Yanks to Brew crew (1 Viewer)

[Wrigley]

link

"I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers," Levine told ESPNNewYork.com in a phone interview Tuesday morning. "We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players.

Huh, this can't be right

 

[Doctor Detroit]

link

"I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers," Levine told ESPNNewYork.com in a phone interview Tuesday morning. "We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players.

Huh, this can't be right

Well it's not far off.

In the initial seven years of the luxury tax, the Yankees have paid teams nearly $175 million in revenue sharing, according to the BizofBaseball.com. That is 92 percent of the total revenue sharing that has been doled out.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

And I completely agree with Levine. If baseball management and ownership doesn't like the Yankees throwing 200 million dollars at their payroll, then cap the ####### thing like the other three major sports already have. Under this agreement the Yankees throw a lot of money back into the pool based on prior agreements so if they want to spend 200 million, God bless them. I'd do the same thing if I ran that franchise.

 

[Buffaloes]

whoa, that's an impressive head of hair

 

[strykerpks]

link

"I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers," Levine told ESPNNewYork.com in a phone interview Tuesday morning. "We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players.

Huh, this can't be right

Well it's not far off.

In the initial seven years of the luxury tax, the Yankees have paid teams nearly $175 million in revenue sharing, according to the BizofBaseball.com. That is 92 percent of the total revenue sharing that has been doled out.

LINK

As I've written in the past when addresing the Brewers' budget, they are believed to have received about $30 million in revenue sharing last year. Their payroll this year is $85.33 million, the largest in team history and up $5 million from a year ago.

It's whining on both parts. Attanasio has a point but so does Levine

 

[Wrigley]

link

"I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers," Levine told ESPNNewYork.com in a phone interview Tuesday morning. "We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players.

Huh, this can't be right

Well it's not far off.

In the initial seven years of the luxury tax, the Yankees have paid teams nearly $175 million in revenue sharing, according to the BizofBaseball.com. That is 92 percent of the total revenue sharing that has been doled out.

Doesn't seem to slow them down either.

 

[Homer @ RJ]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

 

[ceo3west]

Baseball should have a salary cap, period. The competitive imbalance is a joke. Bud Selig is the worst thing that ever happened to baseball.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

Yankees have been playing the same game for 100 years (spend more money than the other guy). How are they killing it now?

 

[shadyridr]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

The system sucks but blaming the Yanks for using their competitive advantage is lunacy

 

[Eephus]

Baseball should have a salary cap, period. The competitive imbalance is a joke. Bud Selig is the worst thing that ever happened to baseball.

Bud Selig can be blamed for a lot of ills but he has been an advocate for small market teams.

 

[Homer @ RJ]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

The system sucks but blaming the Yanks for using their competitive advantage is lunacy

Who should we blame? Along with the union, they are the biggest party to blame. They'll never give in to a cap idea.

 

[dparker713]

Baseball should have a salary cap, period. The competitive imbalance is a joke. Bud Selig is the worst thing that ever happened to baseball.

The only place where there's a real competitive imbalance is the AL East. You have 1 rich and smart franchise, and 1 super rich and smart franchise. But neither of them would be dominating if they werent smart. See, for instance, the New York Mets. A team that consistently has a top 3 payroll and sucks donkey balls. God, I hate Omar, Jerry and the Wilpons.

 

[Michael Brown]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

The system sucks but blaming the Yanks for using their competitive advantage is lunacy

Who should we blame? Along with the union, they are the biggest party to blame. They'll never give in to a cap idea.

Neither will the small-market teams, because then they'd actually have to field a competitive team in order to make money rather than pocketing the revenue sharing money. The only teams I imagine would want a cap are those spending right around the $100 million mark. Too rich/good to collect revenue sharing money, but not rich enough to compete with the big 3 of NYM/BOS/NYY for the very top free agents.

 

[Wrigley]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

The system sucks but blaming the Yanks for using their competitive advantage is lunacy

Who should we blame? Along with the union, they are the biggest party to blame. They'll never give in to a cap idea.

Neither will the small-market teams, because then they'd actually have to field a competitive team in order to make money rather than pocketing the revenue sharing money. The only teams I imagine would want a cap are those spending right around the $100 million mark. Too rich/good to collect revenue sharing money, but not rich enough to compete with the big 3 of NYM/BOS/NYY for the very top free agents.

are you ####### kidding me?A salary cap is the only way to make small market teams competitive!!!!! How else can the compete?

