http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1953986

I believe the only way to make MLB competitive is to share revenue in some way or another. Because so much revenue comes from TV contracts that are team specific, the big market teams (Yankees, Dodgers, Cubs, Angels, Mets, etc...) are ALWAYS going to have more money to spend on talent, and therefore ususally going to be competing for championships. As opposed to the smaller market teams like Tampa, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh who, as things are today, will NEVER have enough money to be anything more than a glorified farm team for the big boys.

This year, the Yankees are paying about $85 Million to MLB for straight revenue sharing and salary taxes. Next year it should be much more. Somehow, I don't think this really bothers them though. They are obviously making enough money to have the largest salary by about 40% over the next highest salary plus pay another $25 Million in salary taxes to the league. I don't think this is working.

How would you solve this? Raise the tax rate? Increase straight revenue sharing? Centralize TV contracts like the NFL does? How do you make it fair?

--PunkDavid

How is MLB not competitive?

You get the same teams in the playoffs every year. It's competitive within the top dozen teams in the league, but certainly not top to bottom, and there is no upward or downward mobility of the teams based on anything but salary expenditure.

Let's put it this way. You'd have to REALLY mismanage the Yankees for them to not be fighting for a playoff spot in September, and if Babe Ruth came back from the dead and played for the Kansas City Royals, the Royals would be barely .500, and they'd lose Ruth to free agency the following year.

--PunkDavid

that isn't true at all. The Padres were in the 98 series. The Mets were in the series in 00. The Marlins in 97 and 03. The Angels in 03. The Dodgers hadn't made the playoffs since like 1988 until last year. The Astros won their first ever playoff series last year. The Cubs have been in a couple of times recently but not before that. Every team in the NL West has won the division in the last ten years, or at least made the playoffs. Not sure if the Rockies were the Wild Card or Division champs.

Three teams in the Central have been in the playoffs the past two years. Three in the East have been in the playoffs since 2000, and you can hardly argue Philly is a small market.

In the AL: Seattle, Oakland and Anaheim have all won division titles in the 21st century. Texas was close last year. In the central Minnesota has dominated in the recent past because of excellent management of one your dreaded small market teams. Cleveland dominated before that, and Chicago won a title in the middle. In the east New York has dominated for the history of Major League Baseball save about a twenty year period. Boston has just now become a major power year in year out. Baltimore throws money around like there's no tomorrow, and they have been competitive in the not so distant past, and Toronto is improving after two World Championships in the 90s.

So, again, how is baseball not competitive?

Actually David once you pass the threshold once your tax raises each time you cross it again, at least that's my understanding. In 2003 the MFY's paid 22.5% against their payroll. In 2004 it was 30% and if they go past it again in 2005, which they undoubtedly will do, they will pay an extra 40%. When your payroll is already in the neighborhood of of $200 million, that's quite a hit, even for Uncle George. They're paying something like $85 million I think, that's more than the payroll than about 2/3 of the other MLB teams. Ay Carumba.

OK, so you're ready to concede that the Yankees not only buy the best players, but also have the best management in the game as well? Eh, maybe the Twins have the best management since they have been consistent for a few years doing the most with the least. I'm not saying that you're not going to have a few Baltimores and Minnesotas in the mix, but especially in the last ten years, there have been some teams that have a chance every year, and some that have no chance. The ones with decent upper management (Yankees, Braves, Red Sox) have been able to sustain at a slightly higher level than those with money and lesser minds (Cubs, Dodgers, Mets) but those teams still almost always end up in the top half even if they don't make the playoffs. Even with the wildcard, we're still only talking about 8 of 30 teams each year.

But still, it's nothing like the parity in the NFL, which is the way it is because Pete Roselle set up the TV deal with help from Krushchev in the early 60's.

Hell, I'm a Yankee fan. If y'all want to see the Yankees in teh playoffs every year for the next decade as well, it's fine with me, but I don't think it's good for the game.

--PunkDavid

There isn't much difference between it and the NFL. The main difference is the NFL has more divisions and more playoff spots. Look at the past few years' standings. In 2004 baseball had three of its six divisions carry over winners. This year the NFL will have at least four of its eight carry over. Since 2000 every division in MLB except the two eastern divisions have had three different champions. The Cubs and Twins were both last place teams in 2000. Boston has made the playoffs two out of the last five seasons while both Oakland and Minnesota have made it three times. In the last five years there have been five different World Series Champions and eight teams have played in the Series. Eight different teams in five years, yet baseball still isn't competitive?

Salary caps and revenue sharing are wrong, wrong, wrong.

What I feel baseball (and all major pro sports) need is a salary minimum, not a cap. Sure let the Yanks spend $200 million, but if the owner of the Devil Rays cannot make a commitment to spending more than 1/8 of that amount on his team...why is he bothering? It's a piss poor way to franchise a sport, you end up with teams like Oakland sending away 2 Cy Young candidates because the owner is a cheap ass that is only owning a team to make a profit when he sells it eventually. It's bullshit.
Spending the most doesn't make you win, spending the least does guarantee you won't, and that you'll never have continuity for your fans.

You're right in theory.

However the amount of individuals and organisations with the desire and ability to own a big league ball club is going to diminish dramatically.

Part of the problem is that clubs have no obligation to spend revenue sharing income on payroll (I read an article from around 01-02 that called this the "Montreal Business Plan"). There needs to be contractual obligation to passing this income onto the players.

I still think a salary cap is the way to go, however the problem will be setting the cap ceiling. Steinbrenner and co. have set a dangerous precendent by spending so much on players, and the low-end clubs haven't even been trying to keep up - the disparity is so large that no matter where you set the cap people are going to be pissed off.

Correct me if I am wroing but I believe Steinbrenner was the ONLY owner to vote against the current system when it was put into play. Every other owner voted to have the setup the way it is now.

I'd institute a salary cap and revenue sharing IE the NFL.

I'd say a salary cap much like the NBA's. You really can't go wrong with it for as long as the deal is in place

But there is no huge TV contract for baseball like there is for football.

yeah, that's true.

I really don't have much of a problem with the way it's done now, I just like how competitive the NFL has become and I think some of it comes from having that salary cap.

So, the number of owners actually committed to having a good product will go down? Fine with me. I don't want a shithead baseball owner any more than I want a shithead store owner who only has 1 kind of bread, cause it's cheaper that way.

Ding!
If we're going to have this system, then yes.

I disagree with salary caps because they don't work. In football, you can still have huge signing bonuses that attract players from other teams, etc. You have almost no trades in football due to the cap, you have few in basketball for the same reason. No salary cap allows mobility, but a minimum allows for competition.

does anyone care that the entire premise for this stupid, communist idea is wrong?

Even if it means that only 10 individuals/organisations willing to own a club? Rather than 29?