I'll bet that the author thinks the American welfare system unintentionally creates a permanent underclass, and that unemployment benefits are only used by lazy, lazy people who could work if they really want to, but would rather stay at home eating Bon-Bons and getting rich off hardworking folk like you and me.

No wealth redistribution system is perfect, and creates nothing but the best of incentives. And they all suffer from some bit of "moral hazard". But the lack of perfection does not mean that it isn't worth trying. I think we ought to be arguing about the size and spending requirements of the revenue sharing system, not whether there ought to be one or not.

*EDIT*

Oh, JC Bradbury. I know that he thinks that way.

Rather than tweaking the current revenue-sharing system, I think it would be best if M.L.B. abandoned it.

I suppose it's possible at some point JC will write something that I don't find completely ridiculous. Today isn't that day.

Before baseball's revenue sharing system was implemented, the Pirates and Royals were pretty good.

I'll bet that the author thinks the American welfare system unintentionally creates a permanent underclass, and that unemployment benefits are only used by lazy, lazy people who could work if they really want to, but would rather stay at home eating Bon-Bons and getting rich off hardworking folk like you and me.

There's a difference between social welfare and revenue sharing. Without social welfare, a lot of poor people would be living close to death. Without revenue sharing a lot of rich people... would still be rich.

The sole purpose of revenue sharing should be to improve competitive balance, not to ensure profits. You're willing to take the latter with the former, but baseball's system seems more targeted towards the latter.

From TFA:

Baseball’s revenue-sharing system was designed to increase the competitiveness of small-market teams that presumably lack the financial muscle to compete with wealthier franchises. Redistributing wealth would give poor teams more resources to improve their rosters, and richer clubs would have less money to extend their financial advantage. The cumulative effect would be to spread good players around the league to achieve a level of competitive balance where “every well-run club has a regularly recurring reasonable hope of reaching postseason play” — the standard put forth by the Commissioner’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics ... Also, strong returns to winning do not kick in until a team hits the mid-80s in wins.

Let's face it -- fans and owners (and players) all have different incentives. Fans want their teams to win, cost be damned; there's certainly been little backlash against the rising costs of tickets, or the earlier shift of most broadcasts from free TV to pay TV. The owners want to make money and they vary in how they trade off making money and winning. You can't exactly apply the Lake Wobegon effect to MLB, where every team finishes over .500. (I guess the players are somewhere in between.)

That said, baseball's 30 owners are really a mixed bag in terms of quality management and commitment to winning, across big and small markets. How many "well-run clubs" are there? There are big and small market teams with quality management, e.g., Yankees, Phillies, Angels, Red Sox, Twins, Cardinals, Rays arguably. There are big and small market teams with lousy management, e.g., Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Pirates, Marlins, Orioles, Royals arguably. (Not too long ago, many of these same teams were reputed to occupy the opposite category.)

IMO, when they change hands, MLB franchises seem to be sold not necessarily to the highest bidder or the most qualified bidder, but often apparently to those deemed by Bud Selig least likely to rock the boat. (No, thank you, Mr. Cuban.) While the sharing of resources needs to be revamped to reward winning rather than subsidize losing, MLB really needs to have higher, better standards for its prospective owners than mere solidarity.

At first read my gut reaction was to say that getting rid of revenue sharing was silly. But if I look at revenue sharing and the Brewers, the team that I follow, how much has revenue sharing really helped them? They didn't get value for Suppan, Riske, Gagne, Wolf, Hawkins, etc. They are good because of the talent that they drafted.

The value they got out of FA was usually when they weren't competing with other teams: Cameron and Branyan come to mind. I suppose that is really more about supply and demand than anything to do with revenue sharing. If you don't have competition to drive up a price, you will get something for a decent value. But the point I wanted to make was that they should have been able to afford those players without revenue sharing.

Last year, I threw up a proposal for revenue sharing moneys to be put into a pool, which is tapped to match, dollar for dollar, any teams in the bottom two-thirds of revenuesre-signing their own players. So Joe Mauer, for instance, would cost the Twins $50 million while he gets $100 million overall (half from the Twinkies and half from the MLB subsidy). And if they trade him, the subsidy doesn't go with him. That would incentivize teams to develop their own players, and keep the "we'd love to keep him, but he's too expensive" excuse from looking valid at all. If the Yankees want to sign a star away from his original team, they'd have to outbid them by double.

There'd have to be tweaking around the margins; you'd need to make sure that only one or two guys per team can take advantage of this. And maybe the player would have to be with his "original" team for X years or play in the minors for them or something, to keep trade values from skyrocketing. And there could indeed be unintended consequences. But, as Larry says upstairs, we need to decide specifically what we want to encourage by a system like this and target the system to it. And not be afraid to monkey with it if it doesn't work.

Doesn't the NBA have something like that? I think I remember that Cleveland could pay LeBron somewhat more than everyone else.

#1: "No wealth redistribution system is perfect, and creates nothing but the best of incentives."