We have no idea how small market teams would respond to a cap........they have never had a chance.

 

[Michael Brown]

Even if they took all that 30 million and applied it, their payroll would still be at about $110, or around half of what the Yanks usually roll with.

The Yankees are killing a great sport, at least for me, but nothing will ever change. No point in complaining. Watch or don't watch.

The system sucks but blaming the Yanks for using their competitive advantage is lunacy

Who should we blame? Along with the union, they are the biggest party to blame. They'll never give in to a cap idea.

Neither will the small-market teams, because then they'd actually have to field a competitive team in order to make money rather than pocketing the revenue sharing money. The only teams I imagine would want a cap are those spending right around the $100 million mark. Too rich/good to collect revenue sharing money, but not rich enough to compete with the big 3 of NYM/BOS/NYY for the very top free agents.

are you ####### kidding me?A salary cap is the only way to make small market teams competitive!!!!! How else can the compete?

We have no idea how small market teams would respond to a cap........they have never had a chance.

First off, calm down.I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.

I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

 

[Eephus]

This is a great topic for the off-season but it's kind of odd coming on day 3 of the season.

Play ball

 

[Tony Jabroni]

"If you had access to the records, you would see that this organization spends its revenue-sharing dollars."

The Major League Baseball Players Association reportedly agrees. New union chief Michael Weiner held up Attanasio during Spring Training as an example of an owner who spends his resources properly.

"I think he has done a superb job," Weiner told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "The Brewers, from both a competitive standpoint and business standpoint, have really thrived under Mr. Attanasio."

The Brewers' payroll is something in the neighborhood of $82-85 million, depending on how you calculate it. The team's own internal accounting, which includes so-called "likely incentives" in player contracts and about $2 million budgeted for in-season callups, has the figure in the neighborhood of $92 million.

 

[Wrigley]

First off, calm down.I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

Sorry about that, 1/2 price margarita night got the better of me.Doesn't winning breed revenue?

 

[pollardsvision]

First off, calm down.

I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.

I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

Sorry about that, 1/2 price margarita night got the better of me.

Doesn't winning breed revenue?

Over the long-term? Sure. In the short-term, losing might be a more effective way to generate profit though. Winning can be good for revenue, but (unless you're the Mets) generally winning costs more than losing.

There was what, a half a billion dollars in MLB welfare handed out last season?

 

[Lehigh98]

Baseball should have a salary cap, period. The competitive imbalance is a joke. Bud Selig is the worst thing that ever happened to baseball.

I've been in favor of cap before too but this has got me thinking. What is the bigger issue, teams spending alot and being too good or teams spending very little and being too bad? Would you also create a salary floor along with the salary cap? Where would you place the floor and how would you make up the gap for the currently low spending teams in lower revenue markets?

 

[shadyridr]

Baseball should have a salary cap, period. The competitive imbalance is a joke. Bud Selig is the worst thing that ever happened to baseball.

I've been in favor of cap before too but this has got me thinking. What is the bigger issue, teams spending alot and being too good or teams spending very little and being too bad? Would you also create a salary floor along with the salary cap? Where would you place the floor and how would you make up the gap for the currently low spending teams in lower revenue markets?

You would have to

 

[Limp Ditka]

First off, calm down.I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

Sorry about that, 1/2 price margarita night got the better of me.Doesn't winning breed revenue?

Losing doesn't seem to be too bad at doing it eitherTribune Co purchased the Cubs in 1981 for $20.5M and they just sold for what, $900M?

 

[Limp Ditka]

First off, calm down.I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

Sorry about that, 1/2 price margarita night got the better of me.Doesn't winning breed revenue?

Losing doesn't seem to be too bad at doing it eitherTribune Co purchased the Cubs in 1981 for $20.5M and they just sold for what, $900M?

