Revenue Sharing - Good Article

[pacopete4]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/01/20/mlb-small-market-teams-revenue-sharing-pirates-bob-nutting/79090390/

 

 

Just in case anyone doesn't see this one it's a good read. Going to be a big decision coming and will affect the Brewers greatly.

[1992casey]

I don't feel very educated after reading that article. Most of it is a bunch of examples of the kinds of things we've been reading for years. And while the luxury tax is relevant, the author gets the basic premise wrong. He implies that the small markets split the tax money when the reality is that all teams not being taxed benefit from it.

 

Revenue sharing is what's critical. It's a completely different animal than the luxury tax, and the article doesn't touch on that.

[JohnBriggs12]

Any revenue sharing needs to have with it a minimum payroll requirement of at least $80 million and perhaps $100 million. Having a half dozen teams in the NL including the Brewers basically taking a stance refusing to compete is bad for the game.

[Fear The Chorizo]

To make it less beneficial to tank with the current draft system, I think MLB needs to adopt a modified lottery system with the top 5-8 draft positions. There is currently such a draft advantage with pool money for the top overall pick that teams needing to rebuild are incentivized to tank, especially jn smaller markets where free agency isn't a good way to build a MLB roster.

 

Take the teams with the 8 worst records, give them 8 to 1 ping pong balls, and pick the draft order for those spots.

 

I think it's the current draft system that leads to tanking much more than teams slashing payroll to profit from revenue sharing. The team schedules are so dissimilar it's difficult to say whether a team with the worst MLB record is indeed the worst team in any given year anyway.

[MadScientist]

The article boils down to the luxury tax not doing much and they will 'talk' about revenue sharing.

 

If baseball is to thrive, all local TV monies has to be put into a pool and split among the teams.

 

Bumping up the minimum that teams have to spend is a good idea to keep some owners from pocketing the shared revenue, aided by a bump in minimums and arby rates. The trick would be spending the minimum in a year like this without getting into a bad contract situation.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Any revenue sharing needs to have with it a minimum payroll requirement of at least $80 million and perhaps $100 million. Having a half dozen teams in the NL including the Brewers basically taking a stance refusing to compete is bad for the game.

 

 

I would agree that a payroll floor of some type is not a bad idea, but setting it at 80-100 million seems restrictive. There are times when small market teams by necessity have to go through rebuild phases and it just doesn't make sense to spend money unnecessarily on expensive free agents just to meet an artificial cap floor for the sake of spending money.

[1992casey]

The article boils down to the luxury tax not doing much and they will 'talk' about revenue sharing.

 

It definitely doesn't spread money around, but I don't see that as its main purpose. It's probably somewhat effective as an incentive to stay below the threshold.

 

…it just doesn't make sense to spend money unnecessarily on expensive free agents just to meet an artificial cap floor for the sake of spending money.

 

I think a floor would be an incentive to trade for lousy players with bad contracts in hopes of having some prospects included in the return. But teams can do that anyway. In general, though, I think the effect would be that teams would be chasing a few more inconsequential wins by spending money that doesn't need to be spent.

[jerichoholicninja]

No salary floor. There's no reason for the Brewers to spend money right now. Being forced to is stupid.

 

International draft. The current system is beyond crap even with the bonus pool. The rich teams just alternate blowing past their limit and taking the penalties while the small market teams still get the shaft.

 

Is giving small market teams more money so they can lock up their stars really such a good thing? The long term mega deals that great players sign are killers for teams at the end. Would it be a good thing for the Pirates to pay a late 30's Andrew McCutchen $25+million a season to be replacement level or below or even sit the bench? Probably not. Imagine if the Brewers gave big money to Hart, Fielder, or Sabathia. Those contracts would be terrible and hurting the club.

[pacopete4]

Imagine if the Brewers gave big money to Hart, Fielder, or Sabathia. Those contracts would be terrible and hurting the club.

 

 

And we'd still suck.

[gregmag]

Imagine if the Brewers gave big money to Hart, Fielder, or Sabathia. Those contracts would be terrible and hurting the club.

