Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
The Curt Schilling deal will no doubt be a topic of conversation among George Steinbrenner and his inner circle. The Yankees will hasten to sign Gary Sheffield, Bartolo Colon, LaTroy Hawkins and anyone else they think will restore the AL balance of power to New York.

Today, Boston is the clear favourite in the division. The difference between a healthy Schilling and John Burkett has to be more than six games, and Curt's DL stints last year had nothing to do with age or mechanical unsoundness: he had appendicitis, then some combination of getting hit by a pitch and punching out a Questec camera broke his hand. The Red Sox lineup that smashed even the '27 Yankees hitting records will return more or less intact.

Peter Gammons raves (again) about GM Theo Epstein, and makes several other points about the trade, dropping a line of particular interest to Jays fans.

Toronto's future, meanwhile, is looking better all the time.


I'm pretty sure that Gammons means their obsessive focus on the 2004 brass ring will ultimately weaken both the Yanks and Sox, just about the time that the Jays' prize prospects begin to arrive. That's how I see it, too. Although a softer early schedule might help them contend during the first half of '04, it would take an unexpected collapse by one of the "Beasts of the East" for the Fighting Jays to make the postseason.

Sooner or later, gutting the farm systems will take its toll on Toronto's rivals. Trading Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon and lefty prospect Jorge De la Rosa (ESPN's John Sickels recently called the latter "one of the few young players they have that other teams are interested in acquiring") effectively cleans out the promising pitchers in the Sox organization. One reason they could outbid the Yankees for Schilling is that Brandon Claussen was already shipped out to Ohio in the Aaron Boone trade.

Gammons also suggests that most of the bounty (such as it is; I'm not a huge fan of Lyon or Fossum) received by Arizona will end up in Milwaukee, in a deal for Richie Sexson. It makes sense; the Brewers get cheaper, which is always their goal, though they may be a force in a few years when all their kids mature. Meanwhile, the Snakes can at least point to a new slugger as a decent return for Schilling.

For anyone wondering how Richard Griffin can spin this news into another backhanded slap at the Blue Jays, here you go:

In one fell swoop, the win-cheap cult of A's GM Billy Beane has lost one-third of its membership, leaving just the founder and J.P. Ricciardi to soldier on.

In Griffin-land, by paying big bucks for one of the game's premier starters, Theo Epstein is no longer included as a GM who openly embraces the sabermetric approach. What a crock. It's not like the Red Sox were in the "win-cheap" category last year. Epstein operates by the same principles as Billy and J.P., with a bigger budget. How hard is that to understand?

Every seat in Fenway Park is filled, and they can't build new ones fast enough. John Henry is committed to winning right now. Oakland and Toronto do not enjoy the same revenues, and can't afford the same expenses. Saying that Beane and Ricciardi are merely "soldiering on" implies that they haven't been successful, which is ridiculous. One club is a perennial contender, and the local nine is in the best shape it's been in for ten years.

However, Schilling coming back to the AL does tilt the playing field. The inevitable responses from Team Steinbrenner will make it that much tougher for Oakland, Toronto and the rest of the league to win in 2004. By 2005, the BoSox will have to dig much deeper into the vault, or say goodbye to Pedro and maybe Nomar, and the Yankees will be that much older. I'm not ordering my SkyDome playoff tickets just yet, but the Jays are poised to be in the hunt for the rest of this decade.
Trade Aftermath | 94 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_philip c - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 01:01 PM EST (#84518) #
hijack here, and sorry if it's not in the right place, but shy can't the jays think about signing jose guillen, he put up pretty wicked numbers last year, and only made 500,000. Now I realize that he'll be due a raise, but what if we could get him for about 2 million per, for 2 years. That will give time for Hill and Adams to fight it out for shortstop, or am I making a mistake here and does guillen play 2nd, not short. Thoughts
_Kristian - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 01:09 PM EST (#84519) #
Jose Guillen plays the outfield but if Carlos Guillen gets non tendered by Seattle he might be an option. If Seattle get Matsui then they just might non tender Guillen. Dosent Griffin realize that if JP and Billy had the money they would spend it. Theo is just doing his job and still believes in the same principles as JP and Billy. What a hack.
robertdudek - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 01:12 PM EST (#84520) #
Jose Guillen is a corner outfielder. Perhaps you are confusing him with Carlos Guillen (a shortstop who also played third base in 2003), who is still on Seattle's roster.

He may be non-tendered by Seattle to avoid arbritation, in which case several teams ought to be interested in acquiring him.

Jose Guillen is a good hitter, but isn't particularly good at getting on base. He's a free agent now, and he's going to be seeking quite a bit of money based on his 2003. The Jays only need a 4th outfielder, so he's not a good fit for the Jays.
_Geoff - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 01:59 PM EST (#84521) #
The Jays have a fourth outfielder - Jayson Werth is out of options...however, after upgrading the pitching and replacing Woodward, J.P. may look at improving the outfield contingent of Reed, V-W, Cat and Werth...if there's any $$ left
robertdudek - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST (#84522) #
Werth isn't my idea of a 4th outfielder. He's a guy who needs polish and therefore needs to play everyday - preferably for another organisation.
Dave Till - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 02:47 PM EST (#84523) #
I finally figured out what concerns me about big-market teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox (and especially the Yankees). I am concerned that they may eventually be able to adopt the success model employed by large European soccer clubs such as Manchester United. While many of these clubs have elaborate youth programs, they are successful mostly because they can afford to pay for the prime years of the best players in the world. When one becomes past-peak, no worries - they just go and buy another one.

The (reasonable) assumption in these parts is that the Yankees and Red Sox are at the far end of the success cycle. Soon, the prevailing wisdom has it, these teams will crash due to a shortage of help from the farm and because they have to pay zillions of dollars to players long past their primes. But a team can succeed if they can afford to buy Sheffield or Guerrero now and the equivalent of Sheffield and Guerrero two seasons from now.

Recall that the norm in American League history is for the Yankees to win everything in the league. They have won during the Ruth era, during the DiMaggio era, during the early Steinbrenner years, and during the last few years. They've only been out of contention when the owners have starved the team or let their own ego take precedence over the health of the team.

So, what do you think? Is the Decline and Fall of the Yankees inevitable?
_Kristian - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 03:05 PM EST (#84524) #
Werth has always been intriguing as a good athlete who was a catcher. Im not sure if he can be an everyday outfielder as he hasnt shown in the minors the ability to hit for a high average, has shown some power and has some speed but like Robert said needs to either needs play everyday to see if he has the ability to be productive or not. I wouldnt mind seeing us getting a pitching prospect for Werth if we could.
_BagofBalls - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 03:09 PM EST (#84525) #
Why give Richard Griffin any 'air time'? We know his spin is perpetually negative, and that he long ago ceased pretending to be reporting on the Jays as much as trying to undermine the franchise. Why have a fansite for Blue Jay fans that archives an interview with this guy, or that gives any publicity to him at all? Griffin deserves simply to be ignored.
_JOhn Ducey - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST (#84526) #
This week is symbolic of the reality for the Jays. While the Red Socks (and soon the Yankees) go ch - ching ($) and allow another free agent to cash in, the Jays have to be content going Chen - Cheng
_Mike B - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 04:18 PM EST (#84527) #
I am concerned that they may eventually be able to adopt the success model employed by large European soccer clubs such as Manchester United.

I love inter-sport comparisons. I'm a huge soccer fan and could ramble on and on; however, as this is a baseball site, I'll be as brief as possible.

Dave, I wouldn't be overly concerned. In soccer -- as is the case in baseball -- there are rich clubs and poor ones. Some spend their money wisely while others use considerably poorer judgment in their investment decisions. The most important thing of note is that among the top European soccer clubs, though they occasionally will do a big-money signing to reinforce the squad, their key players are products of their youth system or are recruited while they are young and relatively cheap. Players like Beckham and Scholes were homegrown players for Man U. The bottom line is that these clubs are very well managed and have been for years; their effective management has led to success, increased revenue and the ability to spend some big money on proven veterans. However, without their youth system or ability to identify young talent, these clubs would either fail to live up to expectations or fail to have sustained success.

Another 'leveller' in baseball which doesn't exist in soccer is that, in baseball, teams can only send up to $1 million to another team in order to facilitate a transaction while there is no such limit in soccer. This is a key distinction which places even more importance on having a healthy farm system. With a depleted system, the Yankees cannot simply buy players from other teams. Their only option is then to pay top dollar for veteran free agents. At one point, this strategy will have to backfire.

