Broken One Way, Or Broken The Other
by Nico on Nov 27, 2005 9:44 AM PST
in News
Email
PrintNote: This is a rant. As such, the author is not responsible for anything that is deemed to be incoherent, poorly argued, offensive, illogical, or simplistic. The author will, however, gladly take credit for anything that is deemed to be utterly brilliant.
Major league baseball just can't get it right. For years, owners had the extreme upper hand and treated players virtually like slaves, i.e., like commodities that could be overworked, underpaid, bought and sold like property. Rich, white men treating poorer human beings like possessions--how freaking original. Then the pendulum swung and now the players have the extreme upper hand, with earlier arbitration, "start the bidding" free agency, and limitless budgets sending salaries farther out of whack with every tick of the clock.
This is not to suggest that owners are standing on street corners begging for spare change. Owners are still rich because they always enter baseball rich, and they can usually recoup any annual losses through the eventual sale of the team. But the players' union is one of the most powerful unions around, and the union has used its muscle not to fight for equity but for greed--and it has usually succeeded.
Did I blink and miss the middle ground where baseball got it right? Where someone was motivated by equity and not greed, where what was best for baseball and its fans was given a looksee? Other sports have adjusted along the way, inspired either by crisis or strong leadership, and have introduced salary caps or restricted free agency, while baseball has taken baby steps (e.g., revenue sharing) but has, ultimately, done little to discourage someone from making Scott Eyre a millionaire 11 times over, or from giving B.J. Ryan a 5-year deal for an amount that surpasses the entire 2005 payroll, give or take a dead rat, of 8 teams.
No, the players union is not "just doing its job." Unions were created to fight for equity, not just to become the enemy they were fighting, only on the other side.
No, the agents are not "just doing their jobs." An agent's purpose is supposed to be to save their non business-savvy clients from having to construct their own deals when they are not in the deal-constructing business. That does not suggest that being greedy is an inherent part of an agent's job.
No, the owners are not victims. The owners are, at worst, the original culprits who modeled greed for the players union and are, at best, shameful enablers who serve drinks to the alcoholics and then complain about drunk driving.
Any system in which a few "top paid players" earn nearly 100 times that of dozens of "lowest paid players"? Any system in which one team's payroll can be 10 times that of another's? Any system in which fans can't afford to go to games but who cares because their favorite player just left anyway? Not so unbroken.
I'd like to see the minimum salary raised to $500,000 but the top salary capped at $10,000,000. I'd like to see arbitration awards judged on an absolute scale, not based on some inflated salary some stupid owner was desperate enough to offer some other player. I'd like to see teams have the right to match the offer on any of their free agents, thus keeping more beloved players on the same team for a while. I'd like to see agents paid a flat fee, or an hourly rate, instead of a percentage of the salary they negotiate. I'd like to see Scott Boras gnawed at slowly, from the inside, by 37 rabid ferrets. And I'd like a pony for Christmas. If that's not too &*#%ing much to ask.
sighs, curls up on foot of bed and escapes reality by watching back-to-back-to-back episodes of The Golden Girls
101 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There's a nice surprise for you in the barn...
I have this argument all the time with a friend of mine. He says the players (and, by extension, their agents) have the right to be paid however much the stupid owners are willing to pay. Which I think sounds like "I have the right to steal that jewelry if the shopkeeper neglected to lock the door after hours."
Another thing that drives me nuts is players' favorite statement during negotiations: "I want to play here, but it's up to my agent and the GM." Sorry, don't the agents work for the players?
counter...
I rarely post on here (long time reader) but I have to quibble with this analogy. I agree completely with your friend, and I'd compare it to the jewelry store owner (players) demanding extremely high prices for his jewelry. And, it just so happens that the stupid customers (owners) are willing to pay it -- so why should he change his behavior?
Nobody is forcing owners to give some insane contract to a "closer" -- if they choose to spend their money that way, then so be it...survival of the fittest.
Now, of course, baseball isn't really about letting the worst teams die out and this is where some sort of improved revenue sharing should come in, but that's a different topic...
-Gabe
Agents
Which is precisely why you should ignore it when they say that. I'm certain that kind of statement is never, or almost never, true. The agent, though, serves as a shield for the player. If a deal doesn't get worked out, the fans/media (same thing) don't get mad at the player, they get mad at the agent.
If a deal does get worked out, then the fans of the player's old team don't get mad at the player, they get mad at the agent.
This is why the agents make such big bucks: they're whipping boys.
I no longer know where this fits,
I personally think every last Bay Area county would vote down any proposition for an A's ballpark (I mean, they're all Gnat fans anyways, right?), and I don't believe the A's would privately fund a stadium, especially after what the Nats fleeced out of DC. And who would help privately fund an A's stadium anyways? They all have Gnat season tickets, right?
(half of this was really sarcastic, sorry about that)
Anyhow, on the Nico's rant: I think this is exactly what caused the NHL to lock out for a year. Pure stupidity, especially on the owners' part. By willing to massively overpay guys like Eyre and Ryan, you push the market up, and only a few teams can now afford the guys.
The problem is, the owners are now losing money. Not that they weren't before, and not that it shows in their pocketbooks (because of revenue sharing), but eventually, it's gunna catch up to them. One day, the profits of YES and NESN are going to be less than the profits of all major league clubs combined. Maybe one day, they'll face an NHL-like crisis. Obviously, I hope that day never comes, but the path that the game is going is likely going to cause that at some point.
scott boras (still doesn't deserve caps) is a problem too. But if owners weren't stupid enough to fall for his tricks (let Guthrie go back to college, don't give him a 4 year, 18 million dollar [am I right on this?] contract right off the bat), maybe we wouldn't have this kind of problem.
Publicly Funded Stadium
by richwol on Nov 27, 2005 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Owners losing $$?
At least, baseball is awash in cash -- this implies the owners are as well
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=2229099
it's an insider article... but the gist of it is that there's a sh*tload more cash in baseball now than there's ever been
i can't read the entire thing,
This doesn't mean that owners don't lose money, just that they have a lot of money to burn, and make the value of the team higher.
And revenue sharing is just a band-aid.
Except that's not how
If the owners know the sale price of a team minus the purchase price will exceed the losses in between, then they are not at risk of losing money on their "investment".
The sad thing about capitalism (and one of many reasons I hate it in or out of baseball) is that the easiest way to make money is to have a lot of it already; and the hardest time to make money is when you don't have any. You and I could make lots of money owning a baseball team--except that we don't have the hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to buy one in the first place. :-(
So basically,
And until that happens, no major overhaul will occur.
