Open Thread: A ceiling, a floor or something in between


A few articles over the last few days have me thinking about the upcoming CBA negotiations that will soon take center stage in the baseball world. The current agreement expires on Dec. 11, 2011, and although I doubt we’ll see a work stoppage, the disputes between baseball’s haves and have-nots should be rancorous.

First, via MLBTR, we have a Nick Carfado Sunday extravaganza in which he talks about Dan Uggla’s situation. The emphasis is mine:

There’s no doubt the Marlins are planning another payroll dump, and Uggla would appear to be at the center of it. There was a lot of early talk about him going to the Giants, but that seems to have quieted down. Some scouts believe Uggla is best suited for the American League as a DH or someone you can move around, like a Mark DeRosa. The Marlins, who receive a ton in revenue-sharing and central-fund money, are looking to keep their profit margin high.

And then we have the latest from Maury Brown in which the Biz of Baseball writer explores payroll discrepancies over the last 11 seasons. The Yankees have led the league in spending in each of the last 11 years, but the bottom feeders — those with the lowest payroll totals — have been the Twins (2), Marlins (4) or Rays (5). The Yanks have outspent the lowest paid time by anywhere from 384 percent to a whopping 982 percent while the team’s payroll has increased from $91 million in 1999 to $220 million in 2009.

For many, this is a clear sign that baseball needs a salary cap. Someone must rein in the Yankees, right? Brown’s conclusion though is a different one. He wants baseball to focus on the teams on the bottom who continually pocket the revenue sharing money to, as the Marlins do, keep profits high. He writes:

While there is little denying that methods to constrain runaway spending on their part needs to be addressed, the real need is in providing more sustainable spending in the bottom quartile of the league. In 2006, adjustments to the CBA’s revenue sharing system were designed to incentivize the low-revenue makers to invest in player payroll at the major league level. While some clubs have made attempts, most have seen that revenue-sharing disincentives them from spending on player payroll. With increased centralized funds, why spend to win? In the past, winning was the only method insure revenues would come into your coffers. Now, there is less incentive to do so….

When the next CBA is reached (the current agreement ends in December of 2011), look for further tweaking of the revenue-sharing system to get the low spenders to increase spending, and increased penalties with the Luxury Tax (should it be held over in the next agreement) to try and stymie the Yankees from overspending. In the end, fans should spend more time focusing on the bottom, instead of the top (the Yankees) where there is increasing talk in favor of a salary cap. As the old adage goes, you’re only as strong as your weakest link.

I’ve had informal discussions with a few baseball writers about this problem, and the general consensus is that a floor won’t work. Baseball should not make teams overspend on bad players just to meet some salary threshold, but the game can’t keep letting the clubs on the bottom of the payroll list pocket profits. It isn’t healthy for competition.

In the end, I have no answers, but it makes for an interesting discussion. To that end, here’s your open thread. Some guy named Brett is playing on Monday night football. Otherwise, you know the drill. Be cool.

Categories : Open Thread


  1. I assume the full post will be about today being Melmas? Hopefully?

  2. pat says:

    After watching the Giants embarrass themselves yesterday I can’t help but feel like Casper waking up from the huge party the end of the movie Kids.

    What happened?

  3. Salty Buggah says:

    Some guy named Brett is playing having fun on Monday night football.

  4. Legend says:

    Why haven’t we heard anything about Fernando Tatis as the Brent Gardner caddie? He owns LHP and can play any position excelp C and CF. He has the versitility of Jerry Hairston with way better offense. Give him 250 AB’s and play him somewhere against all Lefties and we will be fine. Finally since he played in NY he knows the media frenzy as ooposed to Reed Johnson who spent 6 years playing in front of no one in Toronto.

    • Guys who can play the OF and kill Lefties are a dime a dozen. Shelly Duncan fit the bill. If Jamie Hoffman doesn’t work out, there will be a zillion other guys available. It’s the least of our concerns.

