Furture of Baseball

[Bohunk]

Exactly. And its not going to get any better with the strike thats coming up.

[JML]

Originally posted by spleen1015
Free Agency is the cause of the current situation. When players are going to the highest bidder, salaries are bound to get inflated. Then it becomes a small market/big market issue. Yes, the A's might be good right now, but wait until all of those guys start asking for 15 mil a year contracts. You might as well change the Yankees nickname to Athletics.

I think it's funny that owners complain about having to pay today's players so much when they, the owners, are the ones to blame. If owners didn't offer insane contracts to superstars, the highest bid for a free agent would be a much smaller amount. The result would be better competitive balance (w/o such a need for rev. sharing/cap) and above all, lower ticket prices. A-Rod's contract has set a new precedent which will do some scary things to the free agent market in the future. Combine that with the loss of hundreds of thousands of fans after a possible strike this year, and baseball will be in even worse trouble than it is now.

[BaseballMan]

JML,
i agree with you but i guess its like when theres ten sex starved guys going after the prom queen.
Theyll offer anything and if that doesnt work theyll
try outbidding for the school hooker.
same thing with mlb.

[Mel_Ott]

Well, to be fair, Jason Giambi would have resigned with Oakland. The A's didn't want to give him a no-trade clause because (and here I paraphrase, but the sense is dead-on accurate) "We might suck later, and have to trade him." So I don't think we can use Giambi as an example of the flaws of free agency, unless by 'flaws' we mean 'dumb-ass owners', which isn't even a free-agency problem, but a team-management problem.

Free agency is only a problem if you think that players shouldn't be able to get the best price for their talents. Why not? You'd be pretty hacked off if your current employer could tell you how much you were gonna make, and how long you were gonna work there, could force you to work somewhere else if they wanted to, and could prevent you (if you challenged any of this) from ever working in your field again, no matter how good you are at it or how long you'd been doing it.

The real problem is that some teams (Yankees, but also Cubs, Braves, Red Sox, and Dodgers, among others) make a whole lot of cash from their TV deals, that they don't have to share with the suckers who play them. Even though it seems pretty clear that these teams won't make a dime off games that aren't played if the teams without the lush TV money don't play them.

If the self-described small market teams would either (1) negotiate better deals for themselves or (2) grow some balls and tell the Yankees, et al, that unless the TV revenues get split more equally, there aren't gonna be any games, they'd find their 'cash flow' problems solved real quick.

You can call football 'socialism' if you want to, but it's much more enlightened self-interest, a bunch of rich guys understanding that they operate a cartel, not just a team, and acting accordingly. And Antonio Freeman would have nothing to bitch about if he'd made himself more valuable; teams just don't let productive players go unless they can't justify their salary. Free agency is just as much capitalism as anything else in baseball; the reserve clause was just an elegant form of slavery, and anyone who really thinks baseball or anything else is better with it, IMHO, hasn't really thought it through.

[CMH]

Originally posted by Mel_Ott

You can call football 'socialism' if you want to, but it's much more enlightened self-interest, a bunch of rich guys understanding that they operate a cartel, not just a team, and acting accordingly. And Antonio Freeman would have nothing to bitch about if he'd made himself more valuable; teams just don't let productive players go unless they can't justify their salary. Free agency is just as much capitalism as anything else in baseball; the reserve clause was just an elegant form of slavery, and anyone who really thinks baseball or anything else is better with it, IMHO, hasn't really thought it through.

i agree that small market teams need to grow some balls.

i agree that football is a cartel...so it every other major sport. trust me.

however, i disagree with football's system. how can someone think it works when teams are dumping their best players every year b/c they cant afford them under the cap?

i dont know but doesnt that kinda eliminate the whole idea of a salary cap? arent we suppose to be pushing for teams to be competitive and be able to afford their players, year in and year out???

i think a better example would be basketball. the NBA has done what no other sport would do, have a salary cap on teams and players. NFL only has a team cap. a Team cap with no player cap doesnt work. just think about it. but a player cap with a team cap works perfectly together.

i know MLB would not be able to have a team cap in baseball. it wont happen. but i think what they do need to do is establish a player cap.

however, i already see what problems will arise of it. It will only allow the Yankees to sign 25 great players instead of 5 or 6.

so actually i think MLB needs a player cap AND team cap. any other system would still give an advantage to large market teams.

the only way a player cap by it self would work is if baseball puts a luxury tax on a certain payroll. it wouldnt be perfect, b/c the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, can pay any tax thrown at them, but it would limit their spending AND allow small market teams to offer identical contract offers without worrying that the Yankees will offer 1 or 2 million more.

[Modern Relic]

Originally posted by JML


I think it's funny that owners complain about having to pay today's players so much when they, the owners, are the ones to blame. If owners didn't offer insane contracts to superstars, the highest bid for a free agent would be a much smaller amount. The result would be better competitive balance (w/o such a need for rev. sharing/cap) and above all, lower ticket prices. A-Rod's contract has set a new precedent which will do some scary things to the free agent market in the future. Combine that with the loss of hundreds of thousands of fans after a possible strike this year, and baseball will be in even worse trouble than it is now.

The only problem is that every time owners try to control salaries, the players union screams, "Collusion!"

[Arbiter]

Originally posted by JML


I think it's funny that owners complain about having to pay today's players so much when they, the owners, are the ones to blame. If owners didn't offer insane contracts to superstars, the highest bid for a free agent would be a much smaller amount. The result would be better competitive balance (w/o such a need for rev. sharing/cap) and above all, lower ticket prices.

High ticket prices cause high salaries, and not vice versa. Please cf. any intermediate microeconomics textbook.

