Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scefalu
Has anyone tried choking the financials of the lesser leagues, but leaving the slary structure in place. As a hypothetical example, the Italian League would have an average attendance of 5,000 per game and a TV contract worth 2 million ($10 per ticket * 5000 tickets * 70 home games = $3.5 million + $2 million TV money ~ $5.5 million dollar budget). So, set the minimum contract at $50,000 to keep a plentiful amount of lower-end player money available. At the same time, set the salary structure so that superstars still want $16 million. How would this work out? Clearly, the really good players would continually want more money, but the teams in the league would be unable to retain high quality players.
I haven't tested this, but there is my idea.
|
That definitely sounds like it's on the right track to me. But the question I think may come up now is how does a player decide he's a superstar or not? Does he decide it based on how he is compared to others in his current league or is it how his abilities are compared to a standard MLB level? If it's based on the current league, then a guy will think he's a superstar and be expecting $16M when in reality he's a platoon player at the ML level and he ends up wanting more money than he'll ever get and just ends up not being signed previous to the season. That could be as big a problem.