Is the Decline and Fall of the Yankees inevitable?

No, but if they continue to neglect their farm system the odds of them having success in perpetuity gets worse and worse as time goes by. Eventually homegrown players like Jeter, Williams, Posada and Rivera will get injured, old, retire or move on to other teams. Currently, there doesn't appear to be any cream rising in the farm system to replace these players (with the exception of Dioner Navarro). Inevitably key players will move on and there won't be an adequate replacement in the system or via free agency. It is at this point that the Yankees will become worse and leave an opening for teams like the Jays (who understand the importance of having a well-stocked farm system) to emerge.
_whizland2000 - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 04:33 PM EST (#84528) #
I also think the jays should Definitely consider trading Werth some time during the offseason. Considering the outfielders who are coming up behind him i think he is certainly expendable. In particular I want to see if they can make something happen with the pitching deep Dodgers for Greg Miller. I figure Werth and a couple other expendable guys should do the trick.
robertdudek - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 04:36 PM EST (#84529) #
Mike B,

With a depleted system, the Yankees cannot simply buy players from other teams.

Not true.

The Yankees can acquire a player who earns a high salary that his current team can't afford or doesn't want to pay. The Red Sox can as well, as they did just now with Curt Schilling. They can make trades for quality players even if they don't give up good prospects because they can afford to pay the contracts that do not fit into other teams' budgets.

The Yankees have had a below average farm system for the last 7 or 8 years (since producing Jeter and Posada), even in that time they've produced Soriano and Johnson. They can easily ride out a 5 or 6 year lean period before it begins to impact them severely. It would take monumental incompetence for a team with large resources to fail to produce any good players over a decade. I don't think the Yankees are that dumb, and you'll see several quality players emerge in pinstripes over the next decade.

Any team that is able to acquire 2 or 3 above average players on the free-agent market per year has very little to worry about. They can turn over their roster with above average players once every 10 years if need be.
_Mike B - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 05:13 PM EST (#84530) #
Robert, you're correct that teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can buy players from other teams. That was an oversight on my part. However, the main emphasis of my posting above was the importance of having a well-stocked farm system. Without prospects or young major leaguers to send to Arizona they lost out on acquiring Schilling. This makes them worse in comparison to their chief rival. Further, a big reason for the Yankees' recent string of success was their ability to produce well above-average offensive players at key defensive positions such as center field, short stop and catcher. With this nucleus New York has been able to go out and fill other holes via free agency (i.e. corner outfielders, pitchers and first basemen are easier to replace via free agency than catchers, shortstops and centre fielders). Eventually the likes of Jeter, Posada and Williams will move on and it's a good bet that the Yankees won't have internal replacements ready that are as good. Finally, I'm not saying that the Yankees will definitely crumble in the future. They are a well-managed club and will certainly always be very competitive. I'm only saying that a team which neglects their farm system will stand a greater chance of becoming worse in the future. They have one less option than teams which take care of their farm system and teams like the Jays still have hope.
robertdudek - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 05:50 PM EST (#84531) #
The Red Sox understand the basis of Baseball 101: that position players are fungible, great pitchers are not. Schilling could have played this out, but he did not, and the Red Sox know they have a rock on whose back everyone can climb.

This is Gammons' last paragraph. Position players are fungible; pitchers are fungible. Great position players and great pitchers are not fungible.

It is clear to me that Epstein doesn't think great position players are fungible. He did his work last year to build a great offence before the season starter - since then he's been working on the pitching.
_Scott - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 06:16 PM EST (#84532) #
One thing to keep in mind regarding this whole prospect vs buying player argument is that the current market correction in salaries at the moment still favours the big spenders (Boston, New york).

Simply because lower payroll teams are looking to get rid of bad contracts for next to no talent in return (see Mondesi, Schilling). However, once the salary correction is complete that source of players will no longer be available to Boston & New York.

Instead, they will have to offer up talent for talent and that is when they will feel the pinch. This will be felt more and more when Boston & New York try and deal at the trade deadline. Of course, they can always pick-up free agents in the offseason but players lost to injury during the course of the season will be hard-pressed to be replaced.

Finally, ESPN is reporting the Sexson trade is now done (or will be Monday when MLB offices open), with Arizona send second baseman Junior Spivey, first baseman Lyle Overbay, versatile infielder Craig Counsell and lefthander Chris Capuano to the Brewers. Doesn"t seem like a whole for the Brewers.
Mike Green - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 06:38 PM EST (#84533) #
Nice summary Coach. Schilling is not only a fine pitcher, but a tremendous student of the game. Batista credited Schilling with helping him to a great degree. I'm guessing that Schilling might also have passed on some of his knowledge to Brandon Webb. I expect that he'll be just the tonic for Derek Lowe.

As for the fighting Jays chances in 04, if they can stay close until July, they will have some chance. That chance is this: some of the kids will probably be ready, and may be able to contribute a lot. I certainly wouldn't bet on them at this stage, but they're not likely to be much worse off entering 04 than the Marlins were in 03 or the Angels in 02.
_okbluejays - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 07:55 PM EST (#84534) #
Believe it or not, I think the Schilling signing is good for the blue jays. What we need to see is a big arms race between the Yankees and the Red Sox. The more they compete with each other the better. What are the effects?

1) their minor league rosters are depleting (depleted?)

2) an increasing amount of their payroll is tied up in aging players.

In order to equalize the money imbalance, we have been focussing on developing good young (cheap) talent and we've been trying to assemble a good core of players that they will complement. But this is just our half of the coin. What we're seeing now is the "other shoe" dropping. In 2 years time the Yankees and Red Sox will owe a lot of money to aging players who (we can hope) won't be backing up their big bucks with their performance. With all of this wasted salary, they will have less money to assemble competitive team. And as I've alluded to, they won't be able to plug their holes through their minor league system. Some of the Yankees success can still be traced back to getting good cheap help from their minor league system. Nick Johnson and Soriano were great this year, and at a fraction of what they may make in just a few year's time. For Boston, Trot Nixon falls into that category.

So, I want the Yankees to go and sign Sheffield now. The more bucks the better. The longer term the better. And I want them to sign whoever else they want... put the pressure on Epstein (not that I think he'll bite). Long term mega-buck contracts for aging players... be my guest!

My only worry is that there might be SUCH a payroll disparity between "us" and "them" that so long as the Yankees and Red Sox stagger their contracts just a bit they'll always be able to replenish without need of a minor league system. Still, this is our best chance.

In 2005 they won't know what hit them!
_R Billie - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 08:14 PM EST (#84535) #
I'm expecting the Jays to be around 85 wins again; improved pitching staff combined with improved opponents probably means about the same output. Assuming the further $8 million they have are spent on a starter and a couple of relievers who are helpful.

Baltimore is still a wild card sitting on $30 million in a buyer's market. But they wanted a first baseman and the two most obvious first baseman (Lee and Sexson) look like they'll be traded elsewhere. I think having SO much money to spend is going to be a challenge for them; they want to add multiple quality players and yet not necessarily get tied down long term to them because they're likely going to be buying from the older set or second tier of free agents. I think the Red Sox and Yankees are going to account for most of the first tier by themselves. Guerrero is the exception I think. The O's could easily offer him $14 million for several years if they wanted to which would be hard for most other teams to match and equally hard for Guerrero to turn down.

Then again, I still can't believe Colon turned down $36 million over three years from the White Sox so what do I know? He must be pretty confident the Yankees are going to give him more because I can't see any other teams affording him.
_Dan - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 09:01 PM EST (#84536) #
Really, how surprising is it?

The Yanks and BoSox are throwing around their weight and trying to land the big names.

I just heard Sheffield has agreed to a term verbally in principal with the Yanks.. Again, another relatively aged player, and probably getting the multiyear that they want. I mean, at this stage of their careers (Sheffield and Schilling respectively), this is where they can try to say 'I want x amount of years' and knowing that if a team is going to bite, they are going to pay probably more then what they are actually worth. You heard Epstein say it was a testament to Schilling that the deal was being worked out and wasn't in the interest of getting 'more money on the contract', but that it was incentive laden. Still, paying 12 and 13 million for schilling AFTER next year is still a gross amount of money for a player his age. Ya, considering Schilling doesn't get injured or his arm falls off or he can't pitch in Fenway Park.. Who knows, they are still paying a lot for his services, and they better hope something happens sooner (2004) then later.

