Now, this could affect that ‘luxury tax’ system in place where the big-money teams (yanks, cough) pay a tax based on payroll: if the payroll drops enough, no more tax revenue, and the small market teams lose that revenue. So hopefully it’ll force the teams down the road to establish a more equitable and effective revenue-sharing system…

To borrow from Senator Obama and the subsequent fear-mongering reaction to his comments, we need to “spread the wealth around” in baseball.

So to disagree is “fear mongering”? Sounds more like you’re into fascism.

for example, 2001:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1333

(i’d look more, but i’m at work).

the idea of a “salary floor” is one of the silliest things i’ve ever heard.

2008 Florida Marlins: 84-77, $21 million payroll.

2008 Atlanta Braves: 72-90, $102 million payroll.

Teams like the Marlins are trying to compete the best way they know how; by getting a nucleus of younger players that can play. Their revenue is in line with their payroll.

Teams like the Braves can afford higher spending because there are substantially more baseball fans that attend games in Atlanta then there are in Miami.

But then you get owners like Peter Angelos, who simply loves to complain about how hard it is to compete in the AL East. No one is telling Angelos he needs to spend big bucks. What Orioles fans want (and I’m sure it’s the same in places like San Diego and Pittsburgh) is to admit that you’ve been “rebuilding” for 10 years (or more) now, and it’s time to try something different.

You can’t just look at payroll as the measure of whether a team is trying to win.

Also, as fans we are beat over the head over and over again with the amount of player salaries and bonuses. This only works to serve the owners, as they can cite the high salaries as the reason for high prices for tickets, beer, parking, gear, etc. This also works to turn the fans against the players, b/c the players are so rich, etc. I’d rather have the money go to the players. I never bought a ticket to see the owner.

Owners should have to publish the amount of money they spend on the draft, development and minor leagues. They should also have to publish the amount of revenue sharing money they receive, which is basically they’re start up money for the season before they sell one ticket or get any localTV money. But all we’re ever goinig to hear about is how much the players make and how much it costs to go to the game.

Most people like to eat hamburgers and sausage, NO ONE wants to know how it’s made. Go Rays!

Interesting point, but I think you might be mistaken on a couple of points.

First, I do not think the owners are going to abandon those teams. They would still be making money on them in that situation and even though they might have to adjust their profit margins, the return on investment of owning a MLB team is still fantastic compared to a lot of other businesses. Also, why should the bottom teams in the league be able to gross such massive profit margins percentage-wise on their teams failings while organizations like the Red Sox, the Yankees, and even the Tigers, Dodgers, or Brewers invest more money in having successful teams. Admittedly, these teams are making more money total in profits, but you can argue that this is because they are investing more (even if some, like Milwaukee, are in smaller markets).

Second, all you would have to mandate is that they spend the money allotted to them on what that money was given to them for: to make them more competitive. I don’t think we would be asking them to do anything except what they are already expected to do. This money was never intended to be pocketed in the first place. It was meant to increase competition in baseball (whereby MLB is more popular and revenues go up).

I don’t think attacking the owners for pocketing this money is unreasonable at all. I can’t blame them for pocketing it when no-one enforces it otherwise. But, these revenue sharing rules were put into effect to increase competitive balance and allow these teams to invest the resources necessary to make them competitive.

I think the original point is right to say that these teams will likely not be competitive for as consistent a time as NY, Chicago, Boston, or LA, but baseball does not need this to be successful. The Brewers, Rays, Twins, and Rockies have shown the last few years that teams that manage their resources correctly can compete with limited salaries and draw attendance (see Brewers especially). Of course they will have a smaller margin for error, but on the flip side, NY’s $200M payroll and Detroit’s $150M didn’t do them a lot of good this year either.

The Rays are good for baseball because, by being well run and locking up their young talent to extensions early, they are less likely to go the fire sale route when the series is done. If that’s the case and the majority of the team’s talent stays in Tampa, it provides even less of an excuse to ownership groups in Pittsburgh, KC, Miami, Baltimore and other markets to not get their ducks in a row.

The bigger problem right now isn’t the super-rich teams; it’s the ones who refuse to do anything with the money they do have. Wayne Huizenga and Jeffrey Loria would have found ways to justify their Marlins fire sales even if there had been more revenue equality at the time.

It ain’t the meat it’s the motion.

Your team just sucks. They have a long and inglorious tradition of sucking, and they have you convinced they can’t do anything about it.

Grow up and stop whining.