Your argument Nico
The agents job is to get the best deal for his client; if you want to equate that with greed, so be it, but remember the owners are usually right there handing out the cash. If your boss offers you a 100% raise are you going to turn it down? I doubt it.
Normally, Nico, I enjoy your posts, but this post is better suited for some neopolitical blog.
by IndianaAsfan on Nov 27, 2005 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm...so much to write
The sad thing about capitalism (and one of many reasons I hate it in or out of baseball)...
The thing that I've noticed about many people who write and say these kinds of things (regarding capitalism) is that they are, deep down, some of the biggest practitioners of this 'dreaded' economic system - an economic system that recognizes property rights, the free exchange of goods and services, and that right to choose what goods and services that one may exchange. Remind me again why this is bad?
Imagine, Nico, a society where they wouldn't let you teach because it wasn't the chosen path for you or one in which you were issued a place to live and given food rations by the government in exchange for performing tasks that you really didn't want to do.
Ain't egalitarianism grand?
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 27, 2005 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not dodging your comments,
- No, I would not accept a 100% raise if it meant that the teacher's aides and custodians had to starve. I really wouldn't. I also flatly refuse to shop at big chains and instead I pay a little more to support local shops, so in the few ways I can I "walk the walk," instead of taking personal advantage of things I don't believe in. I hope at least you'll give me non-hypocrite points for that.
- I think capitalism is as clearly broken as the systems at which LCJ and Indy-man scoff, and I think the pictures LCJ paints of capitalism and non-capitalist systems are highly skewed. LCJ, if you can't remember why capitalism could be bad, you probably have access to health care and a place to live; millions don't.
capitalism, hypocrisy, etc.
nico, if you're not a hypocrite maybe you should "walk the walk" and instead post on more communistic / "non-capitalist" blogs...
there is nothing more amusing than white middle class leftists from berkeley who think they understand economics...
"if you can't remember why capitalism could be bad, you probably have access to health care and a place to live; millions don't."
nico, i could say that if you can't remember why capitalism is good compared to every other economic system, you probably didn't live in China prior to Deng's economic reforms of the 1980s, or in India prior to the start of economic liberalization and privatization in 1991. but even if you didn't live through those things, you could look at some basic GDP figures from those countries if you're going to compare capitalism to other economic systems (communism and socialism in these two cases).
in the ex-communist countries of central and eastern europe, 40 million out of the 100 million people living below the poverty line climbed above it just between 1998 and 2003.
do you think this is due to a decline in "corruption"?
those like nico who oppose capitalism or globalization should read the following article:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2498851
i'll paste parts of it here just because i'm afraid one or two people might actually listen to nico (he is a teacher after all!) over all those nobel prize winning economists from chicago and elsewhere...
---------------
Suppose it is true that inequality measured across countries is widening. (In other words, the gap between average incomes in the richest countries and average incomes in the poorest countries, measured without regard to changes in population, is growing.) Also suppose that inequality is worsening within every individual country. Given that cross-country inequality is widening, and that within-country inequality is getting worse as well, it would have to follow that global inequality, measured across all the world's individuals, is rising too, would it not? Actually, no. Even if those first two assumptions were true, global inequality measured across all the world's individuals might well be falling.
How so? Simply add a third assumption: namely, that a group of poor countries accounting for a big share of all the poor people in the world was growing very rapidly. Suppose, for instance, that average incomes in India and China were growing much faster than average incomes in the rich industrial economies. Then it could be true that inequality was widening within every country, including within China and India themselves; and also that the gap between the very poorest countries (of sub-Saharan Africa) and the richest (Europe and the United States) was widening; and yet, at the same time, that inequality measured across all the individuals in the world was falling fast, because average incomes in the two most populous poor countries were rapidly going up.
It so happens that average incomes in India and China are going up extremely rapidly. Without knowing anything else, one should therefore be sceptical about all the claims that are so confidently made about rising "global inequality".
...
In both charts, the horizontal axis shows the average level of GDP per head in 1980, and the vertical axis shows the rate of growth in inflation-adjusted GDP per head between 1980 and 2000. For the moment, concentrate on chart 1, which shows each country as a single point.
If it were true, on average, that incomes in poor countries grew faster between 1980 and 2000 than incomes in rich countries, then the points in chart 1 would tend to lie on a downward-sloping line. In that case, one would say that the poor countries were on average catching up--and that global inequality measured across countries was trending downwards. In fact, as the first chart shows, poor countries are not on average catching up. A line of best fit drawn through the points actually slopes upwards, implying that the poor are falling behind, and that cross-country inequality is getting worse.
But now look at chart 2. This plots the same countries as circles with areas drawn in proportion to population. India and China stand out, both by virtue of their vast populations and also because their growth record in the 1980s and 1990s was so much better than the poor-country average. A population-weighted line of best fit drawn through this second chart would indeed slope downwards, implying both catch-up and narrowing inequality.
In short, once you take account of the fact that China and India have performed so well since 1980, and especially since 1990, together with the fact that these two countries account for such a big share of all the world's poor, it is difficult to stay as pessimistic about global trends in poverty and inequality as the critics of global capitalism wish to be. In effect, these critics must blind themselves to the extra information in the second chart.
...
The countries of sub-Saharan Africa are represented by the white circles. These are not just the poorest countries in the world, but also the slowest-growing. Can it be plausibly claimed that these countries are the victims of globalisation? That would be an odd conclusion, given that sub-Saharan Africa's economies are so comparatively isolated from the rest of the world economy--by force of history, circumstance and, to a large extent, the policies of their own and other governments. Sub-Saharan Africa plainly suffers not from globalisation, but from lack of it. The focus of attention should be on how to extend the benefits of international economic linkages to the region. Removing every rich-country barrier to trade with these countries would be an excellent place to start.
By contrast, India and China are showing how great the benefits of international economic integration can be. Neither country is an exemplar of free-market capitalism--far from it. But it is undeniable that both countries have consciously chosen to seize the opportunities afforded by the global economy, through both trade and foreign investment.
------------
lastly, comparing baseball and "life" as nico does, is pretty damn ridiculous. baseball is a sport, the primary goal of baseball is to be as entertaining as possible for the fans of the various teams. just because capitalism makes sense in "life" does not mean it makes sense in a sports league. then again, i don't see how baseball can really be considered capitalist in the first place...
Ah God...
by seedspeed on Nov 27, 2005 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
hey, i didn't bring it up
Here's a picture...
