A way to make MLB better without a salary cap?

[crackpott]

A friend of mine mentioned an idea that he read on another message board which I thought sounded kind of interesting.


Instead of the current setup of revenue sharing/luxury tax where owners can pocket the money and the Yankees still sign whoever they want, change the system so that revenue goes into a big pool. If a team loses a player (Say Mauer going to free agency...) the team that loses the player that they developed gets money from the pool to cover a percentage of that player's contract (For the example, I'll use 30%, but it could be whatever number would work.)


So Mauer, as a free agent, has the Yankees throw $20 million a year at him. The Twins could then offer $20 million a year as well, but 30% of that they're not responsible for, and comes out of the league funds. So out of the $20 million, they'd only be responsible for $14 million, a much more reasonable offer, and a way of keeping a player's original team competitive with the big budget teams.


Importantly, it shouldn't anger the union too much as the players will receive the same amount of money (If not more, as owners couldn't pocket that revenue any more), and it gives small market teams a shot to keep a player.


You may want to work out minor things like what happens if the player gets traded, but I think it's a pretty good idea.

[CommishJoe]

Interesting idea.

[Russ]

All this would do is make the Yankees pay 33% more than the Twins. If the Twins are willing to go to 20M of their own money, the Yankees would be more than willing to go to 30M to sign Mauer. The one limit the Yankees have, and IMO the most important one, is every team has a 25 man roster. They still have players like Jerry Hairston and Brett Gardner and Ramiro Pena on their team.

I'm an O's fan but come on. Time for teams to mount up.

[Russ]

Teams don't stink because the Yankees are good and rich. They stink because they're run poorly.

[Skipaway]

Unions would love it, since it would bid up salaries. So owners won't take it.

It would probably ensure other than the very rich teams, nobody can afford free agents.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Unions would love it, since it would bid up salaries. So owners won't take it.

It would probably ensure other than the very rich teams, nobody can afford free agents.

SO pretty much kind of like how it is currently.

[thomamon]

This makes no sense what so ever when you stop and think about it. Where does the money come from to help pay Mauer's contract if he stays with the Twins.

Another thing to note, its not that the Twins or other teams don't have the money to sign these players. They just choose to pocket the money and not use it to better their team. So if one teams goal is making as much money as possible and pocketing as much as they could and another team has a goal of winning and using every resource they can. They both accomplish their goal, however, the fans are the ones who get screwed.

[greendiver]

To me the problem occurs in part because teams have exclusive rights, ie a monopoly, over certain territories. In any other industry, a lucrative market would attract competitors. Put three or four teams in the NY market and much of the disparity would go away even with a free market for player salaries.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by greendiver

To me the problem occurs in part because teams have exclusive rights, ie a monopoly, over certain territories. In any other industry, a lucrative market would attract competitors. Put three or four teams in the NY market and much of the disparity would go away even with a free market for player salaries.

Look at what happened in 1957, in New York City. The Yankees, Giants, and Dodgers, all trying to get fans.

I believe that the Dodgers and Giants had a damned hard time drawing anywhere near a million peeps.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

SO pretty much kind of like how it is currently.

I think you are misinformed. Currently, pricey free agents go to small teams a lot.

Look at Kansas City signed Jose Guillen to $36m and Gil Meche to $55m. They wouldn't get to overpay 30% for them with the new system. What they get to do is to keep their own free agents.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Look at what happened in 1957, in New York City. The Yankees, Giants, and Dodgers, all trying to get fans.

I believe that the Dodgers and Giants had a damned hard time drawing anywhere near a million peeps.

Thanks for confirming that.

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you are misinformed. Currently, pricey free agents go to small teams a lot.

Look at Kansas City signed Jose Guillen to $36m and Gil Meche to $55m. They wouldn't get to overpay 30% for them with the new system. What they get to do is to keep their own free agents.

As you proved, they can keep them now. They just can't keep many of them. All that system will do is just cost the big boys a bit more, and the little folks will be right where they are now. To the original poster, it was a decent idea though.

[rocknfire7]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you are misinformed. Currently, pricey free agents go to small teams a lot.

Look at Kansas City signed Jose Guillen to $36m and Gil Meche to $55m. They wouldn't get to overpay 30% for them with the new system. What they get to do is to keep their own free agents.

Ohh NOO! Did you have to bring that up?

[rudel.dietrich]

Sounds sort of like the MLS setup.

And I fully agree that bad teams are bad because they are poor are player development and player selection and signing.

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by Russ

All this would do is make the Yankees pay 33% more than the Twins. If the Twins are willing to go to 20M of their own money, the Yankees would be more than willing to go to 30M to sign Mauer. The one limit the Yankees have, and IMO the most important one, is every team has a 25 man roster. They still have players like Jerry Hairston and Brett Gardner and Ramiro Pena on their team.

I'm an O's fan but come on. Time for teams to mount up.

And the Yankees paying 33% more than the Twins makes it so the Twins have a better shot at signing a player. As much as we like to believe it, the Yankees won't spend an infinite amount of money on a player. They will have their limits, otherwise every single free agent that they even bid on would end up in pinstripes. It's just their limits are substantially higher than other teams. I believe this would fix that.