 

[Wrigley]

First off, calm down.I'm not talking about being competitive...I'm talking about making money. The small market teams don't want a cap. Sure, the GM and the manager and the players and the fans want to compete. But if you think the owners of the Royals, Rays, A's are in this game to boast about how many wins their team had, you are seriously delusional. They are there to turn a profit, and the way things are structured right now they are able to do so quite easily. They lose, they get revenue sharing money, they profit.I realize that a cap would make things competitive. But a cap would also mean the end of revenue sharing. So the small market teams would win just as much as the big boys would, but wouldn't make anywhere near as much money and they'd be forced to have shrewd front offices and reinvest profits into their teams. What owner wouldn't rather just sit back and collect a check?

Sorry about that, 1/2 price margarita night got the better of me.Doesn't winning breed revenue?

Losing doesn't seem to be too bad at doing it eitherTribune Co purchased the Cubs in 1981 for $20.5M and they just sold for what, $900M?

I know you're busting my ballsBut the White Sox are a pretty good example of what winning can do. Before the Sox won the WS, their attendance figures were well below the AL average. Since then, they have exceeded the AL average

 

[eoMMan]

I agree with the hatred of the Yankees. They do indeed play by the rules, but that doesn't make me hate them any less. It's not fair to smaller market teams and that's why I always smile when a team like the Rays wins games against them.

Also, I feel like it's a domino effect that will only end with a cap. Think about it. Fans all across the US are frontrunners. You have people in Texas that never stepped foot in NY and are rootting for the Yankees. Why? Because they are winners. Because of these frontrunners, the Yankees will always make more money in merchandise, viewers watching their games, etc. This leads to additional revenue for them to keep buying better players and it goes on and on.

The system needs fixing....for sure.

 

[Homer @ RJ]

Frank Deford gets it

Because baseball begins as life afield is renewed, tra-la, you can always count on two things this time of year. One: In trees, the sap is rising. Two: in baseball, the sappiness is rising. Yes: As sure as the flowers are a-bloomin' again, every team has a chance. Well, that's true in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL, but baseball is more like Dancing With The Stars. It's understood from the start that some competitors just don't have a prayer.

We kinda, sorta suspected that Tom DeLay and Jerry Springer didn't have a legitimate chance at winning the coveted disco ball trophy against beautiful, young and agile dancers. And as long as there is no salary cap to equalize things, the Yankees and a few other rich teams are going to buy championships, while the little old mid-major cities really can't compete.

Come on, let's admit it. Baseball is the national pastime only if hedge funds are the national livelihood. If one needs proof, a British survey just revealed that the Yankees pay their players, on average, more than any other team in the world. Even more significant: The Bronx Bombers are the only MLB team in the top dozen. Baseball law really does allow the Yankees to be in a league of their own.

There are 26 divisions in the four major team sports and, in 25 of them, the American dream lives. Then there is the American League East, where the Yankees reside along with their moneybag runner-up, the Boston Red Sox. The division is so stacked, Commissioner Bud Selig has floated the idea that perhaps some desperately poor franchises be temporarily reassigned to that division. Not to improve their chances, you understand, but to give them more paydays. Higher attendance at games against Boston and New York equals big gate receipts. In college football and basketball, this shameful charity goes by the name of "guarantee games," wherein poor schools schedule themselves against famous teams, putting a price tag on the role of sacrificial lamb.

The only way for the three geographical losers in the AL East -- Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto -- to have any chance, is to be both wise and lucky when drafting amateur players. So far, the Rays have done magnificently. But don't mess with the fat cats. When Tampa's young, homegrown players dared win the division two years ago, the Yankees immediately went out and signed the best hitter and the two best free agent pitchers, essentially buying the 2009 pennant.

Sure, quirky things can happen in the playoffs. But this Opening Day we are only reminded again, that for baseball's welter of statistics, it remains a sport without a salary cap. Ultimately, the only numbers that matter are the ones that follow the dollar sign.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0kS3xbGqQ

 

[Eephus]

Frank Deford is an idiot

 

[proninja]

Frank Deford gets it

Because baseball begins as life afield is renewed, tra-la, you can always count on two things this time of year. One: In trees, the sap is rising. Two: in baseball, the sappiness is rising. Yes: As sure as the flowers are a-bloomin' again, every team has a chance. Well, that's true in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL, but baseball is more like Dancing With The Stars. It's understood from the start that some competitors just don't have a prayer.

We kinda, sorta suspected that Tom DeLay and Jerry Springer didn't have a legitimate chance at winning the coveted disco ball trophy against beautiful, young and agile dancers. And as long as there is no salary cap to equalize things, the Yankees and a few other rich teams are going to buy championships, while the little old mid-major cities really can't compete.

