1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

new baseball labor agreement ?s

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Basement, Oct 22, 2006.

  1. The Basement

    The Basement Member

    this from peter gammons' blog, talking about the new baseball labor agreement.

    "A team like the Royals can get $30 million from revenue-sharing, $30 million from the national television contact, millions more from the Internet, etc., and then sell tickets and make local radio and TV deals. It's a wonderful life."

    the bottom nine teams in payroll in 2005

    22. Cincinnati 59,162,015
    23. Arizona 58,884,226
    24. Cleveland 56,795,867
    25. Milwaukee 50,540,000
    26. Kansas City 47,294,000
    27. Pittsburgh 46,867,750
    28. Colorado 40,791,000
    29. Tampa Bay 35,417,967
    30. Florida 14,344,500

    has anyone ever answered (or asked) the question of where all that extra money goes? I understand that money dumped into the minor leagues does not count on major league payroll - but somehow I don't think Loria is throwing $45-50 million into his farm system.

    you would think if each of these teams will get at least $60 million from revenue sharing & the national TV deal - that should be the salary floor.

    i'm all for labor peace in baseball, and this new negotiation has gone very very smoothly - but i haven't heard peep about HGH, about salary caps/floors, etc etc

    anyone else?
  2. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    The Marlins insist that all their revenue-sharing money doesn't even cover the operation on the non-athlete aspects of the team.
  3. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    Which simply means Jeffrey Loria is full of shit.

    Once again, the probelm is not just big market/small market. It's rich bastards like Jeffrey Loria pocketing the revenue sharing money -- or maybe in Loria's case investing it in his art collection -- then crying poverty.
    The new basic agreement must specify that revenue sharing money must go directly to player payroll or you lose it. Then we won't have to listen to the "small market" whiners whose profit margins (as percentage of revenue) are higher than the teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets etc.) who actually spend money on talent.
  4. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    The problem IS big-market/small-market.

    That said, there certainly should be a floor for payroll.
  5. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    The big market/small market probem is this:
    The top 5 or 6 revenue teams are giving millions of dollars to rich fucks like Loria, Glass, the Pohlad family etc. who are pocketing the fucking money and crying competitve imbalance.
  6. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

  7. HoopsMcCann

    HoopsMcCann Active Member

  8. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    If you put EVERY cent you whining about to payroll, you have no less competitive imbalance.

    You get called a dumbfuck for that, because you know its's true and you are simply being intellectually dishonest. I don't THINK you are that stupid.
  9. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Ding, ding! We have a winner. Loria is a disgrace.

    That said, the problem with a salary floor or something of the sort is that then you get teams overpaying for crappy players just for the sake of meeting the floor.

    Instead, I think they need to something such as figure out what the player salaries for a team are, maybe include scouting costs and other talent related operations and total that up for a team. Then, when they get the revenue sharing figures, devote that money only to player-related costs. Anything extra either goes back to the teams that put it in, or to some central pool that MLB uses at its discretion.

    For example, if the Marlins spend $14 mil on salaries, $6 million on scouts and travel expenses, and $5 mil on, say, training costs (of course, I'm completely making up these figures, but go with me here), they have $25 mil dedicated to player costs. Say, now, that they are supposed to receive $60 million in revenue sharing. They only get $35 million of that, with the rest getting divvied back up between the teams that paid into revenue sharing in the first place, or to some MLB fund dedicated to growing the game (building fields around the country, donating equipment to underpriveleged kids, etc.).

    That would give teams the incentive to spend the $60 million on their players, but wouldn't force them to pay stupid contracts to meet some false floor. If they don't spend the $60 million, they aren't penalized, but they don't get to just pocket the cash and not worry about putting a winning product on the field.
  10. rgd

    rgd Guest

    Rewrite that post because it makes no sense.
  11. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    Of course it makes no sense, ebby. Pube never makes any sense.

    If Loria takes his $30 mill in revenue sharing and ups his payroll from $15 mill to $45 mill, the Marlins won't be a better team ..... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
  12. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    The only thing that needs to happen is douchebag owners like Loria need to be forced to pay up or get out.

    Don't even try telling me they're losing money. Even if the aren't turning a paper profit (which I bet independent accounting would say they are) the appreciation on their franchises more than makes up for it.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page