I hate to make the comparison, but I have to..What the yanks and red sox are doing right now is very similar to what the NY Rangers of the NHL try doing. Buying the big money players, and hoping they perform. The difference is the Yanks and Red Sox are having success (at least lately),partially due to relatively knowledgable GM's who do spend quite a bit of money, but they get quality players as well. The Yanks have been doing this for awhile and having success, whereas the Red Sox are just starting to really shell it out (full fledged like the Yanks).

Last year, I think we started seeing some vulnerabilities in the Yankees game: Particularly the defense and aging pitching staff. For example, Bernie Williams can't play CF anymore..Roger took quite a few attempts to finally secure #300..Wells getting injured from 'stretching in the clubhouse'. Obviously the Yanks will remould the pitching rotation around Mussina since everyone else finished their contracts.

I can't help but think one of these days that enough of these bloated/overpaid contracts with players past their prime will fail them, and they will fall from the top. When it does, it will be a slowly degrading state, as the Yanks and Red Sox will have 35+ year old players who are way past their prime and making 12+ million a season. No one will take on (trade for) these contracts, especially if baseball economics are more structured and a more rigid salary cap is implemented (as it should be in the future?).

To finish my thought, I think the Jays 2005 prediction is good. 2004 is going to be an exciting year as well and the real success will depend on the progress of some of these kids. Yanks and BoSox are going for the quick fix next year (by signing players near the end of their prime), while the Jays have to play the waiting game on development of prospects.

-Dan
_A - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 09:15 PM EST (#84537) #
I know Da Box is about to reach the 300,000 hits mark but I think we reached the counter's capacity. On my screen it reads, "ERR 4". Is it just me?
_StephenT - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 09:21 PM EST (#84538) #
The other New York team lost 95 games this year. With an Opening Day payroll in excess of $116 million. In a year one ESPN writer predicted them to make the World Series.

It can be done. :-)
_Andy Martin - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 09:31 PM EST (#84539) #
If the Jays keep developing or aquiring good young players, another reason they will have a good chance in 05 or 06, is that they only need to have age and a depleted farm system catch up to one, not neccessarily both of Boston and New York.
robertdudek - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 09:58 PM EST (#84540) #
If the Jays don't win 90 games or more this year, it's going to be a huge disappointment. I don't think the fans are going to accept treading water (which is what 85 wins would be) with grace.
_Dan - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 10:37 PM EST (#84541) #
StephenT: Ya, after posting I was going to suggest the Mets as a good comparison to the NY Rangers of the NHL...

I guess it can come down to certain moves that really backfire. Is it luck that Glavine, Mo Vaughn, Mike Piazza, and to a certain extent Al Leiter are overpaid/underachieving players?!? (I am missing a few too I think: Carl Everett?). Not to mention they are aging players in the backhalf of their careers suffering injuries.

While Schilling is a proven pitcher, he is coming off some injuries last year, which is a gamble. And Sheffield is 34 or 35 (isn't he?) going to sign a 3 year deal with the Yanks..

These risks can't ALL pay off, and some should backfire..The mets seem to be getting their fair share of them...

We can only hope for the Jays sake, that some of these deals really backfire on their division rivals (Yanks and BoSox)..here's hoping :)

-Dan
_Geoff - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 10:50 PM EST (#84542) #
I think because of the way the schedule plays out in 2004...85 wins might mean in contention til late August/early September...which might appease fans
Dave Till - Saturday, November 29 2003 @ 11:14 PM EST (#84543) #
Nope, I'm getting ERR 4 too. I guess Da Box is honouring Alfonso Soriano's sterling post-season efforts. :-)
_Jordan - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:22 AM EST (#84544) #
Something to consider regarding payroll unfairness:

In 1992, the Toronto Blue Jays had the highest payroll in the American League, $48.9M, and won the Eastern Division, the AL pennant and the World Series. They were slightly ahead of -- who'da thunk -- the Oakland A's, whose $47.3M payroll helped them win the AL West. Nine of the 14 AL teams had payrolls under $30M.

In 1993, the Toronto Blue Jays again had the highest payroll in the league, $51.9M, and again won the AL East, the pennant and the World Series. They finished seven games ahead of the 2nd-most expensive team, the New York Yankees ($46.5M). The Athletics, who gutted their aged roster after '92, saw their payroll drop to $35.3M as they went from first to worst in the West. As salary inflation got into full swing, nine of the 14 AL teams now had payrolls under $40M.

All of this to say: let's not get too indignant when the current Yanks and Red Sox spend their way to success. Those two WS trophies down at the Skydome weren't acquired simply through pluck, pure hearts and cheerful dispositions.
Pistol - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:41 AM EST (#84545) #
All of this to say: let's not get too indignant when the current Yanks and Red Sox spend their way to success. Those two WS trophies down at the Skydome weren't acquired simply through pluck, pure hearts and cheerful dispositions.

I agree to an extent.

However, the Yankees will probably end up with a payroll 50% higher than the Red Sox who will probably end up with a payroll 20% higher than the next team.

To carry that to 1993, with a $52 million payroll the 2nd highest team would have been at about $35 million, and the team below that at about $30 million.

The differences are greater now ($ and %), I just don't get too worked up over it.

Plus with the signing of Bruce Chen the Jays are moving to the NL East right?
Mike Green - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:45 AM EST (#84546) #
Jordan, that's true, but the ratios weren't quite the same. The Yankees and now the Red Sox are going to be in a complete different ballpark in terms of spending than the rest of the league. While the Jays were able to rent David Cone and Rickey Henderson for the playoff run, the Yankees are able to make numerous high-priced acquisitions each year.

Also in the Jays case, the spending occurred at the end of an 8 year winning cycle in a new ballpark which was sold out every game. Many teams go through this kind of cycle, and it is not as detrimental to overall league competitiveness as the current Yankee payroll that is perhaps triple the league average.
Leigh - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:49 AM EST (#84547) #
Yeah, I see that Pistol beat me to this:

1993
Toronto 48.9
New York 34.8

Jays is 41% higher than NY's

2003
Toronto 51.3
New York 149.7

Yankees is 192% higher than Tor's
_Jurgen - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 11:59 AM EST (#84548) #
Something doesn't smell right about this deal, and if I were a Yankees fan I'd be upset that something's rotten in the state of Denmark.

Bronx Banter notes that even the Boston media thinks there's something suspicious considering Arizona (reportedly) wanted Nick Johnson and Soriano from the Yankees for Schilling, but were content with Fossum and some pocket lint from the Bosox.
_Jurgen - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 12:01 PM EST (#84549) #
Granted, it's not as if the Yankees are plush with prospects.

The Boone for Claussen deal hurts more and more.
_Wildrose - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 12:05 PM EST (#84550) #
I could live with all this spending disparity if the schedules were still balanced as they were in the early nineties. As it stands now the Jays play a disproportionate amount of games against these two spending behemoths compared to their other American league cousins.

I can't imagine that the owners of both the Jays and the Devil Rays are all that happy with the current situation ,(thus Paul Godfrey's behind the scenes posturing for increasing the number of wild cards?). Now if the litigacious Peter Angelos were to become displeased with this disparity we may see something change,although the skeptic in me believes "Thug" Selig may have bought off his compliance with a lucrative promise of territorial compensation if the Expos ever move to D.C.
Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 01:08 PM EST (#84551) #
http://economics.about.com
Those two WS trophies down at the Skydome weren't acquired simply through pluck, pure hearts and cheerful dispositions.

Completely. Unless the Jays are planning to give their two World Series trophies back, I think it's a bit hypocritical to whine about payroll disparities.

Everyone in Toronto whines and whines about payroll disparities in baseball, but they have absolutely no problem with the Leafs outbidding the Flames and Oilers for free agents. It seems that Toronto fans want to have their cake and eat it to, and from the viewpoint of this Flames fan, that stinks to no end.

Mike
Mike Green - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 02:19 PM EST (#84552) #
My comments were not as a Jays fan, but as a fan of the game.

The Yankees started their current run in 94, using a combination of spending power, good management and a healthy farm system, which produced Bernie Williams, Jeter, Posada and Pettite in a relatively short period. In the last 5 years, the system has produced only Soriano and Nick Johnson, and the Yankees have only been maintained their superiority through spending power. This is not good for the game as a whole, and hence we have the luxury tax, which is obviously not enough to make a difference...