Come on, let's admit it. Baseball is the national pastime only if hedge funds are the national livelihood. If one needs proof, a British survey just revealed that the Yankees pay their players, on average, more than any other team in the world. Even more significant: The Bronx Bombers are the only MLB team in the top dozen. Baseball law really does allow the Yankees to be in a league of their own.

There are 26 divisions in the four major team sports and, in 25 of them, the American dream lives. Then there is the American League East, where the Yankees reside along with their moneybag runner-up, the Boston Red Sox. The division is so stacked, Commissioner Bud Selig has floated the idea that perhaps some desperately poor franchises be temporarily reassigned to that division. Not to improve their chances, you understand, but to give them more paydays. Higher attendance at games against Boston and New York equals big gate receipts. In college football and basketball, this shameful charity goes by the name of "guarantee games," wherein poor schools schedule themselves against famous teams, putting a price tag on the role of sacrificial lamb.

The only way for the three geographical losers in the AL East -- Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto -- to have any chance, is to be both wise and lucky when drafting amateur players. So far, the Rays have done magnificently. But don't mess with the fat cats. When Tampa's young, homegrown players dared win the division two years ago, the Yankees immediately went out and signed the best hitter and the two best free agent pitchers, essentially buying the 2009 pennant.

Sure, quirky things can happen in the playoffs. But this Opening Day we are only reminded again, that for baseball's welter of statistics, it remains a sport without a salary cap. Ultimately, the only numbers that matter are the ones that follow the dollar sign.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0kS3xbGqQ

I don't really understand how anybody could disagree with this

 

[Limp Ditka]

Frank Deford gets it

Because baseball begins as life afield is renewed, tra-la, you can always count on two things this time of year. One: In trees, the sap is rising. Two: in baseball, the sappiness is rising. Yes: As sure as the flowers are a-bloomin' again, every team has a chance. Well, that's true in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL, but baseball is more like Dancing With The Stars. It's understood from the start that some competitors just don't have a prayer.

We kinda, sorta suspected that Tom DeLay and Jerry Springer didn't have a legitimate chance at winning the coveted disco ball trophy against beautiful, young and agile dancers. And as long as there is no salary cap to equalize things, the Yankees and a few other rich teams are going to buy championships, while the little old mid-major cities really can't compete.

Come on, let's admit it. Baseball is the national pastime only if hedge funds are the national livelihood. If one needs proof, a British survey just revealed that the Yankees pay their players, on average, more than any other team in the world. Even more significant: The Bronx Bombers are the only MLB team in the top dozen. Baseball law really does allow the Yankees to be in a league of their own.

There are 26 divisions in the four major team sports and, in 25 of them, the American dream lives. Then there is the American League East, where the Yankees reside along with their moneybag runner-up, the Boston Red Sox. The division is so stacked, Commissioner Bud Selig has floated the idea that perhaps some desperately poor franchises be temporarily reassigned to that division. Not to improve their chances, you understand, but to give them more paydays. Higher attendance at games against Boston and New York equals big gate receipts. In college football and basketball, this shameful charity goes by the name of "guarantee games," wherein poor schools schedule themselves against famous teams, putting a price tag on the role of sacrificial lamb.

The only way for the three geographical losers in the AL East -- Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto -- to have any chance, is to be both wise and lucky when drafting amateur players. So far, the Rays have done magnificently. But don't mess with the fat cats. When Tampa's young, homegrown players dared win the division two years ago, the Yankees immediately went out and signed the best hitter and the two best free agent pitchers, essentially buying the 2009 pennant.

Sure, quirky things can happen in the playoffs. But this Opening Day we are only reminded again, that for baseball's welter of statistics, it remains a sport without a salary cap. Ultimately, the only numbers that matter are the ones that follow the dollar sign.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0kS3xbGqQ

I don't really understand how anybody could disagree with this

So for the sake of 10% of the franchises, the whole thing must get overhauled?

 

[Homer @ RJ]

Frank Deford gets it

Because baseball begins as life afield is renewed, tra-la, you can always count on two things this time of year. One: In trees, the sap is rising. Two: in baseball, the sappiness is rising. Yes: As sure as the flowers are a-bloomin' again, every team has a chance. Well, that's true in the NFL, the NBA and the NHL, but baseball is more like Dancing With The Stars. It's understood from the start that some competitors just don't have a prayer.