Free-market economists have done a major disservice to capitalism and to business by making profit maximization the supposed primary goal of business. The terrible reputation of business in the world today is a direct result of the belief that business has no other purpose besides maximizing profits. The average person believes that business should care about its customers, employees, society, suppliers, the environment -- as well as its investors. The fact that business philosophers and economists articulate a philosophy that business should only care about maximizing profits and shareholder value (and has no other compelling ethical responsibilities to any of the other stakeholders) has done incalculable harm to the reputation of business. The "brand of business" in the widest sense is pretty terrible throughout the world. Read David Korten's book When Corporations Rule the World to get a good perspective on how many intellectuals see corporations and big business today -- a threat to the well-being of the entire world. The anti-globalization movement is actually an anti-corporation movement and it is a direct result, in my opinion, of the faulty logic of the shareholder value maximization model. You and I know that business and capitalism are helping increase prosperity throughout the world. Too bad the economists have done such a poor job of intellectually justifying the intrinsic ethical nature of business and the capitalist system. Both business and capitalism have terrible reputations as a result. Socialism, communism, and anti-globalization are all reactions to this philosophy. I sometimes wonder whether any of these horrible philosophies would have had much of a following except for the intellectual failures of our economists to properly understand the real purpose of business.
The whole blog entry is really quite well articulated by Mackey and his interviewer: I would highly suggest that you check it out when you can find some spare time...it really touches on many issues of Left vs. Right and whatnot.
Here's a brief sample of how the bolg entry opens:
SUNNI: Hi, John, and thanks for letting me play my version of "20 Questions" with you today. How are you?JOHN: Great!
SUNNI: Glad to hear it! I have a lot of things I'd like to touch on with you, and I don't want to take too much of your time, so let's jump right in. In doing some research, I found you being referred to as an "ex-leftist libertarian". I thought that a very odd phrase, since many individuals come to the freedom philosophy from a left perspective -- and lots of pro-freedom people are more concerned with personal and social issues than economic ones; that's generally considered to be a "leftist" slant. What do you think of that phrase? Does it fit you?
JOHN: I think that depends upon how "leftist" is defined. Usually people who define themselves as "leftists" are opposed to capitalism, economic freedom, and believe that the coercive power of government should be used to create more equality and social justice in society. Usually people on the left have sympathy for democratic socialism. When I was in my very early 20's I believed that democratic socialism was a more "just" economic system than democratic capitalism was. However, soon after I opened my first small natural food store back in 1978 with my girlfriend when I was 25, my political opinions began to shift. Operating a business was a real education for me. There were bills to pay and a payroll to be met and we had trouble doing either because we lost half of our initial $45,000 of capital in our first year. Our customers thought our prices were too high and our employees thought they were being underpaid, and we were losing money. Renee and I were only being paid about $200 a month and the business was a real struggle. Nobody was very happy and Renee and I were now seen as capitalistic exploiters by friends on the left who believed we were overcharging our customers and exploiting our workers -- all because we were apparently selfish and greedy.
I didn't think the charge of capitalist exploiters fit Renee and myself very well. In a nutshell the economic system of democratic socialism was no longer intellectually satisfying to me and I began to look around for more robust theories which would better explain business, economics, and society. Somehow or another I stumbled on to the works of Mises, Hayek, and Friedman, and had a complete revolution in my world view. The more I read, studied, and thought about economics and capitalism, the more I came to realize that capitalism had been misunderstood and unfairly attacked by the left. In fact, democratic capitalism remains by far the best way to organize society to create prosperity, growth, freedom, self-actualization, and even equality.
I no longer think of myself as a leftist, but I definitely don't think of myself as from the right either. For the past 25 years I've thought of myself as a libertarian, but I'm now beginning to move away from that label as well. I have a number of intellectual problems with libertarianism as a political philosophy as it currently exists. I believe we need a new social/political/economical/environmental movement in the world today and I've got some definite ideas what this movement should look like.
Good stuff, in my opinion obviously.
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 28, 2005 3:31 AM PST up reply actions
I applaud
- Where is the "corruption" in baseball? Corruption is a heavy word, and has all sorts of implications.
- Who is starving in baseball? If you say the fans, then why is attendance up? If you say the stadium workers, I can assure you (I worked in the industry) their salaries won't change a bit whether the max salary is 10 mil or 10 thousand. I'm just not sure how to apply your analogy (or my analogy that you replied to and tweaked a bit).
By the way, I think the greed in baseball is more present in the smaller market teams. The A's (under Schott), Pirates, Marlins, etc. all wanted yearly profits IN ADDITION to the market value run up. That, to me, is greed, and has no place in baseball. I have never believed that baseball should be subject to the same capitalistic arguments placed on other businesses, its too much a part of the fabric of fans' lives. However, I also don't think it should be used as a larger denegration of capitalism.
by IndianaAsfan on Nov 28, 2005 8:42 AM PST up reply actions
LowcountryJoe,
- MLB has been (blessed? cursed?) by the US Congress with anti-trust and other exemptions.
- *City and county gvnmnts everywhere there are stadiums float bonds backed by taxpayer monies to subsidize MLB facilities.
- *City and county gvnmnts everywhere there are stadiums donate lands and properties appropriated through public domain laws and give them or lease them to teams at giveaway prices and terms.
- Tax laws are very liberal with the net that MLB owners actually (pay?) when compared to other industries. (Petroleum producers and Movie Producers excepted).
What I am saying is our government has removed market forces and compelled all major sports to seek government subsidies and corporate shelters.
In short, Uncle Sam not capitalism, has driven ticket prices up.
Hardly capitalistic!
All major Sports are subsidized by government at many levels. While on the surface this may sound good it is only fair that you be aware of the costs above ticket prices you are paying for MLB, NFL, NHL, & NBA games.
Interesting thought: How many ANers even go to games of all 4 major sports?
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 7:07 PM PST up reply actions
Your arguments
Another thing, there is no tax code provision for professional sports, so I'm not sure where you base your argument that professional sports are given a liberal taxable income level on.
Ticket prices are what they are because fans will pay them. Evidence of this? Scalping. As high as teams price tickets, scalpers still get more than face value for them for the big games.
by IndianaAsfan on Nov 28, 2005 8:11 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks for the response!
Counties subsidize stadiums
Owners write off thier losses and expenses
Salaries go up because the "extra" money is there to do so.
Result: Tickets get pricier
Remove Government involvement and you have a healthier system that will have to survive on income it generates rather than the current subsidies.
Do you really believe the state and sports belong together?
Romans believed so.
...pacify the populace kind of thing
by A s Eh on Nov 28, 2005 9:09 PM PST up reply actions
Tickets and salaries
But I think the reality is that ticket prices and player costs have nothing to do with each other. In a monopoly situation, revenue and cost are unrelated: that is, there's no competition to force the owners to lower ticket prices, so they charge as much as they can get away with. Then, they pay the players as little as they think they can get away with and keep the difference.