  5. Richard Deegan says:

    How about a couple of tweaks in the LTax and revenue sharing? Like not counting (or deducting part of) “inherited” salaries -those taken in salary dumps -for the LTax. This might actually be a more effective and efficient way of moving costs from “weak” teams to stronger teams, freeing the former for better use of payroll money.
    And, as a milder form of the common practice in “Guys-in-shorts-kicking-at-each-other” (where the bottom 1-2 teams in each league are dropped to a lower level), have ANY team that finishes among the lowest 1-5 teams in MLB for two years in a row totally ineligible for revenue sharing (with possibly teams among the lowest 10 for two-three years in a row losing half their RS).
    You cannot mandate teams to spend, nor should a salary cap be imposed, but you could surely insist that they show results from revenue sharing or lose part or all of it!!!!!

    • The MLBPA views raising the Luxury tax too high as a defacto salary cap or ‘soft cap’, which it is. For example, if there was a 100% tax on all salary over 150 mil, then it would act effectively as a salary cap because not team (not even the Yanks) would go over it by very much.

    • ColoYank says:

      I like it, Richard! Perhaps there should be a pool created in which we would place the ten or twelve clubs with the lowest winning percentage attained over a three-season period, and then make them draw lots to see who gets a share of the pool of revenue. Like, give it to only seven or eight of those clubs. And no club could receive it for more than two years running. Holy crap, would the Pirates and the Marlins of the world hate that!

      In any event, it should be a requirement of any club receiving subsidies that it open its books to the league and make a showing of budgets and projections for how the money would be used. Ownership would never go for that, either, though.

      The Yankees are perennially penalized because of the size of their market and the magnitude of their success. I wonder how long the Steinbrenner brothers will see the efficacy of supporting other clubs and keeping them solvent just so they can outspend and outperform them.

  6. Mike Pop says:

    The epic return on Nenad Krstic!

  7. I got a Droid. It’s so awesome. I actually have a real phone now!

  8. pat says:

    Sweet little quiz, naming players by their picture. I only got 20/30.

  9. I just want all of you to know that I have a bomb in my underwear.

  10. Mike Pop says:

    Bradshaw at the Nets game, looking good.

  11. theyankeewarrior says:

    Can someone with greater insight than I take a guess on the possible teams left that would give a contract to Holliday, Bay or Damon?

    Lets count the Giants out now that they have DeRosa and the Sox out because they have a full OF and they don’t want to hit the luxury tax line….

    I’m thinking that Johnny may fall into Cashman’s lap in February. 1/6M

    • It’s a buyer’s market. I think a lot of teams saw what happened in Jan/Feb of last year and are deliberately holding back this year, waiting for the bargains. Mets are definitely one, and the Yanks may fill out their bench as well.

    • ColoYank says:

      I guess the Mariners have pretty much filled up their outfield having added Bradley to Ichiro and Franklin Gutierrez.

      Well, shot my wad, trying to think of big or even medium-size spenders.

    • 28 next year says:

      no one but the Yankees are above teh luxury tax line and the Red Sox are coming close. The Giants just reached what they called their cap of about 85 million.

  12. Mo says:

    Here’s the deal. You CANNOT institute a cap on team salaries without having a cap on individual player salaries. For example, Joe Mauer, with a home town discount, should receive a 10 year 200 million dollar contract. Regardless of a floor or cap, will Minnesota be able to afford that? If not, he will be a member of the Yankees or Red Sox at 10 years 220-250 million. To cap the Yanks is to cap Mauer. Something the players association has fought against and hurts the earning power of the individual since the dawn of free agency. Joe Mauer is your test case. Each day that passes without an extension inches him closer to the Yankees or Red Sox. The horse is out of the barn. The owners don’t necessarily care about winning they seek to earn a reasonable return on their investment. Just check out the Forbes valuations of the franchises (see Cot’s).

  13. AZ Yankee Fan says:

    Simple solution for preventing the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, etc. from hording revenue sharing/luxury tax cash instead of using it on payroll. Payments consist of a base calculated using the current formula but only half as much. The other half of the pool is allocated based on success, i.e. winning percentage.

    So teams that use this money wisely (Twins, Rays, Rockies, etc.) get rewarded and teams that just dump year after year (Marlins, Pirates) get nothing from this half of the pool. If they want to “keep the profit margin intact” they’ll have to win.

