Joey Votto's contract

You're only looking at luxury tax, which is based on payroll. But the much bigger part is the sharing based on revenue.

http://m.cbsnews.com/fullstory.rbml?catid=51210897&feed_id=76&videofeed=43

Basically teams pay 31 percent of their revenues into a pool and then it's split 30 ways. MLB revenues (national TV contract) are also weighted toward the lower teams.

 

Can the outlier be made to take Dusty Baker?

 

NFL does a more even split of revenue, which is one of the reasons the league doesn't have teams buying championships and other teams completely checking out. The gap from the top payroll to the bottom is MUCH smaller than MLB, and much less significant given the larger rosters.

Still didn't see that $150 million figure. I was legitimately asking. I hadn't seen those numbers.

I get that they NFL and MLB are different animals and have to do revenue sharing differently, but that is more reason for a salary floor and cap, not less. But as some of the baseball apologists have argued, MLB doesn't want to give everybody a fair shot. They want the big markets to have the advantage because they bring in more money and most of the revenue in baseball is regional while most of the money the NFL teams bring in is national.

 

I think what you meant to write is "as demonstrated by my previous post, I have been completely unaware all these years that MLB annually transfers hundreds of millions of dollars from the stronger teams to the weaker ones. I had previously thought the only sharing was in the luxury tax, which I now see is a mere rounding error in the entire financial picture. Now that I have been educated on revenue sharing, I will need a day or two to re-formulate my entire worldview."

 

Of course, the Padres and Reds, among other smaller market teams, have either lined up giant TV deals or are a few years away from doing so. So, you know....

 

Nope. Not even close. I was aware that the luxury tax was not the only part of revenue sharing. I just couldn't find the rest of the numbers. I showed an article I found that had some numbers, but not the entire picture.

MLB's revenue sharing still does not measure up to the NFL's, in part due to necessity. MLB's overall system still doesn't come close, mostly because the powers that be don't want a level playing field.

My worldview is just fine. You like a game where the deck is stacked for some teams above others. I prefer the system that gives every team the same shot to win. And by the way, the league that uses the system I prefer is more successful and that fairness in the financial system is part of the reason.

 

Great. And if the financial landscape of baseball continues to change to the point where every team has the same shot to win, wonderful. Right now, that is not the reality.

 

Oop, it is so patently obvious that until I told you the difference, you considered the luxury tax and revenue sharing to be one and the same. When I cited the revenue sharing numbers, you immediately questioned where I got those numbers and posted the luxury tax numbers in response.

I'm going to declare victory on this one. Sorry that every assumption you have been working under for so long turned out to be incorrect.

 

You got served, OoP. He's right.

 

Nice try. You fail, but it is a nice try. I asked you to provide numbers. I showed what I could find. You gave me a link that does not include the $150 million for the Yankees that you quoted and now you want to declare victory.

Here are the numbers that really matter.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

Those are the payrolls in MLB for 2012. The difference from top to bottom is over $140 million.

BYH wants to paint the Yankees as an outlier? The Phillies payroll is now over $174 million. The Red Sox are at $173 million. Both are almost $120 million more than the lowest payroll in the game. There are still six teams with payrolls below $70 million. You don't think an extra $100 million in payroll makes a difference?

The gap in the NFL for 2009 (the most recent season available on that same page) is

You say that is unfair because it is a different year? Fine. The gap from the top payroll in MLB to the bottom was even larger in 2009, approximately $164 million. Take the Yankees out and the gap is still about $113 million.

This doesn't even take into account that the NFL payroll is divided up among a much larger roster, making the difference per player even smaller in the NFL from the top teams to the bottom than it is in MLB.

I can only assume you know I'm right, which is why you are trying so hard to declare a false victory. So walk away the loser. Bask in your failure. Me? I know when it comes to the numbers that truly matter, MLB's system is still inferior and it is still stacked to give some teams a built-in advantage.

 

You are entitled to be wrong. You should be used to it by now.

 

By the way, the link that LTL provided does NOT back up his claim that the Yankees paid $150 million last year. It may be true. I'm having trouble finding the exact number. But he still hasn't backed his claim.

I'm guessing he ran off because he can't. Is that a little silly? Perhaps. But so his his claim that he "won."