My comment below goes into some detail about this, but look at the NFL for an example: they have a salary cap, and ticket prices, along with everything else they make fans pay for, are going up, up, up. Or look at college football: they don't pay the players anything, but they sure as hell make fans pay to get into the games (and not just enough to cover the team's costs).
Ticket prices are based solely on maximizing revenue. That's an independant goal for the owners that is not driven by their costs.
Again
Third, the government subsidies do not raise salaries - those go up even for the teams that do own their own stadiums. I might be persuaded that they could play a role, but I'm more convinced that ticket prices would be even HIGHER without them. I believe owners would be paying current salaries even with higher debt service loads, and therefore would need enhanced revenue streams - either higher ticket prices, or more ads (probably on uniforms).
Just MHO.
by IndianaAsfan on Nov 29, 2005 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
When a business must generate it's own income
If government wants to inject tax monies into their operation it will take it also.
The NBA Loves You.
MLB Loves You.
The NHL Loves You.
The NFL Loves You.
Big Al Loves You too, read his comments, I posted them for you. He reminds you that you are competing against other large cities loaded with dumb tax payers, maybe even more than here! And he would hate to leave here over so little. Maybe you should give Al another bond. Keep him happy. Maybe build him a Mount Davis East.
Tax dollars and sports 101
by A s Eh on Nov 29, 2005 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
Big Al and government subsidies of sports
Speaking of leases, the Oakland Raiders have a new one as well. The big news: The elimination of personal seat licenses, the pay-for-the-right-to-buy-tickets scheme that was supposed to help repay the county for expansion of the Oakland Coliseum, but which bombed when fans realized there were plenty of good seats available without PSL fees. With the original PSLs set to expire next year and hardly any fans expected to renew (most PSLs are permanent and can be resold by buyers, but for some reason Alameda County went with a 10-year expiration date, further hampering sales), the county had little choice but to eliminate them, even if it meant putting the public further in the hole on its $20 million a year in stadium bond payments. The county will now get a bigger share of parking and concessions fees, but as county supervisor Gail Steele acknowledged: "The subsidy is going to continue. But it's not going to continue with additional legal fees."
Meanwhile, the new Raiders lease still runs out in 2010, and team owner Al Davis sounds eager to use that as leverage for still more concessions, if not from the county, then from Raiders fans who have been increasingly turning up disguised as empty seats. Spake Al at the new-lease press conference:
"We have five years to do enough to see that we can make the Raiders viable economically so we can compete with the other teams in our league and the other teams in our division. We want to make it work. We'll give our best effort to make it work...
"There are a lot of cities out there who are just waiting, just waiting for (an NFL team) to raise their hand and say, 'We're interested.'
"And the numbers that they'll pay are very great. You saw it happen in Houston. They built a brand new stadium. You saw it happen in Cleveland when they lost the Browns to Baltimore. Brand new stadium. Big, modern edifices.
"I realize [the price to taxpayers] can't be too high, but whatever it is, you've got to think of the quality of life that we bring to the community, that baseball brings to the community, that basketball brings to the community."
by A s Eh on Nov 28, 2005 9:42 PM PST up reply actions
piece of the problem
I am personally for a salary cap; the other major US sports have managed to get that part of their rooms cleaned up (hockey in the stupidest way possible).
Rant Away
I mean, none of the abovementioned give a damn about the fans - at least a good rant will make us feel a little better once in a while.
More and more I find myself thinking about baseball this way: I love the game... but I hate the sport.
I get the same feeling about the sport that I get when I think of crooked politicians, oil, cigarette and energy companies, or anyone so besotted with greed and the ever-growing need for power that they lose sight of simple right and wrong, fair and unfair, ethical and unethical.
Maybe that's why it's so fun to be an A's fan. The club is a living, breathing example of those who are smart and right fighting the eternal (and, I hate to say it, largely unwinnable) battle against the corrupt system that surrounds them.
I'm proud to be an A's fan. But I can't say that I've been a fan of baseball for a long time.
by seedspeed on Nov 27, 2005 11:13 AM PST reply actions
diggin the rant
and while I'm at it
Star Wars!
I'm a big nerd.
:)
In the interest of a competitive MLB
Oh you can't scare me, I'm stickin to the union
The MLBPA has managed to do much better by its membership than the unions in other sports in part because it does pay attention to the lower rung guys. The minimum salary rate and guaranteed contracts afford players way more security than, say, the NFL, where often all a contract gets you is cut in favor of a lower paid guy. And the salary cap there, largely endorsed by the NFL player's association, has led to wholesale player turnover. Actually, the plan you suggest--a cap with higher minimum and lower maximum salaries--could avoid the NFL's problems. But it would require an NBA-style fixed proportion of revenues devoted to payroll as well, lest the owners just pocket the savings themselves.
And that of course is the other reason I support the player's union. The MLB owners have such a grotesque history of lying about their profits and losses while reaping huge asset valuation that only with a strong union can balance possibly be achieved. Schottffman enjoyed a 100% increase in franchise value over 10 years...a pretty sweet rate of return on such a big sum. And they did it while exercising enough fiscal discipline to not have lost money operating over that period. It seems unreasonable to blame the union for the inability of other owners to exercise similar restraint.
Now...revenue sharing anyone?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 27, 2005 11:58 AM PST reply actions
Freeseatupgrade:
...some more so than others.
The economic pie we know as the US economy is divided, shared, and re-introduced to the economy almost automatically.
If you'd like to revenue share with me I'd like 25%.
Of course I want to look at your books and be a party to decision-making. Authority to hire and fire of course.
But please! Please don't ask me to contribute my monies because I have no faith whatsoever in your ability to make money and taking me on with revenue sharing without my investment proves you don't know how to make money.
I consider your risk free offer to revenue share your income quite fair and my people will be in touch shorty.
At this time I'd also like to personally extend a great investment opportunity to you. A's Eh! Enterprises Limited can for a limited time only accept your investment capital of $10 to $10 million dollars with results promised immeadiately. Of course I can't tell you the details because everyone else would dilute the returns but someone such as yourself understands these principals better than most so I don't have to continue with the messy details, do I.
Our people will be in touch shortly.
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
Lo, how my liquidity cup doth spilleth over!
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 27, 2005 8:29 PM PST up reply actions
You're a good sport!
Can I contact the Nigerians Tuesday?
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 9:17 PM PST up reply actions
Great comments so far!
Perhaps a lot of my frustration comes from the fact that baseball is my escape from life, yet these issues so fully mirror the frustrations I have over society as a whole...which I want to escape...through baseball...Et tu, Brute??? Bleah.
Exactly...
"...I love the game... but I hate the sport."
