is not the case in baseball for all intents and purposes.

Also there is no way baseball can mimic the structures of any of the other sports. Baseball is unique in the way talent is developed, free agency, drafting etc. There is no way anyone can expect a system from another sport to work well for baseball just because it worked for that sport. Baseball needs something revolutionary that will give the league parity while rewarding the franchises with the best front offices.

instead of on what is happening on the field? Year after year we hear about how baseball is in trouble because of the financial disparity, and year after year baseball thrives because there is great competitiveness.

Who cares how much a team spends? The only thing that matters is whether all teams have a decent chance to compete, and as the payroll disparities have widened, the capacity to contend has broadened also. I am not simply talking about the Rays. Up and down the majors, there is more competitive balance now than there has ever been.

The contest is not over who has the most expensive players but over who plays the best baseball over 162 games, and so far the correlation between the two factors is very weak. At the extremes, I recognize the correlation is stronger (although it is tough to separate other factors that make for success or failure and isolate a direct effect), but even there it is imperfect.

The outrage over the Yankees’ spending is pseudo-populism and makes for screaming headlines, hyperbolic analyses and all sorts of emotional angst, but in terms of actual effect on the field it is entirely over dramatized.

A salary cap is needed! Why do the Yankees draw the most in attendance? They have the most marketable stars. Stars put asses in seats. People show up to watch Arod/Jeter/Texiera etc. They don’t show up to watch the generic run of the mill players. Bonds would have sold out the Trop last season. Stars also are better players for the most part. The Yankees are in the hunt because they buy up the talent. It should irk poeple that it happens and it does. Every other team has to work to draft and develop talent both on the Minor League and MAjor League level. For what? When their contracts expire and they’re the best in baseball they go play in NY, either for the Mets or Yanks.

Hows it going to feel in 6 seasons when Longo’s in pinstripes? How ‘bout Upton Upton with his NY derby in 3 seasons? Kazmir is 4? Price in 6? The Rays can’t afford these guys without a salary cap.

MLB is a good o’l boy magnate that caters to the wealthy. Not just the Yanks but the Networks and major advertisers realize that’s where their monies are at.

The bottom line is if there is to be true parity in MLB it has to have a cap.

If you don’t think so you’re just plain o’l stupid!

Happy New Year!

When one team forces the salary structure for similar players up to a level where only 3-5% of the clubs may be willing to pay at that level. Call it “pay to play”. This is where the revenue streams come into play. Now, while a cap I believe may not be practical, a more practical examination of a floor is what I am interested in. Why should anyone get mad at the Yankees for doing what the system that was collectively bargained for allows them to do? My problem is that they set the established bar and have forced salaries up in the arbitration process, which means you have to do what teams like Colorado did with Tulowitzki and the Rays did with Longoria and Shields and buy out arbitration and free agency when you can be pollaxed by the system.

I am for a reexamination of the amateur draft slotting and compensation. Teams that are willing to pay will have the advantage. Being smart is all good, but eventually the system has been chipped away at.

the winners are not the teams with the highest payrolls. They are the teams that win the most games. And in the last 20 years, more different teams have gotten to the post-season than at any comparable time in baseball history. And fewer teams have been regularly consigned to the cellar during the past 20 years (and those that have are usually those with ineffective front offices, not necessarily those with low payrolls) than at any comparable period.

So the Yankees have now won the off-season. They have garnered the most publicity, created the most buzz and enraged the most people. Bully for them. They have yet to win a game in 2009, and while I think they are greatly improved and will contend, all the off-season hype in the world is irrelevant to whether they actually perform on the field. I cannot accept the legitimacy of wailing about their spending or demanding structural changes to make it more difficult for them to spend. It would probably please the owners, but I can see no positive effect on anyone else unless it is the psychological satisfaction in knowing that NY cannot exert its financial muscle to its fullest extent. That seems a churlish attitude.