Perhaps so, but I think your dismissal of the author's criticism misses the mark. I am very much in favor of a fairer distribution of the revenues. I think it makes for a more competitive game, and by doing so raises all boats. However, the system now in place--which encourages low revenue teams to stay low revenue--has problems which are not that hard to avoid.

I don't think any revenue sharing should be based on the recipient's payroll. I do favor a luxury tax for payrolls beyond some amount. That serves as a quasi-salary cap. I don't think any sport with a salary cap is hurt by it. (I also think that while a few players are hurt by a luxury tax, I don't think it hurts most players as a class. Rather, it makes the game more competitive, and that raises all boats.)

The biggest revenue disparity in baseball (year in and year out) is from local radio, TV and cable rights. Some of those revenues are now shared. My view is the best revenue-sharing scheme would be one in which more and more of the local revenues are shared, up to the point where no team has an incentive to not increase its own local revenues. In other words, you don't want a situation where the Yankees are not better off selling more ads on the Yes Network.

I would also employ at 50-50 scheme for in-game revenues. That is, if the Twins were hosting the Rangers, half of the net revenues* from ticket sales, luxury boxes, parking, stadium ads and so on would go to the Twins and half would go to the Rangers.

*By net revenues I mean gross revenues minus some reasonable costs.

EDIT: Erik, I edited my statement some. My first rendition was not exactly what I wanted to say. Sorry.

I don't know why we're disagreeing, Rich. I'm trying to say "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

That said, if the Twins are hosting the Rangers, per your example, why are the Rangers entitled to revenues coming from Twins fans, such as parking and concession sales?

There are big and small market teams with lousy management, e.g., Mets, Cubs, Dodgers, Pirates, Marlins, Orioles, Royals arguably

Pirates have been well-run since Huntington took over in '08. It just takes a while to make up for a catastrophic ###### as big as Littlefield's.

I knew when I read that that Vlad would parachute in and post what he did. I think he has it mapped to "F2" for convenience.

[8] Yes, the Larry Bird Exception to the NBA salary cap

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Salary_Cap#Larry_Bird_exception):

Larry Bird exception
Perhaps the most well-known of the NBA's salary cap exceptions, it is so named because the Boston Celtics were the first team permitted to exceed the salary cap to re-sign one of their own players (in that case, Larry Bird). Free agents who qualify for this exception are called "qualifying veteran free agents" or "Bird Free Agents" in the CBA, and this exception falls under the auspices of the Veteran Free Agent exception. In essence, the Larry Bird exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, at an amount up to the maximum salary. To qualify as a Bird free agent, a player must have played three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination thereof. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. Bird-exception contracts can be up to six years in length.

"why are the Rangers entitled to revenues coming from Twins fans, such as parking and concession sales?"

I know this is not fully true, but here is my logic: The fans are coming to see the Twins play major league baseball. The Twins are selling a major league game. They need the Rangers to fulfill the equation. Without the Rangers playing half the game, the Twins are s.o.l. Their fans would not be buying parking spaces, t-shirts and cotton candy and paying high prices for tickets to see the Twins play the St. Paul Saints or a AAA team. (Well, they might once or twice, but not for a full season.) So other than the marginal expenses it costs the Twins to keep up their building and pay all the salaries and other expenses of the people who keep the building open and running, I think the fair equation is half the money goes to one team and half the other for that game.

In this arrangement, the teams which draw the best at home and draw the best on the road would have the highest revenues. But the disparity between say the Pirates and the Cardinals would be much less. And yet the Pirates would still have every incentive to put a winner on the field, something they seem to be lacking now.

Also, I'm ready to call for a moratorium on assertions that a team is "well-run" if it hasn't won 81 games in a single year. Other excuses are just that; baseball executives are sometimes judged unfairly.

But the lack of perfection does not mean that it isn't worth trying.

No, but that hardly represents a conclusive argument for keeping it either.

The fundamental problem with your line of argument is an assumption that there is some sort of optimal desired result that requires some sort of engineering to achieve, and, more importantly, it assumes that you happen to know what that optimal result is.

For all we know an optimal result involves not having top level teams in places like Kansas City, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh. For all we know an optimal result is a half dozen teams going out of business every year with 60 others competing for the championship, every year. For all we know an optimal result involves 1,000 seat stadiums with tickets at a cost of $1,000 a pop. Or the opposite of a 200,000 seat stadium at $2.00 a pop.

All of that is speculation. What we have are data points, and one data point is that the massive revenue sharing introduced in the early 90s has been followed by a period where small market teams became less competitive than they had been in the 20 years previous. There's absolutely no reason to ascribe a causation arrow to that, but it is certainly an interesting piece of data that runs contrary to the belief that such a system would help those teams compete. And again, why is "helping those teams compete" necessarily a worthwhile goal to begin with?

Saying "no system is perfect" while correct, gives a decidedly unfair advantage to inertia when the possibility exists that the current method (large scale revenue sharing) will not achieve the results you desire no matter how much you tweak it. That argument is just as applicable to the system that existed before revenue sharing. It also doesn't explore the possibility that the result that you desire, isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be, and might not actually be something worth pursuing.