As for hockey, I'm not a big fan, but I thought that Toronto had the 4th or 5th highest payroll, and the top 7 or so are pretty close. It's really not the same as the situation in baseball.
_peteski - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 05:01 PM EST (#84553) #
I'd be happy to give back the world series trophies if that meant we could have a fair game for a change (although I think the comparison with the Yankees isn't exactly fair given how outrageous their payroll is compared to the rest of the league). And, not everyone in Toronto who isn't happy with the current system in baseball has no problem with the leafs outbidding teams for free agents. Many of us are well aware that there is outrageous payroll problems in both hockey and baseball.

The whole point is that payroll discrepancy takes away form the whole concept of fair play. I mean, if we were going to play a game of monopoly, I wouldn't start the game with $10000 and only give my opponents $5000. This is not to say that a team with a lower payroll can't win or that a team with a higher payroll can't lose, just like the player starting with $5000 may win and the player starting with $10000 may lose. The point is that the team with the higher payroll has a better chance of winning, because they can afford to pay established stars.

You know the world of sports has gone wrong when every fan not only wants to know all the statistics of the players on the team, but also wants to know all the statistics of the ownership. Who is he, how much money does he have, how much is he willing to spend, what's the team's budget going to be. Perhaps I long for a time that will never return, but I just wish baseball could be about baseball.
_Chris - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 05:11 PM EST (#84554) #
ESPN is reporting that the Boss's response to the Schilling trade was to sign Sheffield for between 36-38 million and Tom Gordon for 7 million over 2 years. I think they are way overpaying for Gordon but somehow I get the feeling they are quite done yet.
Pistol - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 05:34 PM EST (#84555) #
Bronx Banter notes that even the Boston media thinks there's something suspicious considering Arizona (reportedly) wanted Nick Johnson and Soriano from the Yankees for Schilling, but were content with Fossum and some pocket lint from the Bosox.

1. I don't believe it's known whether the Yankees offered either Soriano or Johnson for Schilling. If that's the case they'd have a pretty hard time beating a low level LH starter and a AA all star (among others).

2. The Yankees signing Wells after he had a handshake deal with the Snakes a few years back may have played a role as well.
_Young - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 06:18 PM EST (#84556) #
Why would we want to go back to the good old days of not knowing what our baseball teams were doing financially? That is like saying we want to go back to the rosy days of 2000 when Enron was the hottest stock around. The financial disclosure is good to the game, making Selig's efforts to put more red tape around MLB's efforts to extract MORE of your tax paying dollars into an owner's pockets.
robertdudek - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 07:46 PM EST (#84557) #
"Everyone in Toronto whines and whines about payroll disparities in baseball, but they have absolutely no problem with the Leafs outbidding the Flames and Oilers for free agents. It seems that Toronto fans want to have their cake and eat it to, and from the viewpoint of this Flames fan, that stinks to no end."

I live in Toronto and I have a problem with it (though I'm not a Leafs fan). I'm not a big hockey fan, bit if I were, I'd be strongly in favour of a salary cap for the NHL.
_Metric - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 08:52 PM EST (#84558) #
I live in Toronto. I hate the Leafs. And it would upset me that they can outbid other Canadian teams for free agents if those signings actually amounted to a team that is a credible threat to win the cup. But they don't.
_peteski - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 09:16 PM EST (#84559) #
"Why would we want to go back to the good old days of not knowing what our baseball teams were doing financially? That is like saying we want to go back to the rosy days of 2000 when Enron was the hottest stock around. The financial disclosure is good to the game, making Selig's efforts to put more red tape around MLB's efforts to extract MORE of your tax paying dollars into an owner's pockets."

First of all, we don't really know what our baseball team is doing financially. We know what their payroll is going to be, but there does not seem to be any agreement on how much money the teams actually make or lose. I agree that financial disclosure is important, but I'm not sure we really have it anyway. But that's really not the point. The point is not whether people should be able to find out the financial goings-on of a team, if they were so inclined. That's fine. The point is that a fan should be able to be a fan without having to know and understand the financial situation. You can't say a fan doesn't have to know this stuff. Every time I hear an interview with J.P. he says stuff like, "the payroll here is $50 million, going to $48 million, and we're trying to compete in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox" and "we just have to work within our budget. I’d love to have Seattle’s bullpen, but we don’t have $95 million right now". You can't separate the game of baseball from the business of baseball, and I think that's too bad. To be a fan of the blue jays you have to understand that the jays can't operate like other teams because they can't afford to. Like I said, financial disclosure is fine. I just wish finances weren't such a major factor in a team's success, so we wouldn't have to care about a team's financial situation to be baseball fans.
Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 09:33 PM EST (#84560) #
http://economics.about.com
The whole point is that payroll discrepancy takes away form the whole concept of fair play. I mean, if we were going to play a game of monopoly, I wouldn't start the game with $10000 and only give my opponents $5000.

You're right. The only way to fight this problem is to have Ted Rogers give George Steinbrenner a couple hundred million dollars. After all, Ted does have a lot more money.

Don't confuse *having* money with *spending* money.

Mike
_Grimlock - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:02 PM EST (#84561) #
Perhaps I long for a time that will never return, but I just wish baseball could be about baseball.

Me Grimlock don't believe that time ever existed; money has ALWAYS been a factor. Me Grimlock imagines a Red Sox fan after Frazee sold Ruth, about 80 years ago, thinking to himself, that he wishes baseball could be about baseball.
robertdudek - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:11 PM EST (#84562) #
Mike Moffatt again makes the point about Rogers having greater personal wealth than Steinbrenner as if that is at all relevant. Baseball teams are not charities: they are money making enterprises that generate profits in their own right and for related businesses. MLB as a whole makes truckloads of money - if it didn't, new owners wouldn't pay ever increasing amounts for franchises.

WRT Yankees versus Blue Jays ... to adjust the analogy - it's like playing monopoly against an opponent that gets paid $800 every time he passes GO, compared to your $200.
_miVulgar - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:18 PM EST (#84563) #
Don't confuse *having* money with *spending* money.

OK, Mike.

As long as you don't confuse *losing* money with *making* money.

That is, unless you feel Rogers should subsidize his fun but financially challenged baseball diversion with funds from his 'regular' business.

I wonder how long shareholders would go for that!
Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 10:23 PM EST (#84564) #
http://economics.about.com
Mike Moffatt again makes the point about Rogers having greater personal wealth than Steinbrenner as if that is at all relevant.

Actually, that was someone else's point, not mine. I *never* said it was relevant. I was responding to the following:

but also wants to know all the statistics of the ownership. Who is he, how much money does he have

I mean, if we were going to play a game of monopoly, I wouldn't start the game with $10000 and only give my opponents $5000.

I was just pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments. I mean, if anyone on this board should understand that, it's you.

WRT Yankees versus Blue Jays ... to adjust the analogy - it's like playing monopoly against an opponent that gets paid $800 every time he passes GO, compared to your $200.

That's a much better analogy, which is much more apt. It's also a completely different situation than the one being described previously.

There's a difference between revenue and wealth, which is what I keep trying to point out. One is a stock and the other is a flow.

Mike
_Lefty - Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 11:33 PM EST (#84565) #
Grimlock is right. Baseball has always been about money. Thems that spend it win more often than thems who don't. NY has for most of their history spent more than other teams. In the old days they did it through signing bonuses and salaries. Players knew signing with the Yankee's would generally mean a better pay packet as well the best chance at team success. The game changed with the modern draft and free agency and the Yankee's were the first team to exploit it to the hilt.

Baseball should not be confused however with the standard business model. Its as much about a sense of community, ego and or ancilary business. A successful team on the field is generally not going to be a financially successful team to the owner or shareholder.

I think Rodgers fits into the ancillary business catagory. Therefore I think it is fair for the fans to expect more from Rodgers than say Roy Rodgers.

If Rodgers is in it for the money then he would be better buy savings bonds instead. Meanwhile that reminds me, I gotta go pay my cable bill.
_peteski - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:09 AM EST (#84566) #
"Me Grimlock don't believe that time ever existed; money has ALWAYS been a factor. Me Grimlock imagines a Red Sox fan after Frazee sold Ruth, about 80 years ago, thinking to himself, that he wishes baseball could be about baseball."

Ruth is the only case of a team selling a player I am aware of. Did this happen often, I actually don't know. If Ruth is the only case or the only major case, I think you can say that, until recently, money was rarely a factor. It's not like the Red Sox could not afford to keep Ruth, the owner just knew he could sell him for a ton. Because of the reserve clause, a team could and usually did keep it's team in tact from year to year. It seems to me that business conditions rarely affected the baseball decisions, but my knowledge of the old days of baseball isn't great.

However, even if money has always been a factor in baseball, that does not mean that money should always be a factor.
_peteski - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:35 AM EST (#84567) #
"I was just pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments."

