Tony Clark still trying to play with the big boys.

From what I've read, he should probably stick to negotiating "Free Pizza Fridays" or something like that.

I am not typically on anyone's side in these arguments but if that is the stated goal of revenue sharing then I think he actually has a point.  To create a more level playing field to acquire players you are penalizing teams that would be willing to spend more on player salaries and giving money to teams that cannot generate the same level of revenue as those clubs to give them a greater chance to acquire said players.

If a team decides to tank their season and not spend that money on player salaries then why should they get that money?  Technically they are saying they don't need it to be competitive.  I think there is an argument to made there.

Sounds like a slam dunk. The point of revenue sharing isn't to let the Rays and Marlins tank their seasons and still make tons of money.

Who says the Rays and Marlins are making "tons of money"? Both are at the bottom of major leagues in terms of revenue and attendance.

I am not typically on anyone's side in these arguments but if that is the stated goal of revenue sharing then I think he actually has a point.  To create a more level playing field to acquire players you are penalizing teams that would be willing to spend more on player salaries and giving money to teams that cannot generate the same level of revenue as those clubs to give them a greater chance to acquire said players.

 

If a team decides to tank their season and not spend that money on player salaries then why should they get that money?  Technically they are saying they don't need it to be competitive.  I think there is an argument to made there.

What if they've decided its time for a rebuild based on what they have in terms of prospects, existing players, contracts, etc.  Who are we to tell them they can't do that for the betterment of their franchise?  It's like saying the Twins shouldn't be allowed to rebuild after consecutive losing 90-100 lose season and have to continue to hand out big contracts and spend money on old / bad players with no talent.  Makes no sense.

Most clubs are making money(if not all).  I can understand that you are looking at a salary floor being a major point in the next CBA.  Between the national TV money, revenue sharing, and the local TV and radio contract I would  guess(without knowing) that all clubs start at about $100 million in income (even the worst ones should have about that if not more).  Add ticket sales and concessions and you probably have a floor of about $140 million.  using the twins model of 48 - 52% of revenue, you could make a case for a minimum payroll of at least $70 million if not more.  So many of these clubs are at bottom end (this was based on an Attendance guess of at least 1 million, so most numbers should be a lot higher).  I can see where Pittsburg and Tampa Bay and Oakland were  on the list.  I think Miami is in the 80 - 90 million range so there is a weaker case there. (though the majority owner is known for making money and moving on).

What if they've decided its time for a rebuild based on what they have in terms of prospects, existing players, contracts, etc.  Who are we to tell them they can't do that for the betterment of their franchise?  It's like saying the Twins shouldn't be allowed to rebuild after consecutive losing 90-100 lose season and have to continue to hand out big contracts and spend money on old / bad players with no talent.  Makes no sense.

No one is saying they can't rebuild but maybe they would need to forfeit their revenue sharing then.  They aren't planning on using it why would they need it?

 The idea behind revenue sharing is to allow teams to be able to sign higher priced\better players to better compete with teams that have more revenue.  If that is not what they are doing with the money and tanking is the way to go then why do they need that money?

Sure if you believe the goal of revenue sharing is just to divide the money up then I guess they can spend it any way they want.  But I would think that would be a tough sell for teams that do generate lots of revenue and have to share it.

The idea of revenue sharing to me was a way for baseball to avoid using a cap. So maybe you are right owners and players don't really care where that money goes.  Although this lawsuit appears to say otherwise.  I believe the players union expected teams to spend that money on player salaries.  Tanking has really changed the game and the supply and demand ratio. I think they have a point although all named teams appear to think it is BS.  Time will tell who is right.