Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baseball's back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
    While my Buccos are beneficiaries, I agree completely. However, while eliminating the luxury tax may lower salaries it still carries the potential of the same teams still buying the best players due to their superior financial resources. Net result, no change.

    IMO if they want to balance income MLB should adopt a TV revenue package identical to the NFL. All partners share that equally, and local revenues from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. are theirs alone.

    Regards,
    Dennis
    Crazy Charlie O Finley had a though on the subject many years ago: why not mandate one-year, free agent contracts. That would put an end to the multi-year boondogles that have nearly broken some clubs (Albert Bell in Baltimore, Alex Rodriguez in Texas.) The owners objected at the time, but having every player up for free agency would confine a said player's value to his most recent productive year.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by D1J1 View Post
      While my Buccos are beneficiaries, I agree completely. However, while eliminating the luxury tax may lower salaries it still carries the potential of the same teams still buying the best players due to their superior financial resources. Net result, no change.

      IMO if they want to balance income MLB should adopt a TV revenue package identical to the NFL. All partners share that equally, and local revenues from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. are theirs alone.

      Regards,
      Dennis
      The thing is, baseball doesn't want to balance income. The only reason the NFL does it is that Pete Rozelle convinced the owners socialism was in their best interest at a time when the sport wasn't all that popular. Thus, the Wellington Mara's of the world were willing to go along to ensure the sport survived. Baseball hasn't had such a concern since before 1900 (with the possible exception of 192-21 with the Black Sox scandal, which threatened the sport), so there is no way to convince the owners of the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers etc. to go along with the scheme.

      And the reality is that even under the current scheme, small market teams have been successful to a degree. They don't compete for titles as often as the Yankees do, but its not out of the realm for small market teams to compete over a good sized stretch of time when the team is run correctly. The Marlins have won as many World Series titles as the Red Sox since the Phish were founded. The Twins and As have been to the post season more often than the Mets or Cubs since 1990.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
        Crazy Charlie O Finley had a though on the subject many years ago: why not mandate one-year, free agent contracts. That would put an end to the multi-year boondogles that have nearly broken some clubs (Albert Bell in Baltimore, Alex Rodriguez in Texas.) The owners objected at the time, but having every player up for free agency would confine a said player's value to his most recent productive year.
        The union would never go for it. Heck, they'd never go for the NFL model of non-guaranteed contracts.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X