  14. RobC says:

    I’ve been waiting for an open thread for this….
    I as I said on New Year’s I am kind of a closet B-Jobber.
    Yeah I understand the value of a great starter but I think the stats undervalue relievers especailly the studs.

    How do you put a tangable measure on the value of a top reliever?
    How do you measure the effect it has on a team that when they play the Yankees they feel like they only have 8 innings to score because Mo pitches the 9th?
    With Joba in the pen they have 7 chances to score.
    How does that effect the opponents game plan in innings 1-6?
    Win shares maybe a fun stat but as Torre said “Don’t ever forget this game has a heartbeat.”

    • ColoYank says:

      Sorry, Rob. I think the opposite. I think the stats overvalue relievers.

      • Steve H says:

        +teh 8th

      • RobC says:

        In a baseball game you have 27 outs / 9 innings to score
        Mo on the other team means you have 24 outs / 8 innings to score.
        Does that change your game plan?
        Did Jeter once says Mo was the Yankees MVP?
        When asked how the previous years would have been different without Mo didnt Torre tell a reporter “I wouldnt be talking to you right now”?

        • Did Jeter once says Mo was the Yankees MVP?

          And I bet Mo would say Jeter is the MVP (which he is).

        • In a baseball game you have 27 outs / 9 innings to score

          Which means it behooves you to have your best possible pitchers in the game for as long as possible. The more outs one pitcher can get, the better.

        • Steve H says:

          No, it doesn’t change your game plan. The game plan is always to score as many runs as possible while giving up as few as possible. To reverse your theory, if the opponent was doing all they could to score in the 1st 8 innings (as they would anyway) wouldn’t that weaken Mo’s value, as his pure presence in the 9th is making the other team score more runs in the 1st 8 innings. If they are so scared by Mo, they may just score enough runs in the 1st 8 innings to give themselves a lead. By that token, Mo’s fear would be a negative, you know, if it truly happened that way.

        • ecksodia says:

          You know, people often say that with Mariano lurking in the bullpen, teams know they only have 8 innings to try and get the lead, so there’s added pressure and all that.

          But really, doesn’t that go both ways? Doesn’t that make the other team more focused on executing their offensive game plan (even the usual – making the guy throw strikes, not swinging at pitches outside the zone), so that Mariano doesn’t matter?

          Mariano gets one inning to make sure your offense doesn’t do anything. The other team has EIGHT innings to make sure Mariano doesn’t do anything, and so anybody who can pitch the majority of those first 8 innings must be pretty important, right?

          This is no disrespect to Mo – everyone knows that 99 times out of 100, if you get to the 9th with a lead, it’s over. He’s the greatest reliever of all time, and we should take ALL statistical analysis with a grain of salt to begin with, but more so with a reliever who has arguably transcended the role.

          But let’s not kid ourselves here.

        • Pasqua says:

          You’re using one of the most giant exceptions to any rule by citing Mo as your example.

          • Evil Empire says:

            Where Mo really makes an impact is in the post season. His numbers in October and November are unbelievable.

            In the regular season, the closer’s role is really overstated to the point where its starting to seem silly, and saves are one of the most meaningless stats in baseball – moreso than even pitcher Ws and Ls. In and of itself, in just the regular season, the team could survive without Rivera.

            In the post season though, closers are used a little more old school. Mo pitched 16 innings, 4th most on the team, and always in higher-than-normal-to-HOLY-SHIT-level-leverage situations.

            Mariano Rivera is the ultimate secret weapon. His value just about doubles come the post season.

      • Agreed. I think closers are overvalued, but relievers are overvalued even more.

        • Revision: not necessarily by teams, but by the media.

          • Steve H says:

            Brandon Lyon 3/$15 million.
            Fernando Rodney 2/$11 million.

            Plenty of teams overvalue relievers as well as the media.

            • ColoYank says:

              Ugh. Ain’t it the truth, ain’t it the truth?

              This ties in with the purported subject for the open thread: team spending on payroll. I’m thinking that teams that consistently (say, four-to-six seasons in a row) play below .450 ball while getting central fund monies, should be put on probation before being placed into some kind of receivership.