I'm not saying you're wrong about revenue sharing, but I find a quick dismissal of alternative ways to do things to be unpersuasive.

So other than the marginal expenses it costs the Twins to keep up their building and pay all the salaries and other expenses of the people who keep the building open and running

I don't know the specifics, and my guess from your language is that you don't either. But when I was on a Yankee Stadium tour several years ago, they told me that just paying the electric when the Stadium turns its lights on costs more than $10,000 a minute. The small army of professionals and the materials they require to maintain the facility, plus rent or mortgage payments on the facility, costs (I suspect) a pretty penny.

To say nothing of the fact that the security and the concessionaires, at least, are private contractors, not club employees.

...they told me that just paying the electric when the Stadium turns its lights on costs more than $10,000 a minute.

I'm guessing either they misspoke or your memory is off. Even if the average time per game which the lights are on were only 2 hours and 45 minutes, the costs would be ridiculous.

(165 minutes x $10,000) x 81 games = $133,650,000

I'm pretty sure that's what they told me, because I didn't believe it. But I can't find anything even remotely authoritative-looking from The Google.

"What we have are data points, and one data point is that the massive revenue sharing introduced in the early 90s has been followed by a period where small market teams became less competitive than they had been in the 20 years previous."

Two huge changes happened in this period and both, I think, are relevant to this discussion:

1. There was a massive increase in broadcasting revenues from cable TV, especially with the creation of YES and (later, I think) NESN*; and

2. There was a giant explosion of in-stadium revenue generation following the opening of Camden Yards.

*Corrected per Erik.

As to the first, that has made all clubs more money, but especially made those with the best TV markets (and the best TV deals) the most money. Generally, that has favored the large market teams the most.

As to the second, as new parks came on line, the clubs with them, regardless of market-size--were big beneficiaries on the revenue side. So we saw the rise of the Orioles and Indians, for example, when their parks were new. Later teams like the Giants and Mariners were big winners from their parks. To this day, all teams with new parks have a big advantage over what they would have had with their old parks. So only a few teams (Tampa, Florida, Oakland, other?) play in old parks that have no advantages for themselves. The Cubs, Dodgers and Red Sox, of course, still play in their old parks. But unlike the multi-use parks in other cities which were unattractive for baseball, those few places were in and of themselves great attractions.

I don't know if the changeover in stadia has created any kind of new relative revenue disparity that didn't exist before (save for the few teams without new parks). However, in absolute dollars, the new parks have generated the most new money for the teams with the largest markets, and allowed those teams to absolutely bid the most for players. (Given that the relative advantage should not have changed from this, I don't know if the absolute factor matters.)

Baseball has always had revenue sharing. They used to call it the visitor's share of the gate. It was never 50%.

*retracted*

I'm pretty sure [$10,000 per minute is] what they told me, because I didn't believe it. But I can't find anything even remotely authoritative-looking from The Google.

Perhaps it was the per-game cost. That would be about $8MM per year, a more understandable figure.

Well, given their requirements and usage, I'd be shocked if the Yankees pay what I pay per kilowatt-hour. I don't think that even if we found the total wattage required to light the place, we could translate that into dollars in any sort of reliable and rigorous way.

#24 -- generally, large commercial users pay much less per KWH.

[23]

Perhaps it was the per-game cost. That would be about $8MM per year, a more understandable figure.

The Pittsburgh Pirates' income statement shows that their "Ballpark and Game Operations" expense for 2008 was $17.1 million. The Rangers spent $13 million in 2009 on "ballpark operations" and the Mariners spent $11.7 million in 2008 on "ballpark operations." $8 million per year would mean half or more of ballpark expense is lights.

Deadspin has posted an Excel workbook containing the line item detail of the Texas Rangers' financial statements here: http://cache.deadspin.com/assets/resources/mlbconfidential/rangersextended.xls

It shows the team had facility electric expense of 2,015,666.49 in 2008.

EDIT: the General Ledger "GL" detail worksheet has about 1,300 line items of income and expense items in great detail.

Two huge changes happened in this period and both, I think, are relevant to this discussion:

1. There was a massive increase in broadcasting revenues from cable TV, especially with the creation of YES and (later, I think) NESN*; and

2. There was a giant explosion of in-stadium revenue generation following the opening of Camden Yards.

I know this is a tired old point, but:

There was a third huge change in the mid 90s that I would argue is the real culprit here - the Wild Card, which more often than not benefits big-money teams. The Yankees or the Red Sox have won the Wild Card 6 out of the last 7 years (and there's certainly a good chance one of them will make it 7 out of 8 this year).

Without a Wild Card, would small-market (and I know that these terms often have very little meaning, since cities tend to bounce between being called "big-market" or "small-market" depending on how successful they currently are) teams make the playoffs less frequently? Yes, somewhat. But all teams would make the playoffs less frequently, and the big-market teams would make the playoffs much less frequently.