In my 'real life' there are a lot of very wonderful people and institutions I get to deal with (yea AN!). But, on the larger scale... Society Sucks - especially in the U.S. right now. And I've always counted on Baseball as one of my favorite escapes from all That Ugly Reality Stuff.
by NomAd on Nov 27, 2005 1:44 PM PST up reply actions
I agree with you, Nico.
What really bothers me about the current situation is that more and more kids today will not enjoy the experience of going to ball games like I did when I was a kid, due to rising prices and the fact that many of the good seats are now purchased in blocks by corporations. Baseball tickets are probably still cheaper than pro basketball and pro football tickets in most cities, but a day at the ball park is now no longer a reasonable expense, with the costs of parking and concessions thrown in.
Since only a few owners, like Steinbrenner, can pay what appears to be unlimited salaries, I have been assuming that we will reach a time when there will be a plateauing of the exorbitant salaries paid to high level free agents. After all, there are only so many player slots available in major league baseball, and not everyone can play for the Yankees, Red Sox, or other high payroll teams. And as the supply exceeds the demand, the prices should come down.
One problem is that many, if not most, owners do not depend upon baseball revenues per se to stay in business. George Steinbrenner is in the ship building business, I believe, (and, of course, also receives huge revenues from the New York media market), and Ted Turner owns CNN and the Turner Classic Movie Channel, among other assets which, I assume, provide a lot of his revenue outside of baseball, to cite two examples. For such owners, along with corporations like Walt Disney, who earlier owned the Angels, baseball is just an expensive hobby. Very few owners are like ol' Charlie Finley who originally made his money through insurance, then bought the A's, and from that point forward, actually depended upon A's baseball revenue for his economic survival.
It really has done my heart good to see that paying Yankee-type salaries does not necessarily mean winning pennants and world series. So there is some baseball justice in the world, especially when the A's find a way to compete with a $50 to $60 million payroll.
I am not sure what the final answer is. We do have other ways of enjoying baseball, and I would not think of being without my MLB Extra Innings package each year, along with the radio and computer packages available through MLB.com. Thank God for satellite technology. And now that I'm mostly retired, I have the time to drive from L.A. to Phoenix for several spring training games each March, where the very best seat only costs about $20.
So, we do have other options, but it is sad that it's getting harder and harder to watch games in person at the ol' ball park, and also very sad to see that many of today's ball players do not have the attitude of the old timers, most of whom played sheerly for the love of the game.
by bigfanjohn on Nov 27, 2005 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
Owners aren't for fans
It's not a matter of guts. They can't impose a salary cap without getting the players to agree to it when they negotiate the Collective Bargaining Agreement. And the players aren't dumb enough to agree to it. Of course, they did try to impose a kind of a cap about fifteen years ago when the owners colluded to lower free-agent salaries. The problem with that little game was that it violated the CBA and cost the owners enormous amounts of money in damages.
So why should the players trust the owners now when they whine about costs, and then turn around and spend, spend, spend on free agents? The owners have a long track-record as lying, cheating money-grubbers.
Now, I agree with you about ticket prices. The thing is, a salary cap will do absolutely nothing to lower ticket prices. Look at the NFL: richest sports league in the nation, maybe the world, a very strict salary cap and owners dealing with players who have zero solidarity and a union led by management-simp idiots. Has this helped the "average fan" attend games? No way. Even while their labor costs are held strictly in place, the NFL owners have wheedled hundreds of millions in taxpayer money for their stadiums, then charged taxpayers for the right to buy season tickets ("Personal Seat Licenses"), make you buy 2 preseason games at full price as part of the deal, charge you, what, $20 or $25 to park, make you pay through the nose for food...A couple of years ago I found out that the Jets charge people a "holding fee" or something to be on the waiting list for season tickets! If these bastards could figure out a way to suck the air out of the stadium and make you pay for your own oxygen, they'd do it. When the Eagles got Philly to invest a couple hundred million in public bonds for Lincoln Financial Field, they initially tried to ban people from bringing any food into the stadium, even a sandwich -- security concerns, supposedly. They were eventually forced to back off after a big public outcry. They still charge Temple University -- a public institution -- to play football games in the publicly-financed stadium, however.
The owners will charge however much they can get away with, regardless of what they pay the players. Look at college football -- they don't pay the players anything (at least officially) and univeristies still charge for tickets, parking, food, etc. Ticket costs are up because of what's happened to our economy and society over the past 3 or 4 decades -- the minimum wage has shrunk compared to inflation, working class and middle class people are working harder and having a tougher time making ends meet, and the wealthy have way, way, way more money to play with. Guess who the owners want to sell tickets to, and advertise to? The super-wealthy. They're gonna go after the money, and unless you're one of the 1% who has it, they don't really need you in their stadium.
What I mean is...
by richwol on Nov 27, 2005 7:20 PM PST up reply actions
GW did not change "sports" overnight
You do have it half-right:
City, County, State, and Federal government has partnered with sports driving prices up. (See my larger post above) As everyone knows by now, if you want something totally inefficient, just involve the government.
I just can't believe GW or even Cheney could get to all those places and do all those things that got their start in the '70's and have gained momentum in the ensuing decades.
Your taxes subsidize all 4 major sports: like it or not.
Go A's, Raiders, 49ers, Giants, Warriors, Sharks, Kings, etc., etc.
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 7:39 PM PST up reply actions
George Bush's America
If you want something totally inefficient. Don't blame government, blame bad government. Just as if you want something totally inefficient, don't blame business, blame bad business. Your homily is the typical nonsense coming from the right these days. Well-run government can do some things better than private enterprise (i.e. local transport, health care). Well-run business can do a lot of other things better, and should. Corrupt business in line with corrupt government, as is currently the case in Washington, is the worst of both worlds.
When you want government to look bad, you hire people like Brownie. When you want government to look good, you create the Manhattan Project.
GW has nothing to do with the start of the current philosophy of greed. Cheney is the root of all evil (well, not the root of ALL evil. That's Steinbrenner)
by richwol on Nov 27, 2005 11:23 PM PST up reply actions
GW is only the Prez, not Oz...
Compare private CA schools in to public CA schools for the last 50 years of Democrat control.
I'm sure there is an excellent reason CA Dems decided to keep CA Schools consistently in the bottom ranks of the 50 states.
Vitriolic partisanship is BS...
...regardless of how Krazy King George votes.
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 11:54 PM PST up reply actions
If Vitriolic Partisanship is BS....
And since when is saying bad things about Dick Cheney vitriolic partisanship? The guy's poll ratings are well below the Mendoza Line. Even most Republicans can't stomach the guy.