 

 

And we'd still suck.

Plus we'd have to forego giving some young players a look in order to pay veterans that we wouldn't sign if we were allowed to make smart baseball decisions. Plus the revenue floor would inflate veterans' salaries by forcing more money into the salary structure.

[Mudville9]

If baseball is to thrive, all local TV monies has to be put into a pool and split among the teams.

 

^^^

This

[pacopete4]

If baseball is to thrive, all local TV monies has to be put into a pool and split among the teams.

 

^^^

This

 

I just can't see this ever happening. It would be a great day in baseball but just cannot see it.

[torts]

The Pirates spent $13 million so far by CHOICE, not because of money issues... Nutting is worth Billions, so if he wanted to spend, he easily can jack up the Pirates payroll with his own money, he just doesn't want to.

[MadScientist]

If baseball is to thrive, all local TV monies has to be put into a pool and split among the teams.

 

^^^

This

 

I just can't see this ever happening. It would be a great day in baseball but just cannot see it.

 

It kind of depends on how many teams think they will benefit from this vs how many think they will be hurt. Baseball could always tell teams that if you don't want to share, they can't broadcast images of the other team.

[CheeseheadInQC]

Any revenue sharing needs to have with it a minimum payroll requirement of at least $80 million and perhaps $100 million. Having a half dozen teams in the NL including the Brewers basically taking a stance refusing to compete is bad for the game.

 

If the revenue sharing is significant enough, I could see a salary floor being put into place (partially to maybe extract other concessions from the players and partially to avoid the arguments from the large market teams that the small market owners are simply pocketing the revenue sharing money as pure profit).

 

That being said, the NBA has a salary floor, but that hasn't stopped the 76ers. There are plenty of ways to go through an uncompetitive rebuild even with the floor in place. You could front-load extensions for younger players. You could get prospects for taking on other teams' essentially dead money contracts. Or, if the system is the same as in the NBA, the amount you're under the floor could simply be distributed among the players at the end of the season. A salary floor could be a worthwhile trade off for a revenue sharing proposal that actually makes a difference, but I don't know if it would have the kind of impact you're hoping it would.

[1992casey]

The players association has historically been against a salary floor.

[logan82]

The players should be paid from a central fund which doesn't go to the owners if not spent or distributed equally to all owners so one does not cheat the others. Looking at you Loria.

[MrTPlush]

The Pirates spent $13 million so far by CHOICE, not because of money issues... Nutting is worth Billions, so if he wanted to spend, he easily can jack up the Pirates payroll with his own money, he just doesn't want to.

 

That is because baseball teams are businesses. You typically want to make money and throwing your own money in doesn't achieve that. Typically you put in what you make from the team. Just because the owner is worth billions doesn't mean the team can carry a $200mil payroll. These guys became rich business men for a reason.

[GAME05]

I don't see why a rebuilding team necessarily would be hamstrung by a salary floor. There's probably a good few players who would take a 1-2 year contract, or like the NBA where you agree to pick up the expiring contract of a bad player for some prospects.

[Patrick425]

The players should be paid from a central fund which doesn't go to the owners if not spent or distributed equally to all owners so one does not cheat the others. Looking at you Loria.

 

 

I pretty much agree with this thought instead of instituting some sort of arbitrary salary floor. I don't agree with the "splitting equally" idea because not every small/mid market team is the same. I think all the revenue sharing or lottery tax money should go into a central account. I don't think players should be paid directly from this account, but that every team should have access to a portion of that account (based on whatever that team's "share" is). So instead of just transferring the entire revenue sharing amount to each team every year, each team would basically have to submit "expense reports" in order to get "reimbursed" for expenditures. While the hope would be that these expenditures would only be for retaining current players, new player acquisition, and player development, I do think that if a team can show they need money to meet other "non-player related" ongoing expenses, then the funds can be used for that as well. Although, I would hope in cases where a team is constantly asking for withdrawals to pay operational bills, that the league would take a closer look at that teams viability (perhaps an audit of some sort).