Easy there. I don't think my argument was that bad. The point of my analogy was that some teams are able to spend more than others. That gives them an unfair advantage over other teams, just as starting with more money in monopoly gives someone an unfair advantage. That was really all I was saying. I could just have easily used Clue and said that one player gets to know who killed Mr. Body before the game started. I wasn't trying to say that the top hat was Steinbrenner and the horse was Ted Rogers or anything like that, although I could see how you would think that was implied.

So who has this unfair advantage. Basically, any ownership willing to spend more than most teams. Why it chooses to spend more, I don't know. Maybe the team is more profitable or maybe they just have more money. Either way he is giving his team a big advantage over a team not willing to spend money. This would not be an unfair advantage if all the teams with lower payrolls were making lots of money on the team, but this does not seem to be the case. An owner should not have to lose money on a team just to stay competitive. I don't know who's at fault or how to fix it, but I do know that baseball has a competitive balance problem, and this has to be acknowledged.
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:51 AM EST (#84568) #
I don't know who's at fault or how to fix it, but I do know that baseball has a competitive balance problem, and this has to be acknowledged.

Simplest way to solve it ... salary cap. A good way to mitigate it - a worldwide draft, including Cuban players.

There's a myriad of things that could be done: some MLB isn't willing to do and others are strongly resisted by the Union. The basic problem is that there's no one with any authority who is charged with promoting the best interests of the game itself - which is why we seem to be doomed to lurch from crisis to crisis.
Mike D - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 01:21 AM EST (#84569) #
I agree with Robert and miVulgar completely. There really is no excuse not to go to the worldwide draft, immediately. Why have a two-tier system in which at least half of the elite incoming talent is only available to a handful of already-thriving organizations?

If the Jays are playing meaningful and inspiring ball in September this year, I hope that Jays management bears in mind the success/attendance spike cycle in baseball; the Angels, 2002 champs, blasted through all their attendance records in 2003. I don't think the Jays will have radically better attendance this year, even if they make the playoffs; their benefit will come next year if they have a rousing season. It's the principle that Huizenga didn't grasp after '97.

from the viewpoint of this Flames fan, that stinks to no end

Hockey has haves and have-nots, but doesn't (yet) have a rigid oligopoly of talent poachers with insuperable barriers to entry. I can envision any one of six or seven teams leading the NHL in payroll over the next two years (assuming a non-capped universe), and any of 20 teams having the potential to have a top-10 payroll.

In baseball, the New York market would have to lose its New Yorkness for the Yankees to be stripped of its ability to exploit its market advantage. When the Jays led the league in payroll, there was a fluidity to the salary rankings; teams would enjoy on-field success, generate better attendance, and re-sign players while adding the odd sought-after free agent, thus enhancing payroll. Market size and willingness to spend have always been factors, but these variables didn't seem to be etched permanently into the baseball landscape. And it would be cyclical then. It doesn't seem like these factors will be for years to come now.

The Leafs payroll is so much further in line with the league mean, median and mode than is the Yankees' that there really is no comparison at all. And I do support an NHL cap.

But in the meantime, I'm still a bit giddy from my evening at Madison Square Garden tonight. I'll resist making this thread devolve any further into talk about those disgraceful, unlikeable First-Place Toronto Maple Leafs (hereinafter referred to as "FPTML.")
Gitz - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 01:24 AM EST (#84570) #
Egads, did the Yankees really sign Gordon to a two-year/$7 million deal? Brutal.

As someone said on an earlier thread, the same week the Yankees get Schilling, Sheffield, and (presumably) Gordon, and the Bo Sox get a hammer like Schilling, the Blue Jays become the latest team to think that Bruce Chen will be a major-league pitcher (is this stop #8 on the Official Bruce Chen Worldwide Tour?) and also sign an 18-year-old Taiwanese (sp?) pitcher, one week removed from trading a middling fourth OF who can walk a little for a middling but supposedly talented left-handed journeyman pitcher. Until teams like Toronto and Oakland can start spending on players who have a high probability for success -- Sheffield, Schilling, et al -- instead of players who MIGHT be slightly-above-average major league baseball players, there will always be the beasts of the east and burnt leftovers for the rest of the league.

But that Theo Epstein: what a genius! He somehow identified that Curt Schilling was a good pitcher and then managed to find $26 million to sign him. That takes some real skill, no doubt about it.
Gitz - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 01:25 AM EST (#84571) #
Duh, the Yankees did not get Schilling, despite what the idiot above says. (I'm the idiot, in case anyone is wondering -- I'm talking to you, Moffatt.)
Craig B - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 09:03 AM EST (#84572) #
There really is no excuse not to go to the worldwide draft, immediately.

Or go the other way, and institute free agency for all amateur players everywhere. This would be - by far - my preference. It wouldn't happen unless the MLBPA went to bat for the amateur players, which has zero chance of happening.

I agree that the half-measures are silly.
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 09:25 AM EST (#84573) #
The amateur free-agent draft is the greatest thing for competitive balance that ever happened to baseball. Scrapping it would be like getting rid of income tax.
_Paul D - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 09:29 AM EST (#84574) #
About the worldwide draft, do the big spending teams really have that much of an advantage? The only time it seems to matter is when it's an already established Cuban or Japanese player. Is Toronto at a disadvantage signing Domincan players compared to New York?
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 09:34 AM EST (#84575) #
Having lots of money allows New York to have an academy in Panama and has resulted in a couple of gems. There's so many baseball players in the Dominican that every team has a presence there. They are all signed at age 16 to 18, so it's much more difficult to predict who will eventually become big leaguers.

The Cuban and Japanese players are where the rich clubs gain the greatest edge.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:01 AM EST (#84576) #
http://economics.about.com
If the problem is that some teams simply have too much money (relative to other teams), why not just take some of their money away and redistribute it instead of trying to dictate how teams can and cannot spend their money? It seems like much more of a direct solution.

Mike
Leigh - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:48 AM EST (#84577) #
Simplest way to solve it ... salary cap.

Agreed. Competitive balance nirvana is so close, yet so far away. A salary cap is the mind-nimbingly obvoius solution.

This is an unconventional labour issue, wherein there is no proletariat. The workers - the ballplayers - are alienated from their product because rich owners take the bulk of the profit, but a public which is much poorer than the ballplayers is, at best, apathetic to them. It is also unconventional in the sense that the right-wing free market system benefits the workers, and regulation benefits (most of) the owners.

The answer is that the fans, not the players, are the lumpen proletariat here. The solution-by-regulation (salary cap) benefits fans, and that is what left-wing solutions have always done: benefit the people at the expense of those in control of the means of production (means of production being defined here as not only team ownership, but also bat and ball). Right-wing-free-market vitriol is not going to solve this problem, clearly it exacerbates it. Left-wing-worker-empowerment rhetoric and implementation can only help if the proper group is recognized as alienated: the fans, not the players.
_Geoff - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:49 AM EST (#84578) #
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20020815zumsteg.shtml
Back around the strike, Derek Zumsteg of BP came up with what I feel is by far the best plan for dealing with baseball's economic disparity - it basically equalized each cities potential market - so teams like Philadelphia who didnt make use of their market were penalized and teams like Milwaukee who did benefitted - some detials need to be improved, but I think the theory is rock-solid...COMN for the article
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST (#84579) #
Mike,

It's very difficult to determine how much money each team generates/has, as some teams are owned by media conglomerates. Payroll is very easy to calculate and therefore restricting it is much much easier.
Coach - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 11:46 AM EST (#84580) #
The workers - the ballplayers - are alienated from their product

In baseball, the workers are the product. That's what most teams can't, or won't, recognize. Until an unbiased Commissioner takes steps to regulate the constant warfare between the owners and the players, the fans will suffer the collateral damage.

Zumsteg's idea would penalize the Jays for things beyond their control, like the exchange rate and SARS. I still prefer the Bob Costas plan -- let each team keep half their local broadcast revenue and 70 % of ticket sales. Divide the other half of cable rights and 30 % of the gate equally among all the teams. If the Yankees earn a half-billion from local cable rights, they keep $250 million plus a 1/30 share of the total pool. It still gives them an advantage over other teams, but the playing field isn't so badly tilted. Costas also argued in Fair Ball for a salary ceiling and a floor, to keep the poor and/or dumb teams from pocketing the revenue they get from the rich and/or smart.

