Originally posted by Melanerpes Perhaps it's time for the Statists to get involved - we could call it "socialized baseball" -- Congress should pass a law requiring each team in MLB to have payrolls that are exactly the same size. Levy a tax on teams that play in bigger markets or have high levels of attendance and viewers and use it to subsidize the teams in the smaller markets and low attendance and viewers.
Baseball is like politics. For example, social security comes to mind. The average Joe is afforded money from it when they retire and our political leaders are free to steal from the fund if any balance is left over. So there you have it, the citizens benefit and those in Washington benefit. Everyone is happy and gets a cut, right...except for future generations who are negatively impacted by this fiscal insanity.
And so it is with baseball. The players make as much as they can, the owners make their money either way, and the media is happy that big market teams dominate the playoffs for ratings. In short, everyone gets a cut and is happy.....except the small market fan.
So in both examples, future generations and small market fans have the least power or voice in what happens, so they are the odd men and women out.
Originally posted by whodey Baseball is like politics. For example, social security comes to mind. The average Joe is afforded money from it when they retire and our political leaders are free to steal from the fund if any balance is left over. So there you have it, the citizens benefit and those in Washington benefit. Everyone is happy and gets a cut, right...except for future gene ...[text shortened]... rket fans have the least power or voice in what happens, so they are the odd men and women out.
So we need to do something to redistribute the wealth so that the small market fan gets a fair share of the cut?
Originally posted by whodey Baseball is like politics. For example, social security comes to mind. The average Joe is afforded money from it when they retire and our political leaders are free to steal from the fund if any balance is left over. So there you have it, the citizens benefit and those in Washington benefit. Everyone is happy and gets a cut, right...except for future gene ...[text shortened]... rket fans have the least power or voice in what happens, so they are the odd men and women out.
There are only two problems with your rant
(1) Small market teams are 100% competitive. 5 of the top 6 salary teams are out of the playoffs. Two of the bottom four leading their division. 4 of the bottom 5 salry teams above .500. The evidence is overwhelming.
(2) If the city wants a major league team they have an obligation to support it and invest in it. If (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you think small market team can't/ won't compete the logical conclusion is they do not belong as MLB teams. Contract teams of teams or relocation to market where they can be supported is the logical conclusion. All sports over expanded to accomodate these smaller markets. MLB even created the Central Division so small market teams can compete amongst themselves for a playoff spot. Not only do small market fans have no gratitude, they are merely crybabies who think they are entitled to more and more corporate welfare.
Originally posted by Melanerpes So we need to do something to redistribute the wealth so that the small market fan gets a fair share of the cut?
They do that, but as we see it does little to fix the disparity just as we see in the political arena.
I think that salary caps are the answer. Redistribution is smoke and mirrors because those who redistribute have all kinds of tricks to stay ahead of the "have nots".
Originally posted by whodey They do that, but as we see it does little to fix the disparity just as we see in the political arena.
I think that salary caps are the answer. Redistribution is smoke and mirrors because those who redistribute have all kinds of tricks to stay ahead of the "have nots".
but as you said previously "everyone gets a cut and is happy....except the small market fan".
so why should MLB make any changes? - pretty much everyone is happy with the status quo. If you want the small market fan to get a better deal, someone from outside of MLB (such as the Statists) is going to have to get involved.
Originally posted by whodey They do that, but as we see it does little to fix the disparity just as we see in the political arena.
I think that salary caps are the answer. Redistribution is smoke and mirrors because those who redistribute have all kinds of tricks to stay ahead of the "have nots".
A salary cap without revenue sharing makes no sense. What should the cap be? $100,000,000? The small market teams are still not be able to pay out that much and the Yankees and Red Sox etc. will just see their profits soar.
The real answer is a luxury tax; where for every dollar in salary you pay over dollar X, you have to put $Y in the pot that gets split 30 ways. There is one, but it's not high enough.
Originally posted by sh76 A salary cap without revenue sharing makes no sense. What should the cap be? $100,000,000? The small market teams are still not be able to pay out that much and the Yankees and Red Sox etc. will just see their profits soar.