You need to stop watching Fox News.
by richwol on Nov 28, 2005 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
Saying bad things about all things,
I rove, I watch various news programs including fox, I still read a lot, it is preferred for information. Network reporting for "opine" and visuals, not content. Lately I have an extreme appreciation of the off button. The bad part to that is encroaching apathy.
IMO: CA schools constantly in the bottom rung of the US should be a personal affront to every CA democrat since Democrats have controlled the state since the '60's. A big reason I'm not partisan.
I'm glad to hear schools are better in NY, but hasn't NY shifted between Republican and Democrat control fairly evenly over the last 50 years?
by A s Eh on Nov 28, 2005 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
the comment is naive
The only thing a salary cap would do is further enrich ownership.
by harryh on Nov 27, 2005 8:38 PM PST up reply actions
If I had a pony
Just me upon my pony on my boat.
by ConcordFanSince1968 on Nov 27, 2005 1:50 PM PST reply actions
Your argument makes perfect sense...
Until:
- We decide we're not supporting MLB anymore, or:
- The anti-trust exemption is lifted
Keep in mind that Moneyball doesn't exist in a more equitable system. That's why it's so controversial.
by Rob @ Athletics Nation on Nov 27, 2005 1:50 PM PST reply actions
Then again...
Also, the idea of moneyball is to value the undervalued and this doesn't necessarily drop away when salary caps are added... Some teams will still spend, say, 1/4 of their cap on a guy with a 50-homer guy -- the A's (starting to think short for the Amoebas) will always find and exploit what's undervalued as long as Billy Beane leads them, and there's always something that is undervalued.
A $80 M cap wouldn't change Beane's brilliance, though undoubtedly it would limit those A Rod deals and $210 M spent on 25 people wearing funny blue and white jerseys.
Krazy King George is said to have exceeded
That might explain why he has slowed a bit in spreading the green
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 8:08 PM PST up reply actions
Major League Baseball needs...
And, even as much as I disdain baseball's economic [collectivism/perversion] stupidity, I cannot bring myself to the later.
In the mean time, here's to the $10 million dollar second-year closer, the $15 million dollar subpar starting pitchers, the $19 million dollar slugger who doesn't really want to suit up for every game down the stretch, and the $10 bleacher seat!
That's one inspired rant, Nico
by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 27, 2005 2:34 PM PST reply actions
Doesn't Uncle Sam "direct" MLB?
- Doesn't Uncle Sam grant the ability to trade human beings to another business as baseball's "special exemption" (Can Blez trade Nico to the Brewer Blog?)
- Doesn't Uncle Sam initiate congressional sessions whenever MLB is "bad"
- Didn't Uncle Sam accelerate arbitration?
- Didn't Uncle Sam accelerate Free Agency?
The ticket buying fans simply ante up the going rate of ducats at any given time to enjoy America's favorite pasttime. But truth be known, the fan has relinquished majority control and influence over MLB to others.
Government assisted "modifications" are bringing the old "patrone business style" to the once fictional "Rollerball corporate style". (I do apologise to those of you too young to remember the movie "Rollerball", teams were corporate owned and sponsored to the extent that it would be "The Gap A's" instead of "The Oakland A's". Come to think of it the M's are very close to a "Japanese Corporate Team". I'm only an observer to these things folks. Will Arte's Moreno's call Mexico City home some day?)
I don't say good or bad.
I don't say better or worse.
I do say that it is the times, and the direction that MLB now seems to be going.
Interesting side note: A's new corporate ownership doesn't want city/county money - but would prefer and appreciate an invitation to share the unique access and priviledge of "City gvmt" resources and authority. Public Domain being useful but only part of the resources and accesses requested. A very short time back such access by a privately owned entity was impossible and frowned upon as catering to special interests and exploitive of public trust(s).
Legally discouraged in fact. If the A's recieve such access(es) shouldn't Clorox Corporation? McAfee? Network Associates? Kaiser? Albertson's? Long's Drugs? Raiders? Warriors? The Grand Lake Theatre?
...Pandora's Box.
The times they are a'changin'.
MLB keeps evolving.
Ethics and justice sometimes get squeezed along the way.
Imbalances and power swings are expected with such systems.
Maybe we need separartion of Sports and State?
Go A's!
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 2:51 PM PST reply actions
Corporations and city largesse
And then there's the $63 million City subsidy to the Forest City housing development company, to build condos where the A's ballpark ought to be ("Up-town, things'll be great when you're, Up-town, no finer place for sure, Up-town..."). These are but two of many, many examples.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 27, 2005 3:21 PM PST up reply actions
salary cap????
by garryg33 on Nov 27, 2005 3:24 PM PST reply actions
Luxury tax.
And there will be luxury tax paid for anyone not named the Yankees this year (even if the Mets and Cubs and whoever go over) because of a CBA clause.
I'm assuming the discount for home-grown players means under the salary cap (like players would count for 250000 instead of 316000), which would be quite interesting, and of which the Steinbrenners of the world would be against.
Hell, if there were a cap, Steinbrenner would probably get out of baseball.
We're far from a cap. We need a strike first. Then we might get one. But neither side has a reason to strike/lockout at the moment, so it's doubtful.
Hmmm...
I've never heard a better argument for the creation of a salary cap, EVER!
by seedspeed on Nov 27, 2005 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
no
Spankees
by Colorado Fan on Nov 27, 2005 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
If you believe that ...
Don't believe me...
However, you don't think Steinbrenner would be willing to take an 80,000,000 loss in exchange for a World Series Ring? I know he would.
Rings = World Domination
by Colorado Fan on Nov 28, 2005 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Short term
Interesting idea, garryg33
by bigfanjohn on Nov 27, 2005 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
Fans' Union.
That would be us.
Yes, but don't we like...
BOHICA!
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 27, 2005 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
The sport, or the shenanigans?
But who would complain if the entire baseball economy were scaled back to something reasonable? The owners and players, but certainly not the fans, and it sure would be easier to fill a ballpark.
Subject goes here.
If I'm not mistaken, the policy of the MLBPA has been to see that its most talented clients get richer. I do not think that this is a commendable goal, as the typical MLB player only gets a few years at the big-league level. The MLBPA should be focusing on its "poorest" members: raising the league-minimum salary and insisting on salary floors for teams like the Royals and Devil Rays. Instead, the MLBPA gets their panties in a bunch about A-Rod giving up some money in his contract to go play in Boston. If a player and a club agree to changes in a contract, then the MLBPA should not get its nose involved. As Nico stated, the idea behind the MLBPA should be to protect its members from the whims of teams (collusion, salary caps), not to act as some anti-management group.