I don't know what kind of legal challenges there would be to a worldwide draft, but it would be nice to see more than three or four teams have a legitimate shot to sign the next Japanese or Cuban superstar.
_R Billie - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:11 PM EST (#84581) #
I'm sure that baseball would implement a salary cap tomorrow if the MLBPA didn't stand in the way. Well ok, they'd hold meetings and put it off for two or three years but eventually it might get done. Then there's the issue of what the cap should be. Do you do like the NBA and have a moving target based on the previous year's revenue? That seems to be the most logical solution but then you have to get everyone to agree on the numbers being accurate. I really don't see a solution that can be put in within the next two years that everyone will agree upon.

Although if we think a cap will make the game more about baseball and less about money, I'm not sure that's true. Trades do get made in basketball but it's not easy and money is still always a factor.
Mike Green - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:25 PM EST (#84582) #
Payroll caps, worldwide drafts, Zumsteg and Costas plans, universal free agency...it's time to pull out the political GPS again, but it looks like solar flares are interfering and left is right and right is left.

I believe that the NFL has full sharing of broadcast rights, as well as a salary cap, and this has led to greater competitive balance than we have in baseball. The dynamics in baseball are different because of the 162 game schedule and the "synergies" between the game and broadcasting entities, so the Costas plan seems fairly reasonable to me.
_peteski - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:31 PM EST (#84583) #
"Although if we think a cap will make the game more about baseball and less about money, I'm not sure that's true. Trades do get made in basketball but it's not easy and money is still always a factor. "

You're right, money will still be a factor, there's really no getting around that I suppose. But at least, if a team can't sign players or keep their own stars, it'll be because the team made poor decisions over the years, and not because of reasons totally beyond the team's control, like simply not having enough money lying around. I think fans will find it way easier to accept that their team can't compete because of poor management decisions. At least then they have somebody to blame for their team's poor performance. But who can you blame if your team simply cannot afford to keep a talented team together. I can totally understand a fan's frustration with baseball, the way it is currently run.
_Norm - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:33 PM EST (#84584) #
why bother commenting on Griffin - he is the current definition of MEDIOT.

I've stopped reading him long ago.
_Matthew Elmslie - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:35 PM EST (#84585) #
I heard Bob McCown once give his proposal for what baseball should do. His idea was simple: there should be no local TV contracts. All TV contracts should go through the league (or, I suppose, MLB). This way everybody gets the same TV revenue. If teams can gain an advantage at the gate, then more power to them, but the TV money would be equal all around.

I don't really care for the idea, for reasons that I haven't been able to put my finger on, but I can't deny that it makes sense on a certain level. One problem with it is that it removes the incentive for some owners - like, say, Rogers - to own their teams in the first place.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST (#84586) #
http://economics.about.com
This is an unconventional labour issue

It's not really, except for the fact that many of the players make quite a bit of money.

There's three obvious parties. The owners, the labor suppliers, and the consumers. In almost any industry the number of consumers will vastly outnumber the number of labor suppliers. Baseball is no different in this regard.

The problem that I have with a salary cap is that they're all essentially screw the union plans. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart, but the idea that we should help disprortionately white billionaire owners control their costs at the expense of disproportionately hispanic and black athletes is appalling on any sort of grounds of equity, even if those athletes have done very, very well for themselves.

Baseball would be better off if it could do something to "level the playing field". Increased revenue sharing like Costas suggests, or wealth sharing like Zumsteg suggests would go a long way to correct the problem, without asking labor to bend over and take one for the team. Moving the Expos to New York and adding an additional team to Boston wouldn't hurt either.

Mike
Pistol - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST (#84587) #
Plans to level the revenues that each team get are good, and I'd prefer a system where every team was on the same basic footing.

However, the big issue with diverting revenues is that this impacts franchise values. If the Yankees were forced to share 50% of their revenues the value of the franchise would decrease.

Conversely, if a team like the Pirates received a big boost in revenues the value of that franchise would go up.
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 12:59 PM EST (#84588) #
The salary cap and worldwide draft is the simplest way to promote competitive balance. Contrary to popular belief, a salary cap wouldn't hurt the players, if it were tied to a fixed percentage of overall MLB revenue (subject to independent audit). In exchange, the owners could agree to earlier free-agency (with payroll limits, earlier free-agency becomes largely irrelevant with respect to competitive balance), which gives the players more input on which team they will play for. Revenue-sharing would become an internal matter - a question of taxing the big market clubs at an appropriate level for the privelege of having large, protected markets.

If the payroll to revenue ratio drops below a certain negotiated threshold, the money goes directly to the players' pension fund. The likely result would be that the superstars would likely earn a bit less and that money would go towards pensions. The owners wouldn't benefit at the expense of the players.

The goal is to create greater competitive balance and fairness (i.e. organisation smarts should have a greater influence on outcome than money) in the most sensible way.
_Cristian - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 02:20 PM EST (#84589) #
I don't believe that equalizing payroll is necessarily fair. The Yankees payroll might be 4 times the Jays payroll but for every diehard Jays fan there are 15-20 Yankees fans who live and die with every move Steinbrenner makes. Any time someone clamours for revenue sharing they are arguing that they value each small-market fan moreso than a large market fan. Competitive balance may be good for many reasons but it is not a fair system.
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 02:35 PM EST (#84590) #
No. I don't believe the satisfaction experienced by a Yankees fan is equal when his club wins by spending 2.5 times the median as compared to winning when spending 1.7 times the median.

If the Yankees had such a spending limit, they would still win a lot of the time, and their fans' satisfaction would be much much greater.

The lesser payroll inequality is, the greater is the happiness of all fans - even Yankees fans.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 02:55 PM EST (#84591) #
http://economics.about.com
Robert,

I'm probably missing some subtle nuance (it's a Monday), but how can you reconcile your argument against wealth/revenue sharing:

It's very difficult to determine how much money each team generates/has, as some teams are owned by media conglomerates.

and your argument for a salary cap:

Contrary to popular belief, a salary cap wouldn't hurt the players, if it were tied to a fixed percentage of overall MLB revenue (subject to independent audit).

----

I don't see how a salary cap doesn't hurt the player's union, but perhaps I'm too blinded by how things are to see how things could be.

Suppose I'm an economist with the player's union and you're trying to convince me that a salary cap will at worst be neutral for our union. Right now the average team spends around $71 million in salaries.

How do you construct a cap where?

1. If the cap was implemented prior to the 2003 season, that the average team will spend a minimum of $71 million dollars on salaries.

2. The teams that are spending nowhere near that amount now (Tampa, Milwaukee, etc.) can increase their spending without going broke.

3. The cap has a significantly different impact on competitive balance than a straight revenue sharing plan would have?

Mike
_Mick - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 03:10 PM EST (#84592) #
The lesser payroll inequality is, the greater is the happiness of all fans - even Yankees fans.

Robert, we Yankee fans don't feel happiness -- indeed, we are bereft of emotion of any kind except, of course, rightous indignation when the season ends incorrectly, as it did this year.

We are YankFans. You will be assimilated. Resistance if futile.
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 04:15 PM EST (#84593) #
Well Mick,

I'm sure you jest, but in any case ... several of the more thoughtful Yankees fans I encountered on Primer were a bit miffed that they no longer had any credible counter-argument when other fans claimed that the Yankees were buying championships. Because they also perceived that the Yankees were attempting to buy championships, it lessened the joy of the achievement.

Mike,

Any shortfall of 71 million would go into the pension fund or be distributed equally to all members of the union or combination thereof (or basically to whatever purpose the union wants).

Tampa and Milwaukee don't have to spend more money if they don't want to. However, with revenue sharing, these clubs are going to be receiving income from richer clubs and most likely pocketing it. I'm not against revenue sharing, but I think it should be an internal matter. If the clubs themselves choose to share a lot of revenue, then that will be good for competitive balance too, but salary cap and worldwide draft are sufficient to curb the excesses of imbalance.

The main practical problem with revenue sharing is determining the revenue generated by individual clubs. One team is bound to feel slighted in relation to another by the auditor, but if only TOTAL revenue counts, then no individual team is discriminated against.

The other thing is that we don't necessarily want to create a strong disincentive for teams to generate local revenues. Suppose the Cardinals do a great job of marketing the ballclub and manage to generate a lot of revenue that wouldn't be expected based on their market size. Revenue-sharing would penalize them for their effort, and shift this money to the likes of Milwaukee. But simply limiting payroll to something like 1.7 times median doesn't affect Saint Louis at all (unless they wish to blow all their cash on players, in which case it helps save them from themsleves financially) and it doesn't affect the incentive for Yankees to generate as much local revenue as they can.

