Rox vs. Sox

[CATLAX MAN]

The difference that you are failing to recognize as one of your "facts" is that in football, each team has a level competitive field to play on. Teams that manage their resources well, make good personnel decisions, and that have good coaching have a chance to win in any given year. The difference between the winning teams and the losing ones are not because of the amount of money that they are willing to spend.

In baseball, there is no such level competitive field. If you don't have the financial resources to buy up the best talent, you have no chance in any year. If they did have a level field to play on, then the Montreal Expos would've had the opportunity to win multiple championships, based on the quality of players that they developed, but did not have the opportunity to hang on to due to financial restraints. In any given year, there are really only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of winning the title in baseball. Those are the same teams, year in and year out. .......the big market teams that are willing to spend whatever it takes to buy the championship.

[StrykerFSU]

But I do recognize that the playing field is allegedly level in the NFL, though I'd love for someone to explain to me how the Broncos of the late '90s and the Snyder era Redskins were/are not in violation of the "rules". I'm saying that even with league mandated financial checks and balances, the results in the NFL in terms of who wins are no different than in MLB. Look at who the best two football teams are, the Pats and Colts. Those franchises won four of the last six Super Bowls!

Even looking at regular season results there is evidence of increasing parity in baseball. This was the first season in history that no team finished with more than 100 wins and no team finished with more than 100 losses. Furthermore, the low payroll Indians pushed the Sox to the brink before collapsing like a house of cards. If their high priced ace (Sabathia) out duels Beckett are we even having this discussion? Or what about those Rockies? They barnstormed through the playoffs before 8 days off and a Denver snowstorm cooled them off. And that's not mentioning the Phillies, D'Backs, and Padres who all made the playoffs or just missed and were not in the top 10 of payrolls.

So yes, on paper the NFL has an even financial playing field. Whether that results in competitive balance on the field of play is debatable.

[CATLAX MAN]

I'm saying that even with league mandated financial checks and balances, the results in the NFL in terms of who wins are no different than in MLB. Look at who the best two football teams are, the Pats and Colts. Those franchises won four of the last six Super Bowls!

Again, the point that you are missing is that just because these 2 teams have won 4 of the last 6 Super Bowls has nothing to do with the amount of money that they've spent on talent. It has everything to do with good coaching, good personnel & good talent evaluation. They've achieved these results in an environment that is the same for them as it is for the Houston Texans. It is very different from the MLB.....by a long shot.

In baseball, you cannot possibly say that the environment is the same for the Red Sox, Yankees, etc. than it is for the Devil Rays, Pirates, etc. The fact that the former group has the advantage of rich ownership, lucrative cable deals, disproportionate licensing revenue, etc. gives them a competitive advantage over these teams in paying players and attracting free agents. Before they even step on the field, the Red Sox, Yankees, etc. has a number of advantages that are just not available to the majority of the other teams in the league. The league average payroll (with the Red Sox & Yankees included) is just over $77M. Without the Red Sox & Yankees included, that figure drops to just over $71M. You just can't make the argument that spending over twice as much as the league average on players does not give them a competitive advantage. The fact that the Red Sox, Yankees, etc. are contenders every year has mostly to do with the amount of money that they spend on players. That's because they can afford to.....unlike many of the other teams in the league who don't have that option.

[OAKS]

So what, you want to penalize the teams that happen to be better at making money? What are you, some kind of card-carrying commie?

[StrykerFSU]

It has everything to do with good coaching, good personnel & good talent evaluation.

That is absolutely why those fanchises are successful but two of those factors are not covered in the least by the salary cap in the NFL. NFL teams can pay their coaches and scouts as much money as the want giving some teams an alleged advantage, has not worked for the Skins yet. Also keep in mind that contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed while they are in MLB. This allows teams to shed their "dead weight" every season while MLB teams must continue to pay their players long after their usefullness is at an end. I bet the Yankees would love to be rid of Jason Giambi's contract right about now.

In reference to the perceived lack of revenue sharing in MLB, let me cite this passage from the book "Feeding the Monster" by Seth Mnookin concerning what happens to the Red Sox revenues. (pages 313-316)

(In reference to changes made at Fenway) Although these marketing and promotional efforts led to increased revenues, they did not translate into profits for the Red Sox. Baseball's revenue-sharing system meant the Sox were handing over 34% of all their taxable local revenue (about $50 million in 2004) to less financially successful teams...

...Instead of leveling the playing field, baseball was squashing innovation on the part of the most successful clubs and discouraging creative efforts among the least successful ones...