The real answer is a luxury tax; where for every dollar in salary you pay over dollar X, you have to put $Y in the pot that gets split 30 ways. There is one, but it's not high enough.
Why should a team with higher revenue give its revenue to an owner with lower revenue if the receiving team in prohibited from investing it in the team with a salary cap?
The Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies built profitable situations by investing in their teams. I always object to overtaxing the sucessful because you kill the golden goose, but in baseball it is apparent by fan interest, TV/ radio ratings that the big eastern markets are where people love baseball the most and in Pittsburgh people (even in the 1970s when the team was good) would rather go to a football game
Originally posted by quackquack Why should a team with higher revenue give its revenue to an owner with lower revenue if the receiving team in prohibited from investing it in the team with a salary cap?
The Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies built profitable situations by investing in their teams. I always object to overtaxing the sucessful because you kill the golden goose, but in basebal ...[text shortened]... Pittsburgh people (even in the 1970s when the team was good) would rather go to a football game
What about the poor Ohio fans??? What do they root for...."Next year??" 😀
Originally posted by shortcircuit What about the poor Ohio fans??? What do they root for...."Next year??" 😀
Ohio fans can root for the Reds who are having a great year. The Indians do stink (as do the Mets and Cubs) so it isn't exactly a market size/ salary issue. You cannot sincerely tell me that MLB is broken because Ohio has two teams when NY and Chicago are in the same exact situation.
It is also worth mentioning that even in the NBA which has a salary cap (and allows teams to spend above that to keep their players), Ohio could not keep their best player despite offering him more than anyone else could offer.
Originally posted by quackquack Ohio fans can root for the Reds who are having a great year. The Indians do stink (as do the Mets and Cubs) so it isn't exactly a market size/ salary issue. You cannot sincerely tell me that MLB is broken because Ohio has two teams when NY and Chicago are in the same exact situation.
It is also worth mentioning that even in the NBA which has a salary ...[text shortened]... , Ohio could not keep their best player despite offering him more than anyone else could offer.
The Reds have been in first most of this year, but their attendance is only 14th out of 16 in the NL. It's hard to see how they can be long term competitive if their fans won't support a winning team.
Originally posted by quackquack Why should a team with higher revenue give its revenue to an owner with lower revenue if the receiving team in prohibited from investing it in the team with a salary cap?
The Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies built profitable situations by investing in their teams. I always object to overtaxing the sucessful because you kill the golden goose, but in basebal ...[text shortened]... Pittsburgh people (even in the 1970s when the team was good) would rather go to a football game
I never argued in favor of a salary cap. A salary cap cannot work without significant revenue sharing. A severe luxury tax without a salary cap will makes things competitive.
Originally posted by sh76 I never argued in favor of a salary cap. A salary cap cannot work without significant revenue sharing. A severe luxury tax without a salary cap will makes things competitive.
Only if teams are required to use the proceeds to pay player salaries. Otherwise they can just play it like the Pirates: field a lousy team at rock bottom salaries (dealing any players who look like they'll make decent money in arbitration) and collect the revenue sharing to make the team profitable. This screws their fans and the high revenue teams.
Originally posted by quackquack Ohio fans can root for the Reds who are having a great year. The Indians do stink (as do the Mets and Cubs) so it isn't exactly a market size/ salary issue. You cannot sincerely tell me that MLB is broken because Ohio has two teams when NY and Chicago are in the same exact situation.
It is also worth mentioning that even in the NBA which has a salary ...[text shortened]... , Ohio could not keep their best player despite offering him more than anyone else could offer.
Easy guys...my post was tongue in cheek directed at Mr Whodey.
I am well aware of the Reds position in the standing as my earlier posts in this thread would seem to indicate.
Originally posted by r99pawn77 and now you are not only trolling, but stalking the thread too!
whoa...newer lows all the time..
Solution:
Step 1) shut off computer
Step 2) get up from chair
Step 3) go outside
Step 4) talk to an actual human
Step 5) realize there is life beyond this little dumb box
Steinbrenner Dead
29 Jul '10 15:211 edit
Back to Top