Forget the revenue sharing and player contract depreciation. Here are some other interesting income and expense items from Texas Rangers' 2008 general ledger:

INCOME


554000-805 PROGRAM ADVERTISING INCOME (RGR) 1,067,396.00
...
694000-853 STUB HUB FEES (RGR) 46,631.93
...
694000-895 WEDDING PROPOSAL INCOME (RGR) 3,550.00
...
434000-601 JUMBOTRON - BIRTHDAYS (RGR) 25,905.00
...
434000-350 Mascot Appearance Income (RGR) 12,730.00


EXPENSE


724010-185 TEAM - CELL PHONES (RGR) 19,715.72
...
724015-105 SPRING TR - HOTELS (RGR) 518,777.56
724015-110 SPRING TR - MEALS (RGR) 359,865.25
...
724020-105 TEAM TRAV-HOTELS (RGR) 979,881.73
724020-110 TEAM TRAV-MEALS (RGR) 462,679.64
...
724030-306 TEAM CLUB-BASEBALLS (RGR) 234,392.95
724030-307 TEAM CLUB-BATS (RGR) 62,908.52
724030-308 TEAM CLUB-UNIFORMS & JACKETS (RGR) 70,336.76
...
724060-314 MEDIA BASEBALL - MEDIA TRAININ (RGR) 39,800.00
...
824390-155 ADVERTISING-POCKET SCHEDULES (RGR) 47,449.92


724020-105 TEAM TRAV-HOTELS (RGR) 979,881.73

Wow, really? I think they're probably not leveraging their buying power correctly. Especially since they're staying at the Four Seasons in most locations.

Edit: at 81 road games, even if they're putting up for 50 rooms in each location, they're paying $2K per room +. Am I missing something here?

Hasn't baseball just had its most competitive decade ever under the current system? Aren't revenues five times greater than when Seligula became temporary-commissioner-for-life in the early 1990s? Even in the past, weren't their teams content with keeping costs low and winning occasionally like the Griffiths in DC/Minnesota or Gabe Paul in Cleveland.
Are there some flaws in the current plan? Probably, yes. Teams should make accurate financial information available with enforceable rules that they spend/invest shared revenue. Otherwise it becomes the biggest boondoggle since the Obama $787 billion stimulus/jobkilling law.

Well, it's travel/hotels. I think that would include plane rental and staff.

at 81 road games, even if they're putting up for 50 rooms in each location, they're paying $2K per room +. Am I missing something here?

Actually, about $241 per room with your figures. And I wonder if things like scout's rooms when they travel are included in that figure. Not to mention that they spend more than 81 nights a year traveling. And do some players and execs get suites instead of rooms?

[32] Plane travel is extra:


724020-100 TEAM TRAV-INDIVIDUAL AIRFARE (RGR) 271,516.26
724020-101 TEAM TRAVEL-CHARTER (RGR) 3,897,841.15


[34] Scouting expenses are extra.


744060-100 AM SCOUTING - TRANSPORTATION (RGR) 648,839.23
744060-105 AM SCOUTING - HOTELS (RGR) 254,727.43
744060-110 AM SCOUTING - MEALS (RGR) 167,179.38
744060-115 AM SCOUTING - TRAVEL & OTHER (RGR) 35,292.81
744060-120 AM SCOUTING - ENTERTAINMENT (RGR) 16,872.07
...
744070-100 PRO SCOUTING - TRANSPORTATION (RGR) 275,663.14
744070-105 PRO SCOUTING - HOTELS (RGR) 137,926.85
744070-110 PRO SCOUTING - MEALS (RGR) 67,931.41
744070-115 PRO SCOUTING - TRAVEL & OTHER (RGR) 17,181.20
...
744080-100 INT SCOUTING-TRANSPORTATION (RGR) 346,745.91
744080-105 INT SCOUTING-HOTELS (RGR) 189,671.46
744080-110 INT SCOUTING-MEALS (RGR) 71,231.28
744080-115 INT SCOUTING-TRAVEL/OTHER (RGR) 24,606.61
...
744090-100 DOMINICAN - TRANSPORTATION (RGR) 131,847.37
744090-105 DOMINICAN - HOTELS (RGR) 27,628.69
744090-110 DOMINICAN - MEALS (RGR) 32,091.43
744090-115 DOMINICAN - TRAVEL/OTHER (RGR) 28,583.87



Otherwise it becomes the biggest boondoggle since the Obama $787 billion stimulus/jobkilling law.

Phenomenal Goosen strikes again!

Is this the most detailed teams finishes have available to the public? I'm a bit surprised I seen more coverage on it. Anyways very interesting stuff, of course it makes me wonder if there is much variance between teams and these sort of expenses.

t shows the team had facility electric expense of 2,015,666.49 in 2008.