We kinda, sorta suspected that Tom DeLay and Jerry Springer didn't have a legitimate chance at winning the coveted disco ball trophy against beautiful, young and agile dancers. And as long as there is no salary cap to equalize things, the Yankees and a few other rich teams are going to buy championships, while the little old mid-major cities really can't compete.

Come on, let's admit it. Baseball is the national pastime only if hedge funds are the national livelihood. If one needs proof, a British survey just revealed that the Yankees pay their players, on average, more than any other team in the world. Even more significant: The Bronx Bombers are the only MLB team in the top dozen. Baseball law really does allow the Yankees to be in a league of their own.

There are 26 divisions in the four major team sports and, in 25 of them, the American dream lives. Then there is the American League East, where the Yankees reside along with their moneybag runner-up, the Boston Red Sox. The division is so stacked, Commissioner Bud Selig has floated the idea that perhaps some desperately poor franchises be temporarily reassigned to that division. Not to improve their chances, you understand, but to give them more paydays. Higher attendance at games against Boston and New York equals big gate receipts. In college football and basketball, this shameful charity goes by the name of "guarantee games," wherein poor schools schedule themselves against famous teams, putting a price tag on the role of sacrificial lamb.

The only way for the three geographical losers in the AL East -- Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Toronto -- to have any chance, is to be both wise and lucky when drafting amateur players. So far, the Rays have done magnificently. But don't mess with the fat cats. When Tampa's young, homegrown players dared win the division two years ago, the Yankees immediately went out and signed the best hitter and the two best free agent pitchers, essentially buying the 2009 pennant.

Sure, quirky things can happen in the playoffs. But this Opening Day we are only reminded again, that for baseball's welter of statistics, it remains a sport without a salary cap. Ultimately, the only numbers that matter are the ones that follow the dollar sign.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...l#ixzz0kS3xbGqQ

I don't really understand how anybody could disagree with this

So for the sake of 10% of the franchises, the whole thing must get overhauled?

No. Division realignment sucks. A salary cap/floor should be implemented.

 

[Eephus]

2009 data for the NL

1. Mets - $149 million, 70 wins

2. Cubs - $135 million, 83 wins

3. Phillies - $113 million, 93 wins

4. Astros - $103 million, 74 wins

5. Dodgers - $100 million, 95 wins

6. Braves - $97 million, 86 wins

7. Cardinals - $89 million, 91 wins

8. Giants - $83 million, 88 wins

9. Brewers - $80 million, 80 wins

10. Rockies - $75 million, 92 wins

11. Reds - $74 million, 78 wins

12. Diamondbacks - $73 million, 70 wins

13. Nationals - $60 million, 59 wins

14. Pirates - $49 million, 62 wins

15. Padres - $43 million, 75 wins

16. Marlins - $37 million, 87 wins

 

[pollardsvision]

Division re-alignment would be stupid, but I do agree with whatever ESPN guy wrote a few weeks back about just getting rid of the divisions altogether.

It really just doesn't make sense to have divisions in MLB. It's necessary, I think, in the NFL, but not in MLB. 162 games (minus some interleague games) evenly spread-out against 13 or 15 League opponents would be pretty easy to work out.

It would solve the AL East problem, as well as the AL West/NL Central stupidity. It would also be more traditional and there are many MLB fans that just can't get enough of that tradition stuff.

 

[Homer @ RJ]

Stuart Sternberg, the Rays owner was just on the telecast saying he definitely thinks changes will come in the new CBA for 2012. He made it sound like the balanced schedule is the most likely idea.

 

[Man In The Box]

Let's see. The Yankees market brilliantly, actually put the money they make from the product on the field, INTO the product on the field, and they're the problem?

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of teams who have owners who could buy George Steinbrenner, but yet refuse to put money into their teams to make them competitive, trade away their best players for prospects when they are in their prime, all while pocketing revenue sharing money?

The Pittsburgh Pirates have a $34M payroll. You want to "fix" baseball? Start there.

 

[DropKick]

Let's see. The Yankees market brilliantly, actually put the money they make from the product on the field, INTO the product on the field, and they're the problem?