    • How do you put a tangable measure on the value of a top reliever?

      The same way you put a tangible measure on the value of a top starter.

      How do you measure the effect it has on a team that when they play the Yankees they feel like they only have 8 innings to score because Mo pitches the 9th?

      Sure, but if they get to the starter in those first 8 innings, Mariano doesn’t matter.

      With Joba in the pen they have 7 chances to score.

      No, they still have 9 chances to score.

      How does that effect the opponents game plan in innings 1-6?

      I’ve got a feeling that teams gameplan the same no matter who the closer is: hit the ball and catch the ball.

      The hole you create in the rotation by taking a good starter out of it is way bigger than the hole you fill in the bullpen.

    • Pasqua says:

      You may want to know how to place a value on a reliever, but one thing is certain: you are OVERvaluing Joba by saying that a team only has “seven chances to score” before he enters the game.

    • Evil Empire says:

      Most everyone has already laid it down, but I’ll just go ahead and say that Jobber still has the potential to be an elite starter and its a solid bet that as long as he stays healthy (an equal concern starting or relieving), he could at least be a #3-caliber starter. It behooves the franchise to see how he develops because his ceiling is too high and they’ve already come so far.

      It would be hard to convince me that Joba didn’t have an extremely successful season in 2009. He stayed healthy. He was a starter the entire season, albeit with stupid truncated inning limits down the stretch. He did extremely well in the first half, and his team had one of the best 2nd halfs ever despite his extended bout of shittiness. He even threw a scoreless inning in the clinching game of the World Series. And to restate it because its so important, HE STAYED HEALTHY. This was a huge season for Chamberlain, especially in the context of the concerns about his health before he was drafted (and why he dropped to the Yankees supplemental pick or whatever). 2009 was the year where he had to take his lumps and just prove he could go out there and fucking start games the entire season, y’know?

      2010 he should be much improved, so long as he gets that #5 spot – which I’m confident he will (in Cashman we trust). Without the innings limit and having experienced the grind of a complete season, he should finally be ready to fuck shit up

  15. ecksodia says:

    This subject has been discussed so much, even the media outlets perceived, fairly or not, to be anti-Yankees, get it. That’s when you know the problem is serious – “cheap” owners not giving their fans their money’s worth, in a nutshell.

    • januz says:

      The reality of the matter is most organizations in MLB have no or limited interest in winning. Look at the Cubs and Giants for example. These teams do not play in small markets, and NEITHER has won in over 50 years (In the Cubs case, a CENTURY). The Yankees are a convienent scapegoat for these teams failure to win. This sport would be on the level of the NHL (And I love hockey), without the Yankees and Red Sox, and those organizations desire to win. There is a reason why the Yankees make up 25% of all MLB merchandise sold, and that relates to how competitive they are on the field and off. I wonder how the Pirates (Behind the Penguins in ATTENDANCE and TV ratings in Pittsburgh) would like to see that revenue stream dry up? I wonder how the A’s who can’t draw flies to the Coliseum (Unless the Yankees, Red Sox or Giants are in town), would like to see a weak Yankee team (Like the Stump Merrill days?). I think the answer is a clear NO in both cases.
      A strong Yankee team is in the best interest of MLB, pure, plain, & simple.

      • ecksodia says:

        Yes, exactly. I didn’t feel like expounding, because it’s been discussed ad nauseam, and I think you hit it spot on.

      • Zack says:

        Maybe I read it wrong but were you saying that the Giants and Cubs have little or no interest in winning?

        Because if you were then I think they’re plenty of better choices to pick to say that about. SF has had a payroll in 80-90m range for years now and have been willing to spend (Bonds, Zito, Rowand), and the Cubs have been 90+ and were 134m this year.

  16. Greg C says:

    It would be nice if there were no minimum or maximum and NO Revenue Sharing. A Minimum salary could be A solution, but the cause of teams profiting off revenue sharing is that there is revenue sharing in the first place. Maybe if people want to be in the business of owning a team they should learn how to conduct business and not profit off welfare. That goes for the Yankees and other teams as well. No Revenue sharing, no welfare for building stadiums, no caps. If you want to run a business, conduct business in a market where one actually exists and give them a product they will buy. Don’t steal money and then brag about profiting off it.