I also think the MLBPA blew it on the steroid issue. They spent the last ten years stonewalling the issue, and now they are forced to accept the owners' draconian measures. There are no protections for users who are caught twice for the same violation, nor is there an approved list of supplements for players to follow. Where was the union in pushing for these measures? Somewhere making sure that salaries would continue to escalate. A union is supposed to represent the best interests of its members, and the MLBPA hasn't done that in the last ten years.
Re: Agents
Sorry, I happen to love capitalism and I won't get into the greed discussion here. Suffice to say, the agent's job is to secure the best possible deal for his client based on the client's preferences. If I hire an attorney, I don't want him to tell the truth, I want him to get me off the charges that I hired hit man to "take care of" Bill Plaschke.
If an agent's client wants money, then his job is to get lots of money. If his client wants to play in Kansas City, then his job is to have his client committed. Easy, right? The problem is when a player is too weak-minded to insist to his agent that location is more important than money.
Re: Public Funding for Stadia
Corruption and graft all around, including blackmailing and lying to taxpayers. No matter how much I love the A's, I could not support a publicly funded stadium when almost every major sporting facility built in the last three decades has been a net minus for munipalities - ballpark village revitilization or no. Even the Giants, the model citizens for building a privately funded ballpark, used a ton of public money.
Are stadia and their related public costs positive externalities? Make the argument for me, because I'd love to be proven wrong.
Re: Owners
Well, duh they're rich before they buy major league teams. It's called investing your money, and I can never hold that against a person. Are they greedy? You bet. But without them, we don't get to enjoy the greatest sport ever played. As much as I hate George Steinbrenner, I don't mind that he keeps raising the bar for excellence. I don't want the MLB to become the NFL: a bunch of mediocre teams fighting for the pleasure of being the third act in the Super Bowl behind the commercials and halftime show.
Re: FOX
Nuke 'em, now that Arrested Development is over.
Re: Commish
Best interests, my ass. He comes from the ownership ranks and does not reperesent the best interests of baseball as a social institution. Jerk.
Re: Hometown discounts
As long as we're sharing revenue, there ought to be a pool set aside for this type of thing. BP had an interesting suggestion that I would support, since it allows a team to match other teams' offers while allowing the player freedom to make the ultimate choice. In a nutshell:
Re: Christmas
Albert Pujols. No? Okay, Frank Thomas.
Wow, salb,
Pony! Pony! Pony!
Yeah, I'm either
Bring on the Shetland, says I.
<Applause>
Currentlty you can not stop the BloSux or Krazy King George from throwing wads of cash so make them do just that!
If Stanks want to take "home grown product", IE: players such as Miggy, simply by outbidding that team (A's). Make the minimum offer include restitution to that (A's) team.
Let's say the A's offer home grown Miggy 60 million for 6 years. To "trump" the A's offer the Stanks must offer 50% more than the A's and match that 50% with the dollars split between MLB revenue sharing and the A's "home grown" restitution.
Miggy Example:
$60 million A's offer declined by Miggy
$90 million Yankees deal accepted by Miggy
$15 million A's restitution
$15 million MLB revenue sharing
Yankee's could shut down thier minor league organizations and just use those funds to buy developed players as is thier habit.
Small market teams (esp. A's) would develop players with a vengence
Scott Boros might retire...
<wild wonderful grin and glazed sparkling eyes!>
To pacify the player's union all 4 parties: Miggy, A's, Yanks, MLB, could all donate 1-2% to a retired ballplayer's pension to benefit players and families that are not currently covered.
Might work, ...lawyers will want a piece, ...F*** Boros and his contemporaries they make more than anyone else already!
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
agree with everything you wrote, except
you don't think baseball would be better off if every team (aside from the royals, they can be the arizona cardinals) was in contention?
No, I don't
NFL: success without a game
Businesses usually try to provide a good, consistent product or service to a customer. Providing crap all the time, or providing good stuff one day and crap the next 2 or 3, is usually a good way to go out of business (unless you're Microsoft, but that's another story...).
But owners have very little control over the quality of team they put on the field. Players disappoint, they get hurt...in fact the least reliable thing about a sports team is generally how well it plays. An owner has much more "quality control" over concessions, and facility cleanliness, and radio/tv coverage, than over the players.
This is particularly true in the NFL -- the Colts' title chances rest on Peyton not getting hurt. If he's injured, they're going down. Tens of millions of dollars are at stake. How can a businessperson build a successful business on that kind of risk?
Well, the answer is, they don't. The business of the NFL is built on giving fans access to 3 things:
- Gambling
- Regular, predictable time with a social group (frequently men doing male bonding, which used to be done in fraternal organizations and is now done in sports bars and rec rooms and stadium parking lots)
- Public drunkenness and otherwise unacceptable social behavior (like painting your body with your team colors, standing shirtless in freezing weather and screaming your head off).
The NFL has the big advantage of leeching off the NCAA football program -- not just as a minor league that the NFL doesn't pay for, but also as a means for getting fans used to watching lousy players on a regular basis, and for getting players used to playing for free. Both are useful when the NFL wants to scab a strike (not that the players are even capable of contemplating one any more).
The NBA, in contrast, built their resurgence on the players themselves: Magic, Bird, Jordan. But the owners weren't responsible for creating those players, and they can't replicate that era now. Having sold the league on "I love this game!", they're now realizing that they have minimal control over whether the game itself is lovable any more, and no one is buying NBA tickets in order to watch Thunder or the Warrior Girls.
This is all a very roundabout way of saying that (a) a salary cap doesn't help the game get better, it just lets the owners keep more of the money we give them, and (b) the owners don't necessarily care at all about whether they provide a good "product" on the field. In fact, they'd be a lot happier if the "product" were anything but the game on the field, because the game itself is the least predictable part of the business.
A ceiling on ticket prices may be
by A s Eh on Nov 28, 2005 10:58 PM PST up reply actions
price fixing is almost never a good idea
if you put a ceiling on ticket prices when they should be much higher based on supply and demand, you're just creating a huge black market in sports tickets.
Let the market handle it
The owners seem to be capable of finding ticket and concession prices that balance their desire for income with the demand in the marketplace. You don't see the Royals asking fans to pay $500 to sit in the bleachers, and then moaning, "Oh, we can't help ourselves! Someone please stop us from setting our ticket prices so high!" Why can't the owners control themselves in the same way with players' salaries?
Or maybe the answer is, they are doing it with players' salaries, they just want to pretend that they're losing money so that they can cut labor costs and improve their own profits. I'm not sure about that, but it's a distinct possibility. And since the owners have a track record of conspiring to rip off the players, the players don't have much reason to trust them when they assert they're losing money.