Bottom line, there's a danger that large-scale revenue sharing will inhibit the growth of overall MLB revenue. There is no such danger with salary cap and worldwide draft.

BTW I used to be a big proponent of revenue-sharing based on market potential, but I think my recent proposal would be easier to implement.
Pepper Moffatt - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 04:32 PM EST (#84594) #
http://economics.about.com
That's really not a plan, per-se. What's the cap set at, how will it be set in the future, etc. I think the union would want some details before agreeing to something. :)

Any shortfall of 71 million would go into the pension fund or be distributed equally to all members of the union or combination thereof (or basically to whatever purpose the union wants).

So you set the cap at X million dollars and average team spending drops to 61 million. MLB now owes the MLBPA 300 million dollars. Where does that 300 million come from?

You may be onto something, but with so few details, it's really hard for me to tell.

One other thing. I'm quite confused by this:

The main practical problem with revenue sharing is determining the revenue generated by individual clubs. One team is bound to feel slighted in relation to another by the auditor, but if only TOTAL revenue counts, then no individual team is discriminated against.

How is the auditor going to calculate total revenue? Would he not have to calculate the revenue of the 30 clubs and add them together?

Mike
robertdudek - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 04:49 PM EST (#84595) #
Mike,

The details will be determined in collective bargaining: X percent of total revenue for the life of the agreement. The method of auditing will also be agreed upon in collective bargaining.

"So you set the cap at X million dollars and average team spending drops to 61 million. MLB now owes the MLBPA 300 million dollars. Where does that 300 million come from?"

From revenue. In this scenario, either every team chips in 10 million each (i.e it comes from shared funds such as merchandising or national TV contract or directly from the pockets of owners) or it's determined according to a percentage formula based on market size.

"How is the auditor going to calculate total revenue? Would he not have to calculate the revenue of the 30 clubs and add them together?"

Yes. But no individual club is going to be worried too much if they think the auditor screwed up by underestimating the Cubs' revenue and overestimating someone else's. Since every team pays based on total revenue no team feels hard done by in relation to another team. There is potential for the owners as a group or the players as a group to feel hard done by, which is why it is crucial for the two sides to agree on auditing procedure (or else allow an arbitrator to define such a procedure) beforehand (i.e during CBA negotiations).

Suppose the agreement calls for total payroll equal to 55% of total revenue. Suppose total salary paid out reaches only 50%. This means that the clubs, collectively, have that missing 5% in their pockets. All that has to happen is for this money to be transferred to the players. In this arrangement, MLB and the players become partners that have agreed on how to divvy up the pie. The consumers win because competetive balance is safeguarded by the salary cap.
_peteski - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 06:19 PM EST (#84596) #
"I don't believe that equalizing payroll is necessarily fair. The Yankees payroll might be 4 times the Jays payroll but for every diehard Jays fan there are 15-20 Yankees fans who live and die with every move Steinbrenner makes. Any time someone clamours for revenue sharing they are arguing that they value each small-market fan moreso than a large market fan. Competitive balance may be good for many reasons but it is not a fair system."

This is nonsense. Competitive balance is a fair system for the teams, and that's what counts. Who cares if there are more Yankees fans than Jays fans? Just because there are more Yankees fans than Jays fans doesn't mean that they deserve to have a better chance of winning. That's the equivalent of saying that because there are more Americans that every American should get a 10 meter headstart in the 100 meter sprint in the Olympics. Otherwise they'd be valuing the smaller countries fans more than the American fans.
_okbluejays - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 07:04 PM EST (#84597) #
Peteski made a comment earlier about Ruth being the only baseball player being sold. I'll weigh in on this one...

In the 1976 the owner of the Oakland A's, Charles O. Finley, tried to sell some of his players to other teams. He reached an agreement to sell Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers to the Boston Red Sox for 2 million dollars, and Vida Blue to the New York Yankees for 1.5 million dollars. The commissioner of baseball, Bowie Kuhn, disallowed the sale using his "best interests of baseball" powers. Finley then sued MLB. Finley argued that MLB's antitrust exemption did not extend beyond the reserve system. If he was right, baseball's antitrust exemption (which gives the commissioner the power to do such things as block player sales) would have been reduced in scope and the sales could not have been stopped. The court sided with the commissioner of baseball (and 3 prior US Supreme Court decisions) and held that baseball's antitrust exemption applied to "the business of baseball". As a result, the proposed sales could be blocked.

In the case, the commissioner acknowledged that other sales had been allowed to take place in the past. Kuhn stated that the size of these sales (remember, this is 30 years ago) was too large. I think there is a rule now which limits the amount of money a team can receive in a deal (something like a million dollars). Teams get around that today by dealing off bad salaries in deals (see: Craig Counsell).
Gitz - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 07:13 PM EST (#84598) #
As a Recovering Yankees Fan, I can echo Robert Dudek's comments. I became disgusted with the Yankees not because 2001 was their last championship but because they truly had started buying championships, or at least tried to, which, to a large degree, they had not done when the franchise emerged from their 1980s/early 1990s hangover. My favorite Yankees team was the 1994 bunch, which featured a somewhat non-descript rotation, Bob Wickman as co-closer (though the presence of Steve Howe irked me a bit), a reborn Paul O'Neill, a fading but tenacious Don Mattingly, and several other non-superstars. (This was Wade Boggs's first year in the Bronx, and Danny Tartabull was still around, both of which was also a bit vexing, but the balance of players, like Randy Velarde, Mike Stanley, and pre-cocky-jerk-ass Jim Leyritz, were not superstars.) Having endured the Steve Kemp years, I was more than a tad ticked the players went on strike. Expos fans had plenty to moan about, too, of course.

I maintain that it's best not for other teams to complain about the Yankees' large advantage in payroll, but those complaints sound less querolous and more justified today then they did, say, four years ago, when the core Yankees were home grown, and where their depth, while impressive, was not the absurdity it is now.
_peteski - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 07:46 PM EST (#84599) #
"I don't see how a salary cap doesn't hurt the player's union, but perhaps I'm too blinded by how things are to see how things could be."

The current collective bargaining agreement in basketball, has some form of salary cap I think. I'm not sure of the exact nature of it as it appears to involve a luxury tax. Anyway since this cap/tax was instituted, the minimum salary has increased and the average salary has increased. The only downside for the players is that the very top tier of players now have to scrape by on $12-$15 mil a season instead of possibly making more.

I also think that you could make the argument that a cap along with revenue sharing, would help the league to make more total revenue which then would allow for increases in the cap and average salaries. If a cap and revenue sharing would get the desired results of competitive balance, then it is likely that people in cities alienated by losing season after losing season would become fans again, increasing revenues that have long been lost in those markets. If the cap level were tied to revenue then it would mean that it would be beneficial for players to increase the revenue of the game, and I think competitive balance could very well increase the revenue of the game. Therefore, I could see how it might be beneficial for the players to accept a cap.
_gid - Monday, December 01 2003 @ 09:10 PM EST (#84600) #
The workers - the ballplayers - are alienated from their product because rich owners take the bulk of the profit

If you informally calculate profit for individuals as income minus legitimate cost-of-living expenses, then players are coming away with aggregate pre-tax profit in the rough neighborhood of $1.5B/year. This is gross payroll of about $2B minus say $100,000 per player for reasonable baseline living expenses, then minus some cut (say 15%) for agent fees, MLBPA fees, etc. The remaining money (after tax) is free to be invested, spent, etc. In other words, it's profit. I don't know what the aggregate profit of the owners is (does anybody?), but it's certainly not inevitable that it would exceed $1.5B/year, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot lower.

Of course, in the bad old days before free agency, the players made a lot less, and the owners quite possibly made a lot more.
Craig B - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 08:56 AM EST (#84601) #
Incidentally, Robert's plan is exactly what the NBA has for its salary floor and cap (and also its complex salary escrow system and so forth), which is calculated within a window determined by percentages of league-wide "BRI" (Basketball-Related Income).

The system had lessened union-management strife somewhat, but it's hard for even the most diehard NBA fan to say it's worked well. And no, it hasn't done much (actually, it hasn't done anything) for competitive balance. For the average fan, it's been a total disaster.

Who cares if there are more Yankees fans than Jays fans? Just because there are more Yankees fans than Jays fans doesn't mean that they deserve to have a better chance of winning.

Yes it does. It absolutely does. I know that's not the popular view, but that's what is best for baseball and that's what is best for the fans as a whole. If Team X has 15-20 times more fans than Team Y, then absolutely Team X should win 15-20 times more often.