  17. becca says:

    Did anyone see MLB Network’s “Prime 9″ individual teams of the decade? Here are the top three on the list in order:

    3. 2001 Diamondbacks
    2. 2009 Yankees
    1. 2004 Red Sox

    I normally think MLBN is pretty fair, but there’s kind of no way the #1 team wasn’t the 2009 Yankees, right? The 2004 Red Sox didn’t even win their division. I definitely understand the arguments toward them, and they were a really strong team that would be in my top three individual teams of the decade (gag, hurl), but if you don’t even win your division…

    Others on the list, though I don’t remember the exact order, included the 2001 Mariners (they were #9), 2008 Phillies, 2007 Red Sox, 2005 White Sox, 2003 Marlins, and 2000 Yankees (the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Yankees, even though they didn’t win the WS, were wayyy better than this team).

    • Pasqua says:

      As much as it pains Yankees fans to say it, that ’04 ALCS comeback was really pretty spectacular. There hasn’t been a team this decade to do something as dramatic as that. I’m sure that had a lot to do with the decision.

      But, really, it’s an arbitrary list of teams, so it’s probably best not to overthink it…I’m sure the MLB Network didn’t.

    • januz says:

      The listing of best ANYTHING of the decade is actually meaningless. It is like the ESPY’s, when it comes down to the nitty gritty few people care who win that “honor”.

    • Evil Empire says:

      I guess it depends on the parameters upon which the “top” teams were judged. I believe BP did a guest insider-only article on the best team of the decade and they said the 2001 Mariners, who didn’t even win it all that year (but man, that team really was fucking nasty)

      The 2004 Red Sox team was the best story, the most sensational, and had the biggest emotional ripple throughout the baseball world. It broke the curse, Red Sox fans could finally die in peace, created a ton of new fans (I.E. bandwagoners), all that crap. Huge for baseball. I won’t deny BoSox their #1 spot on Prime 9.

    • JGS says:

      I agree that the 09 Yankees, as the only 100+ win team to win the Series, should have been #1, the 04 Sox are up there for coming back from 0-3 and break the curse.

      Personally, I think the 01 Mariners should be way higher than #9 (they were much better than the 00 Yankees) and the 105-win 04 Cardinals should probably have been up there too

    • Chris says:

      FWIW, the 2004 Red Sox had a Pythagorean record of 96-66 compared to the 2009 Yankees 95-67.

      Also, there were 2 World Series Champions that were left off that list. The 2006 Cardinals sucked, so that’s not a surprise. The 2002 Angels, however, were one of two teams to win the WS and have the best expected win percentage in the regular season (the 2007 Red Sox were the other). When you’re the best team in baseball during the regular season and the best team in baseball during the post season, you should be listed as one of the 10 best teams of the decade.

      • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

        Forget the Pythagorean record. That’s irrelevant since both teams really did play out the regular season.

        To me, the 09′ Yankees were better than the 04′ Red Sox in the regular season, so they have them beat there.

        In the playoffs the 04′ Red Sox faced elimination four times. The 09′ Yankees faced elimination three times.

        The 09′ Yanks were the better team.

        • Chris says:

          Forget the Pythagorean record. That’s irrelevant since both teams really did play out the regular season.

          What? You want to throw out a more accurate representation of the talent level of the teams to focus on how many elimination games a team faced?

          How about this stat: The 2009 Yanks lost 2 games that could have clinched a series (Game 5 of ALCS and WS). The 2004 Red Sox lost none. Therefore the Red Sox were the more clutch team.

          • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

            I’m not rating clutchness. Both teams were qually clutch since they both won a world series.

            The pythagorean record is clearly not more accuarte because it was wrong since the 09′ Yanks won more games than the 04′ Red Sox.

            • Evil Empire says:

              Well a team is an evolving macro-organism during the regular season. The 2009 team during the playoffs was much different than the 2009 team during April or May, when Chien Ming Wang was shitting out Ls … him and Claggett that one time probably did skewer the Yankee’s pythag quite a bit on its own

              Just sayin’.

              • Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

                True. And both teams won the world series and both had great second halves. And the Yankees won more games.

                Yankees, please.

                • Evil Empire says:

                  Yeah I’m not disagreeing with you in this particular universe :)

                  2009 Yankees > 2004 Red Sox. Pythag doesn’t tell the whole story, though it is a useful evaluation tool.

            • Chris says:

              Apparently you don’t understand what the Pythagorean record is. Just because a team got lucky and won a few more games than it’s Pythagorean record suggests doesn’t mean that the Pythagorean record is wrong. It just means that the team got lucky.

              The Pythagorean record is like a pitchers BABIP. If a pitcher has a great BABIP one season, it doesn’t mean that he’s suddenly a better pitcher. It just means that he got lucky (or had a much better defense).

              • ColoYank says:

                I don’t think a large variance from a team’s pythagorean record is a measure of luck. It could simply mean that in the case where your record is better than your expected record, that the team won a lot of close games and lost some laughers. That could mean that your starting pitchers have a wide variety of ability. In other words, your best pitcher is WAY better than your #5 or 5A, or 5B.

        • Whitey14 says:

          I missing something, how did the 09 Yankees face elimination three times in the playoffs….? They swept Minnesota, went up 2-0 on LAA and won 4-2 and dropped the first game against PHIL en route to another 4-2 victory. By my count they faced elimination zero times, which of course only goes to strengthen the argument that they were a better team….

        • theyankeewarrior says:

          When did the 09 Yankees face elimination? Never.

  18. Put a cap on revenue sharing. A team can only recieve X% of their payroll in revenue sharing funds.

  19. Eirias says:

    In a disaster of unparalleled import, my Road to the Show pitcher in MLB 09: The Show was somehow wholly erased. I mourn his loss.

    As such, I’m creating a new guy; better, stronger, faster than before.

    What should my pitches be?

  20. I just got Madden ’10. Does anyone else find running the ball to be incredibly difficult?

  21. Whitey14 says:

    I still feel an intelligent bunch of people could find a way to insert a salary floor without the money necessarily going to over spend on bad players, which means the owners and the union cannot get it done ;-)
    One thing I do know is that both sides better come to the table willing to do whatever it takes to make a deal because in this type of economy, which will certainly not have seen a full recovery by 12/2011, fans will not be as forgiving of people quibbling over millions of dollars.
    Unions/associations should work with ownership/management to ensure the health of the business because it’s necessary for the security of it’s workers. Therefore an impartial third party should be involved to look at the books. I still feel a system similar to the NBA’s where the players get a set percentage could work in Baseball as well. What better motivation to promote your game (and not skip promotional avenues like All Star Games, etc.)than the promise of more money available in salaries?

  22. Accent Shallow says:

    Jeffrey Loria is a sack of crap.

  23. AndrewYF says:

    There was a great idea written a month ago, where it put forward the idea of a progressive luxury tax for NON-spenders. Oh, you spent $20 million under what you received in revenue sharing? Okay, you get 15% deducted from your revenue sharing amount. Or something like that.

  24. Rocky Road Redemption (formerly RAB poster) says:

    I’m trying to collect autographs the 77′-78′ team on ebay. It’s actually not as difficult as it sounds. The prices are relatively sheap. The only one impossible to get is Thurman, unless I want to fork over 1000 dollars.

  25. Steve H says:

    Brett Favre intentional grounding=Just having fun out there.

  26. Tom Zig says:

    So I e-mailed the Paul O’Neill website asking if they could get Paul O’Neill autographs. I asked them if they could get him to autograph a watercooler for me.

    I wonder how this will turn out.

    • V Squared says:

      I feel bad for that watercooler. If you want a vintage Paul O’Neil autographed cooler, it must come with dents and a certificate of authenticity.

  27. Kevin G. says:

    Brett Farve just having fun out there…

  28. Holy Brett Favre…I hate that guy.

    Oh, and what about Marlon Byrd for LF? I know he’s one of those wasted potential guys, but his last 2 years were solid.