It seems like the guide probably meant $10000/hour. The Yankees played 107 night games last year. Assuming that this split was roughly the same at home as on the road, it gives the Yankees ~54 night games. If the lights stay on for ~6 hours per game that's 324 hours of lighting @ 10,000 per hour would give you $3.2 million spent on lighting which would be right in line with Texas's expense. You gotta figure electricity is a little more expensive in New York than TX.

Perhaps it was the per-game cost. That would be about $8MM per year, a more understandable figure.

That would be 810000 per year. And not all the games are played at night.

Why is this so hard? Put all (or maybe 80%) of TV revenues into a common pot, institute a salary cap and a salary floor. Then every team has a fixed revenue they can count on, and fixed expenses they can count on. You still have incentive to do marketing and promotion to get fannies in the seats, and no team can deliberately tank and pocket the profits.

In March 2009, Yankee Stadium purchased over 33 million kilowatt-hours in renewable energy certificates (RECs) - meeting 100% of the stadium's purchased electricity usage for the next two years.

Yankee Stadium Green Initiatives.
The rate for a "General Large" customer is .0681/kwhr. I'm sure the Yankees probably get a better rate, since they probably negotiate a rate for what is apparently pre-purchased energy. The market supply charge would be 2.2 million over those two years. Add various connection charges, taxes, etc. and it seems like 2-3 million a year would be just about right.

Why is this so hard? Put all (or maybe 80%) of TV revenues into a common pot

But that diminishes the incentive to a) negotiate a strong local media deal and b) purchase a more expensive, large market team. You'd depress the franchise value of the Yankees, BoSox, Dodgers, Cubs et. al.

And a salary floor would raise the price of the league average guy and below.

The thing to remember about expenses like electricity and travel and spring training is that every club has the same basic needs for tese things. There will be some variation in the amount each team spends around the margins, but I can't imagine it is significant.

There will be some variation in the amount each team spends around the margins, but I can't imagine it is significant.

The Pirates stay in a hostel and eat at the Salvation Army soup kitchen.

IMO, when they change hands, MLB franchises seem to be sold not necessarily to the highest bidder or the most qualified bidder, but often apparently to those deemed by Bud Selig least likely to rock the boat. (No, thank you, Mr. Cuban.) While the sharing of resources needs to be revamped to reward winning rather than subsidize losing, MLB really needs to have higher, better standards for its prospective owners than mere solidarity.

I completely agree with the sentiment behind that, but isn't this a bit like asking the Mafia to hire a kinder and gentler collection agency? And even if the willingness to screen out the Angeloses were there (which it never will be), this brings us to one of the sub-thread topics of the Glenn Beck thread, namely how can you always know in advance who's "qualified" to fill a highly specialized job, especially when there are no candidates who really stand out?

----------------------

There will be some variation in the amount each team spends around the margins, but I can't imagine it is significant.

The Pirates stay in a hostel and eat at the Salvation Army soup kitchen.

Well, that helps to explain all those sudden pitching changes.

Also, I'm ready to call for a moratorium on assertions that a team is "well-run" if it hasn't won 81 games in a single year. Other excuses are just that; baseball executives are sometimes judged unfairly.

So it's wrong of me to object to your unfair judgment of my team and its executives, given that it's a wrongheaded standard that produces garbage results? By your standard, for example, Friedman didn't do a good job of running the Rays in '06 or '07, even though he was making the moves that would directly lead to their success in '08. That, in and of itself, is such a monumental failure as to immediately disqualify your criteria as a reasonable method of evaluation.

Just for fun, I'd like to see you take the Pirates' roster and farm system at the end of the 2007 season and explain (in detail) how a "well-run" Pirates organization could have turned that train wreck into an over-.500 club by now. Or are you just talking out your ass?

For reference, Erik, here's BA's (book) list of the team's top 30 prospects heading into 2007. This is the farm system you're starting with:

1) Andrew McCutchen
2) Neil Walker
3) Brad Lincoln
4) Brent Lillibridge
5) Yoslan Herrera
6) Josh Sharpless
7) Steve Pearce
8) Brian Bixler
9) Brad Corley
10) Todd Redmond
11) Mike Felix
12) John Van Benschoten
13) Bryan Bullington
14) Wardell Starling
15) Jonah Bayliss
16) Pat Bresnahan
17) Dave Davidson
18) James Boone
19) Josh Shortslef
20) Joe Bauserman
21) Shelby Ford
22) Brandon Holden
23) Steve Lerud
24) Jesse Chavez
25) Franquelis Osoria
26) Brian Rogers
27) Rajai Davis (traded to SF before Huntington was hired)
28) Jim Negrych
29) Jared Hughes
30) Romulo Sanchez

So that's the farm system. Well, that plus Ed Creech's final draft class, fronted by the excellent Daniel Moskos.

Have fun, and remember to show your work.

Here is the full list of your 2007 draftees. After Moskos, your best bets are probably McPherson (pitching well in A-ball, could be a mid-rotation starter), Friday (playing respectably at AAA, could be a decent UT IF), and Watson (might project as a LOOGY in a few years). But don't take my word for it - see for yourself.