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Unions would love it, since it would bid up salaries. So owners won't take it.

It would probably ensure other than the very rich teams, nobody can afford free agents.

It can't bid up salaries THAT much. A team's budget will still be the same. The amount they can spend on players will still be the same. In the examples below of Meche and Guillen... the same damn thing would happen. If the Yankees didn't sign them under the current system, why would it be any different under the proposed system? The only difference is the team that developed the player has a chance to sign them cheaper. I don't see how it would ensure that only the very rich teams sign free agents.

Originally Posted by thomamon

This makes no sense what so ever when you stop and think about it. Where does the money come from to help pay Mauer's contract if he stays with the Twins.

Another thing to note, its not that the Twins or other teams don't have the money to sign these players. They just choose to pocket the money and not use it to better their team. So if one teams goal is making as much money as possible and pocketing as much as they could and another team has a goal of winning and using every resource they can. They both accomplish their goal, however, the fans are the ones who get screwed.

The money comes from the luxury tax and revenue sharing agreements. Instead of that money just being spread amongst all teams, the pool is there to resign your own players meaning owners wouldn't see a penny of it unless they... you know... spent it.

And your second paragraph is exactly the problem I'm trying to correct. Currently, teams like the Pirates just pocket the money they receive from the rest of the league. They don't have to make the team better. Under the proposed system, the only way they GET that money is if they try to make their team better and keep the players they've developed.

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you are misinformed. Currently, pricey free agents go to small teams a lot.

Look at Kansas City signed Jose Guillen to $36m and Gil Meche to $55m. They wouldn't get to overpay 30% for them with the new system. What they get to do is to keep their own free agents.

They don't need to overpay 30%. Prices will not escalate by that amount. The overall league salary would go up by roughly the amount the certain small owners "pocket" from revenue sharing, which I'm guessing works out to 5% at most. In the proposed situation, Meche's $55 million deal could be offered by the Mariners, and instead of paying $55 million (though that's what Meche himself would collect), they would only have to pay $38.5M of their own money to make the same offer. Guillen's contract wouldn't be any different at all given he wasn't finishing his rookie contract with the team he came up with.

[norva13x]

Contract the Yankees and maybe Red Sox. There, problem solved!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Look at what happened in 1957, in New York City. The Yankees, Giants, and Dodgers, all trying to get fans.

I believe that the Dodgers and Giants had a damned hard time drawing anywhere near a million peeps.

Your belief is incorrect, at least in regards to the Dodgers.

The actual 1957 attendance:

Brooklyn: total, 1,028,258; per game average, 13,354; .545 winning percentage
New York Giants: total, 653,923; per game average, 8,493; .448 winning percentage
New York Yankees: total, 1,497,134; per game average, 19,443; .636 winning percentage
MLB team average: total, 1,063,489; per game average, 13,778

If you look at the immeidate post-war period, 1946-57, then the yearly average for those twelve seasons work out to the following:

Brooklyn: 16,472 per game average; .608 winning percentage
New York Giants: 13,634 per game average; .514 winning percentage
New York Yankees: 24,008 per game average; .628 winning percentage
MLB average: 14,011 per game average

The presence of a second team in a city often resulted in a combined city attendance above what was typical for a single-team city. In other words, the presence of a second team caused a general increase in interest in the sport and did not cause each club to split an already existing fan base.

[Skipaway]

A team's budget will NOT be the same. If you have money allocated to you that you can ONLY use through giving your own players contract extentions, it will go to contract extentions. I don't even know how teams can come up with excuses not to keep their players anymore.

And when that happens, you are basically making sure all players will either stay with the teams they have been with, or they go to very very rich teams that can overcome the 30% gap.

So the end result is more money allocated to player contracts, boosting overall payroll. Teams get to keep their own players, but very hard to improve through free agency unless you are very rich.

I fail to see how that's a better system.

[crackpott]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

A team's budget will NOT be the same. If you have money allocated to you that you can ONLY use through giving your own players contract extentions, it will go to contract extentions. I don't even know how teams can come up with excuses not to keep their players anymore.

And when that happens, you are basically making sure all players will either stay with the teams they have been with, or they go to very very rich teams that can overcome the 30% gap.

So the end result is more money allocated to player contracts, boosting overall payroll. Teams get to keep their own players, but very hard to improve through free agency unless you are very rich.

I fail to see how that's a better system.

Quite simply because teams get to keep their own players. Under the current system, half the league won't even get to keep their own players, they're just a farm system for the rich teams once free agency rolls around.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by crackpott

Under the current system, half the league won't even get to keep their own players...

They do get to keep their own players, just not for as long as some might like.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by rocknfire7

Ohh NOO! Did you have to bring that up?

Well, although I hated it at the time I have to admit Meche had a good first year if I remember (or at least started out real good).

Still have no idea what they were thinking with Guillen.

But, I have gotten used to KC being run by the local village idiots. (I am betting now that my other team the Blue Jays now that they have finally gotten rid of Ricciardi, the Royals front office will trip over each other to bring him in)