    What would his asking price be?

  29. Rockdog says:

    Not that the owners would ever agree to it, but why not institute something like English soccer (football), where the best team in AAA gets a 7 game playoff against the worst team in MLB …. and the loser gets sent to AAA. This would rpovide a pretty damn big incentive for the small market teams to try their best, and if they cannto take 4 or 7 against a good AAA team, maybe they deserve to get sent down.

    • Rockdog says:

      Sorry, should be cannot take 4 of 7. Also, this would add a lot of excitement both for the AAA playoffs, and for the teams with poor records durign the season.

  30. JMK THE OVERSHARE's Glenn Beck Complex says:

    Funny story: I read four entire pages of user comments at MLBTR. I actually laughed so hard that I vomited a tiny bit of my dinner.

    Gag reflex fail. Some of the girls I know with va-nah-nahs that smell like Band-Aids know this problem all too well.


    In other news, I’m going to cancel my Spring Break vacation to Juraez, and may consider something safer, like Detroit.

    Juarez, now the murder capital of the western hemisphere. Come one, come all!

  31. Thomas says:

    A salary floor would require bad team to spend unnecessary and extra money on players (often bad) that will not significantly improve their team. This also could force the team to give out more long term deal crippling the franchise in the long term.

    My solution would be to set a spending floor that can be spent on the ML team, the amateur draft, and international free agents. Thus, a team would be required to put money into the franchise improving the team in the long term (by adding amateur talent) or in the short term (by adding ML free agents). However, a team would not be required to add ML free agents that may not have any significant positive impact on the franchise and may in fact hurt the franchise in the long term just to reach the floor, since they could spend money on the draft instead.

    I’d set the spending floor at about $70 million. Because the discrepancy between amateur and ML talent, I’d set the every dollar spent on amateur talent to count as two dollars towards the spending floor. For example, if a team has $50 million of payroll, they are then required to add a minimum $20 million in ML players or $10 million in amateur talent (or some combination of the two).

    • JAG says:

      The thing is, teams don’t have to spend excessive money on unnecessary free agents. To take the Marlins as the obvious example, if they were forced to spend their revenue sharing money, I highly doubt that there’d be talk of Dan Uggla or Josh Johnson being moved. It’s not as though the Marlins have better or even comparable players to replace them, they just plain don’t want to pony up the dough. I believe it’s widely agreed that the Marlins are seriously low-balling JJ, so it’s also not as though he’s making unreasonable demands. He’s asking for a reasonable deal that isn’t by any stretch overpaying.

      That’s really the issue. The point of the salary floor isn’t so that teams can sign more Vernon Wells or Barry Zito deals. It’s so that teams can, and maybe will, keep their Joe Mauers and Josh Johnsons.


  32. danny says:

    heh this MNF games is wayyy more interesting then i thought it was going to be

  33. [...] During Monday evening’s Open Thread, I explored a few economic theories behind the upcoming round of collective bargaining negotiations. As always, the Yankees and their huge economic advantage over nearly every other baseball team will be at the forefront of the 2011 efforts to renew the CBA, and I sketched out a rough idea for a salary floor. [...]

  34. A huge problem in the debate over payroll inequities is it is being waged by people who have NONE of the relevant information at their fingertips. Sure, the Union gets to look at one set of books, but fans, sportwriters, bloggers, agents ….etc, have no idea what these income statements look like. Sure, you can take a guess by looking at th egate and applying a mulitplier ……. but this ENTIRE discussion is ill-informed until each team in baseball provides an annual set of finanicals, confirming an audited income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement. Until that time, people can only guess what the numbers look like and most likely, those guesses aren’t close to reality. People are real quick to criticize Pitt for not spending but these critics simply have no idea what that club’s balance sheet looks like. And more importantly, this issue can’t be addressed unitl the clubs who own their networks, give a more truthful accounting of their broadcast revenues so these revenues become fully taxed under the revenue sharing regime. After all, you can’t let Boston and NY report X as the “Rigths” they collect from NESN and YES when NESN and YES are making 3-4X on the broadcast. Ending this shell game would be a great equializer.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.