[45] I completely agree with the sentiment behind that, but isn't this a bit like asking the Mafia to hire a kinder and gentler collection agency?

No, it's more like promoting the coolly ruthless and effective kneebreaker to capo instead of the ineffective asskisser.

how can you always know in advance who's "qualified" to fill a highly specialized job, especially when there are no candidates who really stand out?

I disagree that no candidates stand out; that's just an excuse for the lack of willingness to screen and preference for solidarity. For example: How many candidates are really liquid and how many are overleveraged, like McCourt and the Dodgers or Hicks and the Rangers? How many candidates have experienced and well-regarded baseball people like Nolan Ryan as partners (and not just window dressing)?

Even McDonalds screens franchisees by requiring that potential franchisees qualify by first having worked a total of something 2,000 hours (IIRC) in one of their restaurants.

Why is this so hard? Put all (or maybe 80%) of TV revenues into a common pot...

Because teams lie about their TV revenues. Didn't we learn in the first deadspin thread that the Red Sox claim to get less for their rights than the Pirates do?

[50] The Red Sox may indeed get less TV revenue than the Pirates, strictly speaking.

The general partner of the Sox owns 80% of the NESN cable channel that carries most Sox games and team limited partner The New York Times owns the other 20% of NESN iirc (both having been acquired along with the Boston Globe). The Sox are in the position to set an artificially low "transfer price" (between related entities) on TV rights to protect TV money from revenue sharing claims, etc. The Sox report low TV revenues and thus the team owner keeps more $ than if he sold the rights to a third party cable channel.

So it's wrong of me to object to your unfair judgment of my team and its executives,

You're going to have to show me the direct Pirate-bashing in this thread, by me and by others. If you're so sensitive that you feel the Pirates should be included in (not mine, btw) all lists of teams with great management, we'll have to disagree.

The "newer" Pirate management has indeed done an impressive job in scouting and development; I won't dispute that. Your lists are persuasive. But it's premature, I think, to judge a longterm plan at all, positively or negatively, at this point.

To use your example, if you told me the Rays were "well-run" in 2006, I'd dispute it.

If you have a peach orchard with really impressive peach trees but no fruit yet, I don't think you get to crow that you are among the best peach growers.

But that diminishes the incentive to a) negotiate a strong local media deal and b) purchase a more expensive, large market team. You'd depress the franchise value of the Yankees, BoSox, Dodgers, Cubs et. al.

Boo frickin' hoo.

Why is this so hard? Put all (or maybe 80%) of TV revenues into a common pot...

Because teams lie about their TV revenues.

Don't allow the teams to negotiate TV deals directly. MLB acts as middleman (via MLB.TV?). The NFL manages to get this done.

And a salary floor would raise the price of the league average guy and below.

I've never understood the arguments for a salary floor. Why should a team that is clearly in a rebuilding mode -- say, the Pirates or the Orioles -- be forced to spend a certain amount of money? It's unlikely that any of the better free agents available would sign with them, so you'd have instances of mediocre free agents getting paid a ridiculous amount, just to get up to the salary floor. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the salary floor has done quite a bit of harm to some NHL franchises.

No, but that hardly represents a conclusive argument for keeping it either.

The fundamental problem with your line of argument is an assumption that there is some sort of optimal desired result that requires some sort of engineering to achieve, and, more importantly, it assumes that you happen to know what that optimal result is.

For all we know an optimal result involves not having top level teams in places like Kansas City, Milwaukee and Pittsburgh. For all we know an optimal result is a half dozen teams going out of business every year with 60 others competing for the championship, every year. For all we know an optimal result involves 1,000 seat stadiums with tickets at a cost of $1,000 a pop. Or the opposite of a 200,000 seat stadium at $2.00 a pop.

All of that is speculation. What we have are data points, and one data point is that the massive revenue sharing introduced in the early 90s has been followed by a period where small market teams became less competitive than they had been in the 20 years previous. There's absolutely no reason to ascribe a causation arrow to that, but it is certainly an interesting piece of data that runs contrary to the belief that such a system would help those teams compete. And again, why is "helping those teams compete" necessarily a worthwhile goal to begin with?

Saying "no system is perfect" while correct, gives a decidedly unfair advantage to inertia when the possibility exists that the current method (large scale revenue sharing) will not achieve the results you desire no matter how much you tweak it. That argument is just as applicable to the system that existed before revenue sharing. It also doesn't explore the possibility that the result that you desire, isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be, and might not actually be something worth pursuing.

I'm not saying you're wrong about revenue sharing, but I find a quick dismissal of alternative ways to do things to be unpersuasive.

This is an excellent post, Voros. I had a similar reaction to Rich's post above, where he says the salary cap "makes the game more competitive, and that raises all boats.)". Leaving aside the issue of whether a salary cap actually increases "competitiveness" (and whether that's inherently something MLB should try and pursue), you could just as easily say that having a couple of dominant teams raises all boats. Take this weekend, for example -- the Yankees are in town to face the Sox. The Sox are averaging a little over 27,000, yet this weekend they're going to draw 38,000+ for three straight. I'd guess that this is the case for most other AL teams, too.

