December 13, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, DJL44 said: They have to. They get half the revenue per additional win compared to the other teams. The Dodgers spend twice as much per additional win because they get twice as much revenue per additional win. That does put a lid on how much better they can make their team. My point is if Oakland received MORE revenue sharing they would get ZERO additional revenue for an additional win. More revenue sharing makes it more likely a small market team will run a minimum payroll. More revenue sharing is an absolute disaster for a fan of a small market team. This is a tough medium for this type of discussion. If I understand you correctly, you are saying the additional wins will cost them at least as much as the revenue generated. If this is the case, why should any small market team try to win? I think you are equating the cost of wins via free agency. The other possibility would be to keep players with extension like Cleveland did with Jose Ramirez. He produces more WAR than Correa for 58% of the cost. Correa produced roughly 1 WAR for $7M where Rodriquez produces 1 WAR for every 3.5M. Tampa kept Javier because they were able to extend him giving them much better odds to similar value as compared to signing a free agent. This is great for Tampa and Cleveland fans! IDK what Cleveland's salary capacity but let's just say it's $120M. Rameriz represents 16.67% of that capacity where a free agent like Correa would represent 29% of payroll capacity. If revenue sharing increased by $20M, those percentage go to 14.3 and 25% respectively. Basically, the difference is that a team up against their spending limits could keep Jose Rameriz instead of having to trade him away.
December 14, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, Major League Ready said: If I understand you correctly, you are saying the additional wins will cost them at least as much as the revenue generated. If this is the case, why should any small market team try to win? They shouldn't. Quote IDK what Cleveland's salary capacity but let's just say it's $120M. Rameriz represents 16.67% of that capacity where a free agent like Correa would represent 29% of payroll capacity. If revenue sharing increased by $20M, those percentage go to 14.3 and 25% respectively. Basically, the difference is that a team up against their spending limits could keep Jose Rameriz instead of having to trade him away. I'm talking marginal additional revenue for a winning team. If the revenue sharing goes up there is less marginal benefit for having a winning team. The Guardians could keep Ramirez, win more games and get better attendance but it won't get the team any additional revenue. It will reduce the amount they earn through revenue sharing by almost the same amount as they earned through ticket sales. The only way to make more money is to reduce operating expenses and payroll. Revenue is a constant. If you look at the NFL they let the home team keep 60% of the ticket revenue and 100% of the concessions, parking and corporate sponsorships. Teams pay for all stadium expenses (rent). All TV, licensing and merchandise money is shared evenly. This incentivizes teams to sell out their home games. Imagine how much more exciting a baseball game would be if teams were incentivized to sell out all the tickets. Instead, they're only incentivized to sell out all the expensive tickets. That means keeping prices for bleacher seats artificially high to avoid undercutting the expensive seats.
December 14, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, DJL44 said: They shouldn't. I'm talking marginal additional revenue for a winning team. If the revenue sharing goes up there is less marginal benefit for having a winning team. The Guardians could keep Ramirez, win more games and get better attendance but it won't get the team any additional revenue. It will reduce the amount they earn through revenue sharing by almost the same amount as they earned through ticket sales. The only way to make more money is to reduce operating expenses and payroll. Revenue is a constant. If you look at the NFL they let the home team keep 60% of the ticket revenue and 100% of the concessions, parking and corporate sponsorships. Teams pay for all stadium expenses (rent). All TV, licensing and merchandise money is shared evenly. This incentivizes teams to sell out their home games. Imagine how much more exciting a baseball game would be if teams were incentivized to sell out all the tickets. Instead, they're only incentivized to sell out all the expensive tickets. That means keeping prices for bleacher seats artificially high to avoid undercutting the expensive seats. I hear you but the shared gate is only one form of revenue sharing. The other form of revenue sharing that would be more effective would have been to keep the luxury tax threshold near where it was and increase the escalation. If my memory is correct the owners wanted the increased the escalation. That would have reduced the amount l;arge markets could spendon one end and increased the amount distributed on the other end. Regardless, they could no doubt find a better plan for revenue sharing but the players would have to agree and which they don't appear inclined to do.
December 21, 20223 yr Correa to Mets, Mets luxury tax exceeds the Twins entire payroll, and no one in MLB management gives a damn. Verdict is in: Broken. I think I am going to find a minor league team to adopt..
December 21, 20223 yr This was the outcome at our local hoops contest last night. I'm starting to feel MLB is headed the same direction.
Create an account or sign in to comment