No one would want to design a system that guarantees such an outcome. But if such an outcome occurs naturally, that's not a reason (in my book) to militate against it.
robertdudek - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 09:42 AM EST (#84602) #
Craig,

I believe the NBA cap has a lot of exemptions tied to it. I don't know exactly how it's determined, but the cap I propose would still allow the big spending clubs to spend 1.7 times the previous year's median, and that cap would be hard. A team exceeding it would not only be taxed at something like 100% and they would not be allowed to sign any free agents (for example). The NBA has a soft cap, with lots of loopholes. As an illustration of just how toothless the NBA cap is, the official cap in 2001-02 was 42.5 million dollars and yet, 27 out fo 29 teams exceeded that cap. When the median payroll EXCEEDS the cap by 25%, I call that nonsense.

Comparing the NBA to MLB as far a competitive balance is concerned is completely misguided. In the NBA, if you have 3 really good players, you are virtually guaranteed 50 plus wins. In MLB, you need 10 to 12 quality players to be a serious contender. It's a fallacy to assume that whatever misery the NBA experiences (and I think the league is just fine) is a result of the cap, and even if we grant that assumption, one ought not to imply that a different cap in a different sport would have similar negative effects. For example, they have very different free-agency rules in the NBA, and this could be a more important factor than a salary cap.

If Team X has 15-20 times more fans than Team Y, then absolutely Team X should win 15-20 times more often.

I count Craig among my friends, but I can't begin to express how wrongheaded I think this is. There's a law of diminishing returns for success. The more your team wins, the less is your hunger for success. It's got to the point where a league championship for the Yankees is viewed as a disappointment, whereas almost every non-Yankees fan would be dancing in the street if their team won a league title (I know I would if the Blue Jays won one in 2004). Despite the bitter disappointment in the playoffs, I bet that most Cubs fans were satisfied with their team's season this year.

An equitable distribution of pennants (I'm not saying equal) maximizes the happiness and minimizes the despair of fans as a whole. Fans that despair for too long often become ex-fans. It's simply not a good idea when a half-dozen teams have decade-long stretches of sub-.500 seasons with no end in sight for some them. It is especially bad when those teams happen to occupy some of the weaker markets in baseball: it puts those vulnerable teams at particular risk. That is the corollary of having a handful of teams that are entrenched at or near the top of the league.

There is simply no escaping the collective nature of the MLB enterprise. They would be well advised (players and owners) to adapt the motto of The Three Muskateers.
Leigh - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 10:21 AM EST (#84603) #
There is simply no escaping the collective nature of the MLB enterprise. They would be well advised (players and owners) to adapt the motto of The Three Muskateers.

I agree, Robert.

Craig, a friend of mine who attends school with me out here on the east coast is constantly raving about how PEI is no bigger than his home town of St. Catharines, but yet it gets a few (I am not exactly sure how many) members of Parliament, it gets a vote on constitutional amendments, etc. If it were purely representation by population (as Craig suggests is the most desirable distribution of competitiveness in baseball), PEI would have something like .05 members of Parliament. Islanders would feel even more alienated and helpless... kind of like Brewers fans.
_Mick - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 10:24 AM EST (#84604) #
How about a Larry Bird Exception to the MLB "cap" in which such signings do not count against the luxury tax?
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 10:39 AM EST (#84605) #
http://economics.about.com
Craig, a friend of mine who attends school with me out here on the east coast is constantly raving about how PEI is no bigger than his home town of St. Catharines, but yet it gets a few (I am not exactly sure how many) members of Parliament, it gets a vote on constitutional amendments, etc. If it were purely representation by population (as Craig suggests is the most desirable distribution of competitiveness in baseball), PEI would have something like .05 members of Parliament. Islanders would feel even more alienated and helpless... kind of like Brewers fans.

I can't speak for Craig (well, I can, but he gets grumpy about it), but I'm completely against this sort of over-representation.

This kind of distribution of votes is nothing more than institutionalized racism, as the districts which have the fewest voters are disproportionately white (rural ridings, the east coast), whereas the ridings with the most voters are disproportionately non-white (urban Vancouver and Toronto). There are a few exceptions with small ridings having a disproportionately First Nations population, but the general effect holds: a vote from a white man is worth more than a vote from a black man.

Obviously it wasn't designed that way, but that's the impact it has.

Mike
Leigh - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 10:55 AM EST (#84606) #
Mike, is it your opinion that the largely aboriginal and inuit populations of Nunavut, NWT and the Yukon should also not have any voice in Parliament? Not everybody who isn't from T.O., Vancouver or Montreal is white. New Brunswick, in your view, is overrepresented, but yet has a very large acadian population. "overrepresentation", as you call it, is the only thing that gives people who don't live in Quebec, Ontario, BC or Alberta a voice on the national stage.

It is a tough call, I understand. On the one hand, a solid argument can be made that there is adverse effects discrimination in overrepresentation. On the other hand, removing overrepresentation would mean stripping the rights of suffrage from anybody from the Maritimes, Newfoundland & Labradour, the Territories, Nunavut, etc.

I am not sure how advocating a certain definition of competitive balance in baseball turned into a discussion about race relations, regional identity and suffrage rights... but wow.
Mike D - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 11:13 AM EST (#84607) #
Competitive balance isn't what it should be in the NBA? Look, it's not the Lakers' fault that Payton and Malone are forgoing millions to play with a winner this year.

San Antonio and Sacramento couldn't compete without a cap and revenue sharing. If TV revenue was hoarded by home markets, and there were no spending limits, don't you think the Knicks would have spent their way out of oblivion by now?

Plus, Robert's exactly right about the uniqueness of balance in basketball -- a very small but excellent nucleus can go a long way. It's not true in baseball, hockey or football...but it is true in basketball. And I like how the incentives are set up for the Duncans of the world to stay in places like San Antonio.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 11:23 AM EST (#84608) #
http://economics.about.com
Mike, is it your opinion that the largely aboriginal and inuit populations of Nunavut, NWT and the Yukon should also not have any voice in Parliament?

No.

Not everybody who isn't from T.O., Vancouver or Montreal is white. New Brunswick, in your view, is overrepresented, but yet has a very large acadian population. "overrepresentation", as you call it, is the only thing that gives people who don't live in Quebec, Ontario, BC or Alberta a voice on the national stage.

It's not my view. It's a fact that a vote of a black man is worth less than a vote of a white man. Just because a significant number of people in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are white does not change that fact. Just look at the demographics of Canada and the size of ridings, and the report of the 1987 House of Commons Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.

For instance, in the 1996 census, 0.28% of PEI citizens identified their ethnic origin as East and Southeast Asian and 0.03% identified their ethnic origin as African. In Ontario, those figures were 5.54% and 0.86% respectively.

On the other hand, removing overrepresentation would mean stripping the rights of suffrage from anybody from the Maritimes, Newfoundland & Labradour, the Territories, Nunavut, etc.

No, it wouldn't. A Maritimer would have the same suffrage rights as an Ontarian, a black man would have the same suffrage rights as a white man. What can be so bad about that. Or to turn your point around:

"On the other hand, keeping overrepresentation would mean stripping the rights of suffrage from anybody who is Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc."

I am not sure how advocating a certain definition of competitive balance in baseball turned into a discussion about race relations, regional identity and suffrage rights... but wow.

Hey, you brought it up. :)

Cheers,

Mike
Leigh - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 11:52 AM EST (#84609) #
I brought it up?

Anyway, it was never my position that PEI is ethnically diverse.

This is a cumbersome topic at best, and your points are certainly true. Institutionalised, or systemic, discrimination is a problem in Canada today. Being from New Brunswick - which, by virtue of a large Aboriginal population and a very large Acadian population, is diverse - I feel that with a true representation by population my province would be entirely ignored. I just feel that the Province of New Brunswick should have more pull than the Municipality of, say, Mississauga.
Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 12:29 PM EST (#84610) #
http://economics.about.com
I brought it up?

I meant that you brought up the PEI example. Some other rotter brought up the salary cap. :)

I just feel that the Province of New Brunswick should have more pull than the Municipality of, say, Mississauga.

It's certainly a defensible position, though it's one I don't agree with it. Just as long as you realize that if one group is overrepresented, then atleast one group has to be underrepresented. Unfortunately, one of those underrepresented groups will be non-First Nation ethnic minorities.

Cheers,

Mike
Leigh - Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 12:49 PM EST (#84611) #
Fair enough.
Trade Aftermath | 94 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.