I've never understood the arguments for a salary floor. Why should a team that is clearly in a rebuilding mode -- say, the Pirates or the Orioles -- be forced to spend a certain amount of money? It's unlikely that any of the better free agents available would sign with them, so you'd have instances of mediocre free agents getting paid a ridiculous amount, just to get up to the salary floor. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the salary floor has done quite a bit of harm to some NHL franchises.

Or, alternatively, they could pay their home grown pre-arb players more. Andrew McCutchen is a 3 WAR player and make the league minimum. Nick Markakis was a 5.5 WAR player in 2008 and made the league minimum. Billy Butler is about a 4 WAR player this year and is making the league minimum. If there was a salary floor, that doesn't mean the O's would give it Cesar Izturis rather than Markakis.

Or, alternatively, they could pay their home grown pre-arb players more. Andrew McCutchen is a 3 WAR player and make the league minimum. Nick Markakis was a 5.5 WAR player in 2008 and made the league minimum. Billy Butler is about a 4 WAR player this year and is making the league minimum. If there was a salary floor, that doesn't mean the O's would give it Cesar Izturis rather than Markakis.

So you want to see the six-year player control system (is it still considered the "reserve" system?) done away with? Or you just want to see the amount that a team is under the salary floor distributed to current (team) members? The former I can definitely see an argument for, but the latter strikes me as rather arbitrary. How would that money be distributed? Does a guy like Butler get most of it (i.e. some system of merit), or does it get evenly distributed? I also don't understand why a team like the Royals would have to may more for their pre-arb players, simply because they couldn't/didn't sign free agents to reach the salary floor.

#53 The probability is that you'd see the kind of action by the big market teams that happened in England -- resulting in the Premiership. I'd think the top 10 or so markets would hive off and form their own league if there was any serious chance of such a move coming to a vote. (And I suspect most of the upper middle markets would want to join them

Unless of course the members of the league are prepared to write a check to the Yankees for a little over a billion dollars (something just over 2 billion dollars to the 8 most valuable teams) -- and forgo guaranteed profitability via the revenue sharing.

Color me doubtful. An awful lot of ownership groups are happy to be profitable via revenue sharing.

Why is this so hard? Put all (or maybe 80%) of TV revenues into a common pot...

Even better, have all teams owned by MLB Inc., and distribute the revenues according to the CEO's dictate! The same thing with players - it isn't fair to their fanbase for the Cubs to be so bad for so long, so you send them Hanley Ramirez and Josh Johnson. A more "sports-entertainment" approach for the modern fan.

Unless of course the members of the league are prepared to write a check to the Yankees for a little over a billion dollars (something just over 2 billion dollars to the 8 most valuable teams) -- and forgo guaranteed profitability via the revenue sharing.

I've been arguing something similar for years - if MLB really wants all of those evil Yankee dollars for themselves, get the ownership groups together, raise $1 billion, and buy the team outright. Every single dollar the team earns can go towards "revenue sharing" and in this case it wouldn't be plain theft.

Of course, I can imagine the shock when the Budshoviks discover that all those revenues don't magically generate themselves, but that would be their problem at that point. Get off the welfare dole and take charge of your own life.

The problem of market inequities in baseball has been going on since Boston and Chicago teams dominated the early "major leagues" in the 19th century, and won't go away unless an NFL-like system of revenue-sharing/cap-and-floor is instituted. And even then some franchise will be the Detroit Lions.

But most here would agree that cap-and-floor is not a good idea (screws players financially on balance, makes for stupid transactions, promotes bland "parity"). So what's the answer? Forced population redistribution that will equalize the power of every major-league metro area? (Don't tell Glenn Beck.) Cramming New York with teams? But some NYC franchise is still likely to be the Arsenal or Chelsea of the bunch. Contraction? But then some markets will still be relatively "small," and some of them will be freeloaders on any revenue sharing.

Just enjoying baseball with its current imperfections might be one solution.

I can imagine the shock when the Budshoviks discover that all those revenues don't magically generate themselves, but that would be their problem at that point.

It wouldn't be much of a problem, really. They'd just reinvest a bunch of that "shared" revenue back into the Yankees, send a few prize "free agents" to the Bronx, build up the brand and the product on the field, and turn the flagship franchise back into a cash cow again.

I'd think the top 10 or so markets would hive off and form their own league if there was any serious chance of such a move coming to a vote. (And I suspect most of the upper middle markets would want to join them

In 2009, $433M was redistributed via revenue sharing. You have to think that MLB as a whole would be a lot more profitable with six to ten fewer teams.

I say this every time this issue comes up. Just mandate that the teams actually spend the money they get from revenue sharing. If they don't spend it, they don't get it.

Yes, the requirement would need to be slightly more complicated than that to work. But not much.

Just mandate that the teams actually spend the money they get from revenue sharing. If they don't spend it, they don't get it.

