MERGED ----> The biggest trade since Babe Ruth + Why?

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

finally some sanity... you are absolutely right. the small market teams are taking the revenue sharing money that they're getting and sticking it in their backpocket, as opposed to spending the money on their players, with the exception of the marlins last year and the royals this year.

Your right about the Rev. sharing , but there needs to be more of it. There's not enough $$ changing hands now to make a difference competitively. George spends more driving thru the Holland tunnel each year.

is it because maybe it's not about spending money, rather it's about spending the money you do have wisley? hmmm...

True but you have to admit, George can afford to be wrong a few times and still be OK. Most teams don't have that luxary. Weaver, Justice, Boone etc. didn't hurt them like it would have hurt a small market franchise.
Ya gotta hand it to the NHL Rangers, they are the pro sports equivalent of an assisted living center. And the coulda woulda shouldas for the MLB "Ragners"(had to laugh at your typo- maybe they should adopt the name). What talent they could have if they had spent the $242M on several quality players instead of one superstar???

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Your right about the Rev. sharing , but there needs to be more of it. There's not enough $$ changing hands now to make a difference competitively. George spends more driving thru the Holland tunnel each year.

there's a problem with that though. first off, baseball is not football. the rights to broadcast every single NFL game is owned by 1 of three corporations... Viacom, News Corporation & Disney. These are three monster corporations, and they bid an enormous amount of money for the rights to put NFL games on their news channels. It's from this televison contract that the majority of the NFL revenue sharing money comes from. Major League Baseball has a national broadcasting contract with News Corporation & Disney, but it pales in comparison to the size of deal the NFL has. As popular as the World Series may be, the rights to broadcast 7 potential world series games is small potatoes compared to the ratings bonanza 1 super bowl gets ya.
So you can lower the luxary tax threshold if you want, but you can only go so far. And that still doesn't solve the problem of forcing the small market teams to spend the money they get through the revenue sharing.

What talent they could have if they had spent the $242M on several quality players instead of one superstar???

is that george steinbrenner's fault? is that the system's fault? or is that tom hicks' fault for outbidding his closest competitor by $127 million to get a-rod in the first place? (atlanta had the second highest offer at $125 mill)

and his contract was $252 million... a number picked with a reason. the current high contract in all of sports at the time A-Rod & Scott Boras signed that contract was Kevin Garnett's $126 million dollar deal with the Minnesota Timberwolves.

And also... A-Rod's deal is the largest total contract at $252 million, but it is not the largest contract in terms of money paid per year. Michael Jordan's last three contracts with the Chicago Bulls, all one year deals, were for $30.5 million per... 5 million more per year than A-Rod's deal was worth.

 

[Hewson]

In terms of individual value of one player ratio to team's success...its fair to say Jordan was significantly more valuable to the Bulls than Inanimate Carbon Rod was to the rangers or will be to the Yanks.
Just in terms of roster size, NBA at 12, MLB at 25, an NBA player can potentially have much more impact than a baseball player to his team's success. Not to mention that a hitter will get 4 or 5 AB's per game, and may field a half dozen balls on an average night, whereas a Jordan would be a huge percentage of the Bull's offense and defense.
I think Jordan's salary was never really questioned in relative terms to other athlete salaries.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i agree with ya... i wasn't trying to make a point by mentioning jordan's contract. just baisicly stating a factoid.

 

[Clark W. Griswold Jr]

there's a problem with that though. first off, baseball is not football. the rights to broadcast every single NFL game is owned by 1 of three corporations... Viacom, News Corporation & Disney. These are three monster corporations, and they bid an enormous amount of money for the rights to put NFL games on their news channels. It's from this televison contract that the majority of the NFL revenue sharing money comes from. Major League Baseball has a national broadcasting contract with News Corporation & Disney, but it pales in comparison to the size of deal the NFL has. As popular as the World Series may be, the rights to broadcast 7 potential world series games is small potatoes compared to the ratings bonanza 1 super bowl gets ya.
So you can lower the luxary tax threshold if you want, but you can only go so far.

I agree that the two sports' TV deals are different, I wasn't trying to draw a comparison. The true inequality in baseball lies with the deals teams get from their local TV/cable. THAT needs to be shared more than it currently is. It's unfair to expect the Pirates with their microscopic package from FSP to compete w/ the Yanks' and their local cable arrangement. I know, each team is responsible for their own local deal, but in my mind, whether you are watching TBS, YES, or Comcast, its the MLB product that is being promoted, not one particular team.

And that still doesn't solve the problem of forcing the small market teams to spend the money they get through the revenue sharing.

I agree. They should put a Rule 5 type stipulation on the shared revenue. Use it or give it back. I suppose the accountants would have a field day with this...

is that george steinbrenner's fault? is that the system's fault? or is that tom hicks' fault for outbidding his closest competitor by $127 million to get a-rod in the first place? (atlanta had the second highest offer at $125 mill)

definately Hicks' blunder. I was just making an observation that illustrated your claim of financial stupidity on some teams' part.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I agree that the two sports' TV deals are different, I wasn't trying to draw a comparison. The true inequality in baseball lies with the deals teams get from their local TV/cable. THAT needs to be shared more than it currently is. It's unfair to expect the Pirates with their microscopic package from FSP to compete w/ the Yanks' and their local cable arrangement. I know, each team is responsible for their own local deal, but in my mind, whether you are watching TBS, YES, or Comcast, its the MLB product that is being promoted, not one particular team.

But you see that's the problem... the NFL's television deal is a League wide deal. Each individual team in baseball has a local deal as well as the national deal for games of the week, playoffs, etc. The NFL TV money comes in to the league, and the league then gives each team an equal share. So the New York Giants, who play in the largest market in the NFL, get the same 50 million that the Green Bay Packers, the smallest NFL market, get. In baseball, the national contract already gets split amongst the teams evenly. So does the merchandise contract, meaning that the money from all the A-Rod jerseys and t-shirts that the Yankees sold this past week gets split evenly amongst every team in baseball. Sharing the local TV contracts would baisicly be asking for the large market teams... the two NY teams, Boston, the two Chicago teams, LA, etc. etc. would be subsidizing the Milwaukee's, Montreal's and Pittsburgh's of the world. If you can get the large market owners to agree to that, God bless ya.

If you could get baseball a national television deal where-as a few networks had the rights to every single game, then you could completely revamp the entire economic system of baseball the way the NFL has. However the sheer number of games that baseball plays makes such a deal near impossiable.