We all feel your pain.
overpaid
by Zitofan15 on Nov 28, 2005 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
Er...one more thing
Mr. Glass, you're not going to win many games next year. If you really think the current economic system is keeping you down or causing you to hemhorrage money, I have a suggestion for you: refuse to play the Yankees the next time they come to town. Or, hell, don't show up to Yankee Stadium on your next Big Apple roadtrip.
I'm sure the YES Network - the source of most of their revenues - will have a tough time showing an empty field for three hours. And the Yankee fans at the Stadium that Ruth Built won't enjoy it, either. Refuse to play until the Yankees guarantee to you your share of the gate sales - which, in this day, means a cut of the TV and radio money.
It's a way of making a point, and it sure would show a hell of a lot more guts than anything the MLBPA or the owners cabal might do.
<wild applause>
Too cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Yanks cable deal makes Seligg and Georgie look like backroom buddies laughing thier asses off at the rest of the teams playing by the rules.
G*d I hope KC or others have the gonads!!!!
They would have to back Selig off somehow someway or S would come down on the boycotting team. They have to get S out of the process because he's like that fish that attaches itself to the Shark, just enjoying the ride on Georgie's back.
Isolating him and backing him off isn't impossible, and isn't easy.
Great posts and diary!
by A s Eh on Nov 27, 2005 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
No no no
Your gripe seems to be that some players salaries are out of hand. This much is true. Your goal, though-for the lowest players to make more, and the highest players to make less, just doesn't make sense to me.
Pretty much, you are saying that Eric Chavez should make less money such that Keith Ginter, Adam Melhuse, Hiram Bocachica and Charles Thomas can make more. That's not right!
You guys look at the ARod deal and see someone getting overpaid-but he's worth every penny of that. I'll take 1 ARod over 25 Scott hattebergs any day, thank you. And why? Because I can find another Scott Hatteberg lying around in someone's AAA system-but herein lies the problem. By forcing teams to pay a minimum salary that is higher than it currently is-overpaying mediocrity-you are going to create a system where those who are already in the major leagues are even harder to replace. Essentially, you are giving a chance to LESS people, in your system that is attempting to help everyone.
Here's another problem. If you have a max salary of 10m, you can just look at all the players making 10m+ and take that down to 10. Is one ARod the same as one BJ Ryan? No, no, no.
If there is a solution to this problem, it is a salary cap, where a smart GM would be able to decide for himself what percentage of a payroll an A-Rod is worth. But the problem in baseball is that Bobby Howry is getting paid 4m a year-not that ARod is getting 25m.
Also-while I disagree entirely with socialism and communism that most on this site agree with, let's remember that these poor famished players we are trying to defend are still making considerably more yearly than most of us on this site are.The current minimum salary ain't so low...not to play a game. Not with the perks that come with it.
Sean, I think you make a lot
If I'm being truly idealistic, I want the scrubs to make a nice, comfortable living of $150,000, the stars to make $3-4 million, and the huge leftover owner profits to be taxed to provide health care, housing, and a first-rate public education for all Americans. And I still want the pony. You are correct that Howry and Eyre (not A-Rod) are the ones really not being paid commensurate with their ability, but I gather that if top salary was $10 mil, Howry would not be getting $4 mil.
Maybe a salary cap is the best way to go, btw. I'm not at all opposed to that as a solution, just frustrated that it, or any other good solution, seems so far, far away.
NFL
Manning took a HUGE deal that took up a lot of his team's cap, which results in less money for all his teammates. A lot of people say that shows he doesn't care about winning, because by taking that extra money, his supporting cast will probably be worse.
Brady, on the other hand, took a slightly lesser HUGE deal, and left NE with some more money to play aroud with, which should give him a better supporting cast.
Of course, the only way to get players to agree to a cap would be to set it at a level no one is currently over (well, maybe except NYY), around 150m, and then institute a MINIMUM level around 70m. Then there is actually more money dumped into the teams, but less on individual players.
Of course, the system would look a lot nicer if that cap number was around 80m, but like you said, good luck getting that to pass.
Nico, I am in agreement
The following is good history, for those who are "students of the game":
http://www.haroldseymour.com/article.asp?articleid=18620
For those that think it is "communism" or "socialism" to alter the "MLB way" <+(shorthand for what we all see with the Eyre contract, the Albert Belle fiasco, Wayne Huizinga and the 1997 Marlins, etc) please note:
It is not capitalism to do the following:
================
- Create artificial barriers to entry, so that only "chosen ones" can create a team, or purchase a team, or locate that team in a particular location.
- Trade employees to another entity within the industry.
- Allow a "union" to govern the negative aspects ONLY of a particular class of union members, but allow "unrestricted" negotiations of single members of the union. The admission to this class is not based on anything like "normal unions" such as a given level of competence... simply years service. So long as MORE MONEY than previously earned is a satisfied condition, ANY contract has ZERO union misgivings.
by Ducts on the Pawn on Nov 27, 2005 9:07 PM PST up reply actions
Don't do a hard cap!
similiar to sean
by garryg33 on Nov 27, 2005 8:43 PM PST reply actions
bullshit
> $500,000....I'd like to see...I'd like to
> see...
And what exactly makes baseball players any different than any other employees? I'd like to see baseball players be paid just like any other person. They negotiate as high of a salary as their employers are willing to pay. How would you feel, Nico, if your boss wanted to give you a raise but it was against the law? That would be stupid right?
by harryh on Nov 27, 2005 8:45 PM PST reply actions
I completely agree with a salary cap!
by A'sfansince1970 on Nov 27, 2005 10:56 PM PST reply actions
yes....
what player really deserves anything over 10 mil anyways...
by ConditionOakland on Nov 27, 2005 11:37 PM PST reply actions
The salary cap ruined football
More than any other sport, baseball is about organization building. It is the only major sport left with coninuity in players are personell. A salary cap would destroy that.
I don't think a salary cap
NBA
Granted, it's different because there're no minor leagues, etc., but still, the player movement is occasionally ridiculous. How many leagues routinely have trades where 1/4 to 1/3 of a team's roster is turned over at once? Happens all the time in the NBA because the cap rules force trades that are really just about one or two players to be expanded until the money fits.
I Just Don't Care Anymore
I won't let them deprive me of that pleasure.
by Mission1929 on Nov 28, 2005 7:57 AM PST reply actions
Phew!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Barry Bonds thinks it will be ‘very sad’ if he doesn’t get into the Hall on his first try
- Chris Johnson’s glove webbing had a Spidey sense at Coors Field — for one play, at least
- Jonathan Lucroy breaks hand after suitcase falls during search for sock
- The Juice: Long Adam Dunn homer punctuates Chris Sale’s 15 Ks, Mark Trumbo goes deep after Jered Weaver goes down for Angels
- Leyland begs media to make umpires ‘accountable’ for bad calls (VIDEO)