Spend it on what? Major-league payroll? Scouting and development? Draft pick signing bonuses? Stadium repairs? The pre-game buffet? How would that be monitored?

Major-league payroll? Scouting and development? Draft pick signing bonuses?

Any of these, and/or marketing.

Of course, this would only address the issue of guaranteed profits for owners who place profits above the quality of the product on the field. It would not necessarily make any revenue sharing recipient more competitive.

Perhaps it was the per-game cost. That would be about $8MM per year, a more understandable figure.

The cost of electricity in New York is between 15-20 cents per kilowatt hour. I think that $10,000 is probably pretty close to accurate as a per-game measure.

$10,000 per minute would mean that they're delivering 3 billion watts of power just for the lights, which is would require about 1.5 Hoover Dams operating at peak efficiency to power.

I can imagine the shock when the Budshoviks discover that all those revenues don't magically generate themselves, but that would be their problem at that point.

It wouldn't be much of a problem, really. They'd just reinvest a bunch of that "shared" revenue back into the Yankees, send a few prize "free agents" to the Bronx, build up the brand and the product on the field, and turn the flagship franchise back into a cash cow again.

Sounds like a can't-lose proposition! Let's get this ball rolling!

Just mandate that the teams actually spend the money they get from revenue sharing. If they don't spend it, they don't get it.

Good luck with that. Let's say you're your typically penurious owner. We'll call you, oh, Cadaverous Carl. After spending years cultivating a chummy relationship with the league commissioner, offering him secret under-the-table loans, etc., he agrees to send you $50 million in free money every year.

$50 million! Wowee! BUT, he says, wagging a bony finger, you have to spend every single dime on the team, Brewster's Millions-style!

So you have $50 million sitting there in one of your palatial bank vaults, and you look at your team's finances. Last year you spent $40 million in salaries to those ungrateful peons on the field. $40 million! Of your own money! I know, this is a horrible thing to have to bear, terribly unfair the lack of gratitude these peasants show to a man of your stature. Then you add in your other costs to ungrateful leeches in accounting, marketing, the disgusting proles who park cars, etc. I think I feel faint!

So next year you devise your budget - you spend every cent of that $50 million on the team. $40 million on salaries - why, maybe even $41! A few million here and there for the wretches under your handsome boot, and before you know it you've squared away every last dime - $50 million doesn't go as far as it used to, you know.

And that $40 million you spent on salaries last year? Hey, that was your money to begin with, we'll just bank that for a rainy day. Once a yacht has been rained on it's never really the same, after all. But fair is fair - you did spend every bit of that free money on the team, and oh, how it hurt it write those outsized checks to the slovenly jocks.

Major-league payroll? Scouting and development? Draft pick signing bonuses?

Derek Bell? Matt Morris?

You're going to have to show me the direct Pirate-bashing in this thread, by me and by others.

Post #5, where they were included in a list of "teams with lousy management".

You know, the point to which I was directly responding in post #10, directly quoting the passage in question. A post which you found objectionable enough that you felt compelled to call it out in post #15, on the grounds that the Pirates haven't had a winning season since the new management took over.

I didn't come in here crowing about how my team is the sixth-best front office in the game. I responded in order to defend them from a specific assertion that they were boobs and clods. Which they aren't.

If you want to reserve judgment on them until we see how the players currently in the farm system develop, that's fine. But if that's your position, you should've jumped down on bobm's post #5 when he said that they were crap. And you didn't. You let it stand until I objected, and then whacked me over the head for speaking up.

This crap about a salary floor is total crap. The NHL has a salary floor and it winds up with teams that know they suck, and would rather save money and rebuild, having to overpay whatever leftover free agents are left over. Stupid MLB teams have traditionally done that too, but because they were stupid, not because they were below the salary floor. If the Pirates go out and sign Cristian Guzman and Kevin Millwood to three-year contracts this offseason is anybody going to say "Finally, the Pirates are showing they're serious about winning." No, they will say "Why the hell did they do that? Wait until you have a promising nucleus of young talent before you start filling the gaps."

Spend it on what? Major-league payroll? Scouting and development? Draft pick signing bonuses? Stadium repairs? The pre-game buffet?

Yes to all of the above. Like I said, you'd have to work out some details. For exmaple, you'd want teams to have to cover some portion of their expenses from their own revenue. So there would be some basic expense threshold that a team would have to meet before receiving any revenue sharing money, period. Then, you'd also want teams to have some incentive not to spend money stupidly. So rather than have then receive 100% coverage of their epxenses above the threshold, you'd give them 75% coverage, with the remaining 25% borne by the team itself. The exact percentages could be negotiated, but at least then there would still be some real cost to a team for the money it spends. None of this seems that difficult to me. It's basically taking the intent of the revenue sharing system, which is for richer teams to subsidize spending by smaller teams, and making it explicit.

How would that be monitored?

How do they keep track of the revenue component of revenue sharing? With audited financial statements, I assume? Adding an expense component doesn't seem that difficult to me either.