May 24, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, November 02, 2009
My Morning in ExileLots of cross-pollination between NBC and THT this morning, as every time I wrote something in one place, someone would tell me something interesting and new about it in the other. Who says that the mainstream media and new media can't get along?
Lots of legal work today, so there's a chance this afternoon will be light going. Must do something about that . . . .
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:33am
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Is it that you’re missing a link on the Weiner sentence, Craig, or making a joke that he’s like a list of Young Republicans without trust fund?
Posted 11/02 at 01:08 PM
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Is it that you’re missing a link on the Weiner sentence, Craig, or making a joke that he’s like a list of Young Republicans without trust funds?
Posted 11/02 at 01:08 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
D’oh. Link added. Just noticed I forgot to link the Bradley thing too.
Posted 11/02 at 01:14 PM
On revenue sharing: I often hear these arguments about some small market teams pocketing the money. But I wonder why it’s automatically assumed that’s what is done, just because it’s not seen in salary increases for their players. Isn’t it possible that some of those teams have opted to spend that money, or just more money in general, on things that aren’t so readily apparent, such as international scouting and development? Or even things that ARE more readily apparent, like signing bonuses for draft choices? Can we really determine exactly where the exact dollars currently received through revenue sharing goes? Certainly I know some teams definitely don’t spend it (see the Florida Marlins), but I’m not 100% sure that’s always the case.
Posted 11/02 at 01:52 PM
APBA Guy said...
I don’t think it has to be the case that 100% of teams don’t spend their revenue sharing money on players, player development, etc.. I think if all of Craig’s readers from small markets pooled their anecdotes we’d have a pretty compelling case that there is a lot of revenue sharing money going to non-baseball related spending. I know I’ve shared how the previous Oakland ownership paid themselves very well and allowed their kids to take the Oakland jet to and from college, on vacations, etc..The result now is a depleted farm system the forced Beane to sell Haren, Harden, et al to restock with prospects.
For a team to come into Oakland to play and see 10,000 fans means a lot less revenue. Oakland’s decision to pocket its revenue sharing money means they have a team nobody wants to watch, which is bad for the whole sport.
That situation exists in Florida also, evidently, and I bet it exists in other places as well.
Posted 11/02 at 02:12 PM
Kevin S. said...
That’s the thing - you’d have to allow for the money to be spent on scouting and development, but that would probably require teams to open up their books. Somehow, I don’t see that happening.
Posted 11/02 at 02:16 PM
Pete Toms said...
The Pirates have been caught using rev sharing loot to pay down team debt but in fairness to them, the past few years they have also drastically increased their spending in the amateur draft and they have increased investments in teh Dominican Republic also.
The Marlins are investing a lot of their rev sharing in the their new ballpark, which might be the best use of it.
Overall, I think rev sharing is working better. I think some of that can be attributed to the adjustment of the rev sharing marginal tax rates in this CBA. I could go on but I gotta take a kid to the dentist….in a nutshell, yes I think rev sharing is getting better results than in the past.
Posted 11/02 at 02:39 PM
As a fan of the big bad Yankees, I think most large market fans don’t mind if the money isn’t being spent directly on the players, because as others have mentioned, as long as it’s being put back into the team to make the team more competitive which is the ultimate goal of everyone.
However, it seems to me that there have been some cases of teams pocketing large amounts of revenue sharing + luxury tax money AND cutting payroll. If you are getting all this money for doing nothing, why do you need to cut payroll as well?
Posted 11/02 at 02:53 PM
Tony Daggers said...
I’m a huge baseball fan, but sometimes I feel like the owners should just shut the game down for as long as it takes to get a cap. Revenue would probably take a big dip whenever the lockout ended, but in the long run it would help the game reach new heights in my opinion.
P.S. I really hate the Yankees.
Posted 11/02 at 03:40 PM
“As a fan of the big bad Yankees, I think most large market fans don’t mind if the money isn’t being spent directly on the players, because as others have mentioned, as long as it’s being put back into the team to make the team more competitive which is the ultimate goal of everyone.”
@MJ: My point is that it seems to me that everybody automatically assumes that the money is being pocketed when it’s not obviously being spent directly on salary. So I guess I’ll ask you this: As a Yankee fan, what small market / small salary team out there do you see that you KNOW (not just suspect based on level of success on the field) is spending its luxury tax / revenue sharing money on the team?
Posted 11/02 at 03:54 PM
Some of the revenue sharing coming from the Universe has allowed us to put the Pirates on layaway.
Posted 11/02 at 05:13 PM
That I KNOW, only one team for sure seems to come up, ‘06 Marlins with a whopping <$15M in total payroll. There’s been a few teams here and there with <$30M for a year, but surprisingly (according to COT’s website), a lot of teams seem to have spent in the $50-$80M range this year (in fact, the royals spent more than the twins!).
iirc it’s also a concern for at least one owner, when the last CBA was being discussed and some owners wanted to institute a hard cap, one owner voted against it because there was no salary floor, leading to the problem we are discussing. 3 guesses who that sole owner was.
Posted 11/02 at 05:46 PM
Pete Toms said...
In this piece, Frank Coonelly defends using rev sharing loot to pay down team debt. This is from 08, whether or not they are still doing it….Selig and the owners know full well that this is happening…
Posted 11/02 at 07:18 PM
The Rabbit said...
“Some of the revenue sharing coming from the Universe has allowed us to put the Pirates on layaway.”
RE Michael Weiner-I looked at the Elias rankings about a year ago and it’s absurd. It certainly burdens the free agent market when utility players can be (and are) ranked higher than all-stars. This results in nominal compensation to a team that couldn’t come to terms with one of its better players and can obviously price a utility guy out of the market if the compensation (draft pick) is too high. It’s hard to imagine any of the smaller market teams really loving this contract provision. If I can get the Pirates on layaway, I’d vote to change it.
Posted 11/02 at 07:28 PM
Posted 11/02 at 08:33 PM