...The Sox, by 2005, had to generate $2 in pre-Major League Baseball taxed revenue in order to justify every $1 investment...

...In 2004, a year in which the Red Sox raised ticket prices, set attendance records, sold more merchandise than any year in their history, and won the World Series, the team lost money.

Now it's true that operations such as NESN turned profits but that money is subject to revenue sharing. There is also the competitive balance tax that is set to kick in at $148 million for 2007, a figure agreed upon in the 2006 collective bargaining agreement.

Finally, I leave you with this...in 2001 baseball opened its books for the first time in decades.

The 5 most profitable clubs after revenue sharing:
1. Brewers
2. Mariners
3. Yankees
4. Giants
5. Tigers

The 6 least profitable (all lost money after revenue sharing):
30. Dodgers
29. Blue Jays
28. Diamondbacks
27. Braves
26. Rangers
25. Red Sox
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1333

So there is in fact revenue sharing in MLB, there is even a luxury tax as in the NBA. There is, however, nothing that requires "small market" owners to make smart personnel decisions and invest in the best possible baseball product. Perhaps it is not so much a question of haves and have nots in terms of money but instead simply poor ownership in certain cities.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Interesting arguments on both sides here. But let's all remember that the year-to-year operating profits or losses are almost inconsequential to the true worth of a baseball team. It is almost solely the RE-SALE value that the teams should be evaluated on.

Consistently bad, losing baseball teams in smaller markets, operated stupidly and on the cheap, without rich exclusive cable t.v. deals and without big attendance figures will still prove to be huge cash cows when they are eventually sold. This is the really the only measure worth looking at. Owners can afford to take losses for a decade if they can earn hundreds of millions of dollars profit on the sale of the franchise to a new ownership group.

You need look no further than President Bush as a textbook example of how to make money in baseball without putting a good product out onto the field. Here's a 1999 article on how he "made" his millions:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... ckson.bush

Nice lesson in political hyposcrisy here, too -- oppose all tax increases always, except of course for those tax hikes that will personally enrich your own fortunes.

[Sonny]

Wow... George Bush is the reason the Royals and Devil Rays can't win the World Series? What's next? Is GWB going to end candy distribution on Halloween?

Bush is hardly unique in taking advantage of municipalities (including the one in your back yard) falling all over themselves to give tax free/tax advantaged sweetheart deals to build new facilities to attract or keep professional sports teams. I don't think that is necessarily right, but it happens everywhere as teams hold cities "hostage" for newer/bigger digs.

[StrykerFSU]

Also don't forget that it is the players and not the owners that would stand in the way of any proposed salary cap. The MLBPA is by far the most powerful in professional sports and there is no way that they would agree to what effectively would be a pay cut for their constituents.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Wow... George Bush is the reason the Royals and Devil Rays can't win the World Series? What's next? Is GWB going to end candy distribution on Halloween?

Bush is hardly unique in taking advantage of municipalities (including the one in your back yard) falling all over themselves to give tax free/tax advantaged sweetheart deals to build new facilities to attract or keep professional sports teams. I don't think that is necessarily right, but it happens everywhere as teams hold cities "hostage" for newer/bigger digs.

Wow... a knee-jerk reaction. What a surprise!

Please read my post again, Sonny. I was responding to the the debate about which baseball teams which made or lost money. My point, specifically, is that owners can moan about yearly revenue losses, but that they still make out like bandits when they resell their clubs for obscene profits. It is a valid point, or perhaps you care to debate it?

I used Bush as an example because "if the shoe fits"... Seriously, why not? GWB realized an ENORMOUS profit when the Rangers were sold. $15 million profit on a $600,000 investment -- pretty damn good for a team that consistently finishes in last place, wouldn't you agree?

[CATLAX MAN]

Also don't forget that it is the players and not the owners that would stand in the way of any proposed salary cap. The MLBPA is by far the most powerful in professional sports and there is no way that they would agree to what effectively would be a pay cut for their constituents.

While it is true that the players association would oppose a salary cap, the owners aren't all that motivated to force it upon them. Here, again, is the greed factor at play. The owners in the big markets with sweetheart cable deals and huge licensing revenue have no incentive to make it happen. None of these guys care about what may be good for baseball, in general. They do care immensely about lining their pockets.......as they should.....after all, as you point out, it is a business. However, in the long run, it is bad business for the league as it has created a class system among teams. Some of these teams in the lower end have real financial difficulties and failing teams are not good for the overall health of the league. That is why pro football took the steps it did to address this situation. Baseball should do the same.