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of teams who have owners who could buy George Steinbrenner, but yet refuse to put money into their teams to make them competitive, trade away their best players for prospects when they are in their prime, all while pocketing revenue sharing money?

The Pittsburgh Pirates have a $34M payroll. You want to "fix" baseball? Start there.

The Yankees are located in a huge market; an economic center of the country and have vast revenues between baseball operations, TV network, etc. What were seats in the first few rows going for last year, $2,500 a pop? Of course they put money into the product; they can afford it. They can acquire virtually any player they want; can pay more and can pay longer. They can take risks the small franchise can't and they can afford to swing and miss. It is a huge imbalance and it isn't just because "other teams are cheap" or "they don't care about winning".

Some quotes from MLB article: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=mlb

The Yankees have six of the 10 highest-paid players. ..

Three of the seven free agents who have signed for more than $15 million over the past two years have gone to the Yankees...

The economy in Cleveland is stagnating the Indians' energetic organization. Major League Baseball is gravely concerned about the future of the Rays, who last year realized little bump from their 2008 run. A respected organization industry-wide, the Rays are stuck in a ballpark and location that Peter Ueberroth once predicted would suit only tractor pulls. Pittsburgh is trying to be aggressive in the domestic and foreign talent pools, spending the money to get top scouts and development people, but has yet to show progress. MLB still isn't certain that the Marlins' new facility will make Miami a viable baseball market.

Oakland, stranded in a facility that the Altamont Raiders have systematically trashed, is close to beyond hope if the team can't move to San Jose. Beane offered more years and money to Marco Scutaro and Adrian Beltre, and they both signed with Boston. Holliday admitted that he was miserable playing in the dank mausoleum.

"You start to wonder," Beane said, "if anyone wants to play here."

Which brings up the next line of major free agents. Will the Twins sign Joe Mauer (Yes, this was excellent!) after the 2010 season, knowing that the Red Sox and Yankees might be willing to go to $30 million? Will the Padres sign Adrian Gonzalez past 2011? Will the Indians re-sign Grady Sizemore after 2012? Who among Crawford, B.J. Upton, Carlos Pena and Jason Bartlett will be with Tampa Bay in 2013, presuming the Rays are still there?

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't fault the Yankees. They are great for baseball and you always want teams to be passionate about winning. I shutter to think of what MLB's popularity would look like if it weren't for the Yankees and Red Sox.

The latter sentence is a bit of a problem for MLB. It's not the reality of the situation that's the problem. The reality is that teams can compete. I think 20 of the 30 MLB teams have made the playoffs in the last 5 years and money doesn't always equal wins (though it'd be foolish to think it doesn't play a large part in long-term success).

In reality, there is a certain level of competitive balance. It's the perception that's the problem. Perception matters. The perception is that they Yankees have a 29-team farm system.

There are many reasons that fans come to the ballpark. Maybe it's not as it is in the NBA, but having likeable stars is very important in bringing in fans.

The Braves, for example, sold 3000 season tickets the day after Heyward was announced on the MLB roster and had their best attendance ever for a day game on Opening Day. Winning 8000 straight NL East titles didn't bring that many fans during the day. Hope about a kid who'd never played in the bigs did though.

You might say Heyward, as a rookie, proves the opposite point (he's not high-priced star yet). Keep in mind though, that it is a payroll issue that he was there. It cost the Braves alot of money to have him there on Opening Day. Some teams couldn't have afforded to do that (See Strasburg).

It's important for the fanbase to have stars they can get behind. Moneyball was a great way to win on a limited payroll, but, as far as I can tell, it sure as hell didn't sell tickets. Nothing will demoralize a fanbase faster than living in fear that their favorite player, the reason they get excited to go the ballpark, will soon be wearing pinstripes.

Very often, the Yankees can afford to pay a player far more than another team should play them. That's a problem. For many teams, keeping their stars just isn't a responsible thing to do. Doesn't make them cheap. When you go into an auction and someone has 4X the disposable income as you, there's only so much you can expect to acquire. Over time, more and more fanbases will get alienated.

For those reasons, I think a salary cap would be great.

Not that it'll ever happen though. Not having a salary cap works out too well for too many people. Players love it. Works well for MLB in the short-term. Most sports leagues would love a way to ensure that it's most important team is always competitive and interesting.