Wrigley
Footballguy
Huh?Am I missing something?That is the point. If they want to put out a crappy product that is fine, but they should get any funds. The purpose of revenue sharing is to give the teams that can't get as much "other" revenue, some money to spend on their team...not line their pockets. I am in favor of a salary cap anyway, but teams like the Yankees lose money, but the value of their franchise goes up so much that they really aren't losing money (plus they get other income)why do they need to share in revenue if they aren't going to spend that revenue on players? why should other teams offer profit subsidies for the Fish?No, the real problem is that not all teams have access to the same revenue streams, which creates competitive imbalance. When one team has $300 million in revenue and another has $150 million, there's a built-in flaw there, not that it'll ever get fixed.Without a salary cap, a salary floor makes no sense at all.The real problem with the economic model of MLB. If any team has a payroll that isn't $10 million higher then what they receive in revenue sharing and luxury tax subsidies - at least - they should be punished severly by baseball.
Sure, the Marlins should be spending more, but if they're gutting their team to make another run with guys who they can control for a long time, there's nothing wrong with that. And the money they don't spend now will be available when it can actually make a difference. In 2 or 3 years, they may have another strong roster of guys who they control the rights to for a short window of opportunity.Having a salary floor is dumb. I can't imagine requiring the Marlins to have to spend an additional 20-30MM this year especially with the mediocre talent that is available. Everyone has there model of how to run a franchise. Not every market can support a team with a 150MM payroll. Some teams have to be more shrewd about things.