[Dan Wishengrad]

That is why pro football took the steps it did to address this situation. Baseball should do the same.

I disagree. Why is it that so many people are outraged by the money paid to the athletes but have no problems with whatever profits are realized by the owners? Did anybody put a gun to an owner's head in any of our sports and force them to offer these ridiculously high contracts? Do we complain about Tom Cruise being paid $40 million for a six week shoot to film a movie? If the picture still realizes a profit for the studio, isn't that fair compensation for all concerned if Cruise as a draw gets people to shell out tickets for the film or to buy the DVD? If you support the concept of capping players' salaries -- and it is the players who are the draw themselves -- why not also support a cap on owner's profits? Could it be because we live in a capitalistic society where (to quote Godon Gecko) "Greed is good" ?

The comaprison between baseball and football is also not a fair one, IMHO. Football players have much shorter playing careers, and therefore a much shorter window to earn their money. The NFL is the most profitable sport (by far), earning enormous windfalls for the owners. They don't even have "full time" officials, but hire attorneys, bankers, etc. to ref their games on a per-game basis. They got a salary cap through, and a player who suffers a career-ending injury can get cut and wind up with a debilitating, life-long condition and not enough money to "set them up for life". The pension for retired players HAS improved, but guys who retired before 2000 don't get enough and have to take whatever work they can to make ends meet.

[CATLAX MAN]

The issue is not about the amount of money that is paid to players. They deserve to get whatever they can. The issue is that some organizations have more ability to overpay players based on secondary sources of revenue that most other teams do not have. It creates a competitive disadvantage for most teams in the league. Football has tried to address this issue by sharing, for the most part, licensing revenue & television revenue amongst all the teams. In baseball, the way it is set up now, teams like Boston, New York, LA, etc. have a much bigger share of licensing revenue & cable TV revenue than teams like Tampa Bay, Kansas City, etc. This creates a competitive advantage for the big money teams and makes it much harder for the other teams to compete with them. That's what needs to be addressed.

[Dan Wishengrad]

I will agree with you on this, Catlaxman. The disparity is bad for baseball. But I don't agree with it as a rationale for why baseball needs to institute a cap on player's salaries.

[StrykerFSU]

Yes, but those secondary revenue streams are all subject to revenue sharing. I think a more important problem is that the owners of unsuccessful clubs can use the money they receive from MLB's central fund in any way that they choose. In 2006, 14 of 30 MLB franchises received a total of $260 million...where did the money go? Did it go to hiring high profile free agents or to offsetting the operational losses for that year?
See this page for a complete list of the revenue sharing winners and losers for 2003 and 2002. (Winners: Tampa and Florida, Losers: NYY and Boston)
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1803536

If I understand correctly, your central thesis is that the salary cap structure of the NFL creates a more even playing field. In theory this appears true but the results on the field do not seem to bear it out. I already showed that since the year 2000, MLB and the NFL have had essentially identical numbers of different franchises appearing in their respective championships. If you look further back to 1990 the same is true. There were nine World Series played during the 90's with 18 possible entrants and 9 different franchises participated with six winning championships. The NFL put on 10 Super Bowls with 11 franchises participating and 6 winning. So for the last 17 years football and baseball have seen the exact same competitive balance.

But how much are teams actually spending to win the World Series? We already know that paying ARod a bazillion dollars does not get you anything but a 3rd basemen who plucks his eyebrows and that this year's Sox spent $143 million to beat the Rockies and their $54 million payroll.

Winner/ Runner Up
2006 Cardinals $90 million / Tigers $82 million
2005 White Sox $75 million / Astros $76 million
2004 Red Sox $125 million / Cards $83 million
2003 Marlins $63 million /Yankees $152 million
2002 Angels $61 million /Giants $83 million
2001 DBacks $85 million / Yankees $112 million
2000 Yankees $92 million /Mets $79 million

Those numbers would seem to suggest that despite whatever assumed advantage there is for a team with a high payroll, that advantage does not always manifest itself on the field. Now if certain owners only want to spend $24 million on their payroll, as a fan I'd spend a little more time investigating where their share of the MLB central fund is going. For example, the 2003 Devil Rays had a payroll of just under $20 million (ludicrous). They received just over $20 million from MLB as part of revenue sharing. That's $40 million to spend on players...not the Yankees or Red Sox for sure but not that far off the NL Champion Rockies either. So why wasn't that $20 million used to improve the club? And as a wealthier owner why should I continue to pay into revenue sharing if the "less fortunate" don't use the money to better themselves? Maybe a salary floor is more appropriate than a salary cap?