[Arbiter]

Originally posted by Modern Relic


The only problem is that every time owners try to control salaries, the players union screams, "Collusion!"

Which is their right -- because the owners, in the collective bargaining agreement, explicitly forswear their rights to collude in player bidding. Noone is *making* the owners agree to this; they signed the agreement. I don't know about you, but generally when someone breaches a contract they made with me, I do get a bit upset...

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by Arbiter


High ticket prices cause high salaries, and not vice versa. Please cf. any intermediate microeconomics textbook.

High TV revenues, howver, did contribute to higher salaries. Likewise off-field events (e.g., Kauffman of the Royals selling his pharmaceutical business for $500 million cash) have also affected player salaries by causing spendng sprees that raised salaries.

For an excellent discussion on this, see Whitey Herzog's YOU'RE MISSING A GREAT GAME.

[Arbiter]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


High TV revenues, howver, did contribute to higher salaries.

Well, this is really just at the core the same thing I wrote, because high ticket prices and high TV revenues are caused by the same thing -- high demand to watch baseball games. We can also lump merchandising revenue, etc. in here as well. High revenues are symptoms of strong demand for the product.

Likewise off-field events (e.g., Kauffman of the Royals selling his pharmaceutical business for $500 million cash) have also affected player salaries by causing spendng sprees that raised salaries.

For an excellent discussion on this, see Whitey Herzog's YOU'RE MISSING A GREAT GAME.

On the other hand, this is completely irrational behavior (and of all people, I'm surprised you'd believe in it, Mal!) The only explanations for this are (a) Kauffman was liquidity constrained prior to selling the business (perhaps plausible, but it seems quite unlikely to me, as he wasn't poor before then) or (b) Kauffman did not operate the Royals to maximize profits.

Now, sure, I think cases can be made that owners of baseball teams aren't always in it to maximize profits. Given that, at least in the recent past, almost all teams have been held by successful businesspeople, or by actual corporations, I'm going to hazard a guess that owners do have a decent idea of how to maximize profits, and choose not to do so, for whatever reason. But, then, the conclusion must be that owners willingly and voluntarily subsidize both players (by paying them more than in the profit-maximizing market equilibrium) and fans (by perhaps setting ticket prices lower than in the profit-maximizing market equilibrium). Which from my personal perspective is fine; I always enjoy being subsidized. But let's not hear how the system is broken and teams are losing money -- if you're not a profit-maximizer, any money you lose is by your own choice.

[hisstorymn]

Honestly I 'm not sure how baseball can be fixed anymore.
THings I do know:

1) Im sick of a bunch of billionaires fighting with a bunch of millionaires over the fans money

2) Paying 3.50-4.00 for a hot dog (thats why I watch from home)

3) Owners crying poverty

4) Barry Bonds opening his trap telling us that the only reason we're upset is because we are not baseball players.

5) Sports stars telling the average joe that "We have to live too." while many of us are losing ours jobs and/ or praying we don't.

6) Owners crying poverty (irks me so much I included it twice)

7) Reality TV ( Tangenital I know but I figured what the heck)

8) Strikes/ and lockouts

9) 2 words BUD SELIG (look at what hes done to the Brewers was this really resume material for becoming commish?)

10) The fact that even if there is a strike/ lockout/ guns at dawn/ etc. I going to be suckered in again and watch baseball.

[Malleus Dei]

I vote for guns at dawn.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by Arbiter
On the other hand, this is completely irrational behavior (and of all people, I'm surprised you'd believe in it, Mal!) The only explanations for this are (a) Kauffman was liquidity constrained prior to selling the business (perhaps plausible, but it seems quite unlikely to me, as he wasn't poor before then) or (b) Kauffman did not operate the Royals to maximize profits.

Herzog wrote that Kauffman didn't believe in high-priced field agents until the sale went through and he had the cash; then, suddenly, he did. What were his reasons? Unknown. Was he behaving irrationally? Unknown. Don't look at me, I didn't do it.

But you can argue that there is a LOT of irrational behavior in the business side of baseball. Just look at the existence of the Metrdodome.

[Arbiter]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
But you can argue that their is a LOT of irrational behavior in the business side of baseball.

On this point, I do believe we are in complete agreement. But, I, too, am not one to suffer fools gladly.

[Malleus Dei]

Why suffer them at all?

[Modern Relic]

Originally posted by Arbiter


Which is their right -- because the owners, in the collective bargaining agreement, explicitly forswear their rights to collude in player bidding. Noone is *making* the owners agree to this; they signed the agreement. I don't know about you, but generally when someone breaches a contract they made with me, I do get a bit upset...

Which is all true as well. So what's the answer? Does this mean that there is no way to control salaries, outside of a cap?

[hisstorymn]

With accusations of collusion every few years or so, I would definetly say that a cap is the only way to control salaries. I sont thin a team cap is the way. Maybe a max salary to complement the minimum. lets say the max was 15 mil your starboys may bi** but who can argue and not look ridiculous. Could you imagine A Rod, Jeter, or Bonds screaming that 15 mil is not enough! Well maybe Bonds, but....

[Carlton]

Originally posted by YankeePride


i think its a noun...

for example...you ridea!

No its a variation of the English language called NewYawkese...like

"Hey der Slappy I gots an ridea for yous!

or my spacebar is slipping!

[hisstorymn]

Umm.. cant be New York. We would kill and eat anyone named Slappy!

[Arbiter]

Originally posted by Modern Relic


Which is all true as well. So what's the answer? Does this mean that there is no way to control salaries, outside of a cap?

Well, all a salary cap is is institutionalized collusion; if collusion hasn't been allowed in recent CBAs, it does make it less likely a salary cap is practical. And salary caps are hardly a panacea.

But the first question is, why does one want to control salaries at all?