# Baseball - revenue sharing, salary cap, contraction **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846 "2001-11-06T20:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2001, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/61 "2001-11-10T07:00:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\* > As for Costas, all of your facts have nothing to do with his point. He was talking about **perception** rather than reality. Many potential fans are turned away because they feel the free agency system is unfair to the local team._\* Bob Costas is welcome to explain two things then: 1. Just how is the perception of teams like Seattle, Cleveland, Oakland et al. going to be that their teams cannot win when, in fact, their teams DO win? Come on, let’s get real here. I think Oakland fans have hope and faith that the A’s can win. They’ve seen them win. 2. Do you really think Browns fans thought their team had any chance in hell? The cry “Break up the Yankees!” was no joke. ---
**Author:** ![Big\_Iron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Big\_Iron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Big_Iron)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2001, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/62 "2001-11-10T14:09:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by astorian \* > > Up front, let’s be honest about our arguments. There seem to be two groups of people here. > > > > 1. The players (and their supporters) say “Everything in baseball is just fine, and if some teams aren’t doing so well, let George Steinbrenner share his big revenues with them.” > > > > 2. The owners (and their supporters) say, “There are too many teams that can’t afford to be competitive, and player salaries must be kept down (by a cap, or some other method). If that means a few superstars can’t make as much as they’d like, too bad.” > > > > Bottom line is, BOTH sides are quite eager to give away somebody ELSE’s money! BOTH sides think it’s only fair and logical that the OTHER side should forego revenue for the sake of the game. > > Well, let’s see: I’m just this guy, reading the papers. I live near Washington, DC, which hasn’t had a baseball team for thirty years, but could support one easily. > > Baseball has some teams that are having trouble competing, due to being in poor markets. We’ve got a place for one. Seems win-win enough to me, and certainly so by comparison with contraction. > > Now, back to this ‘telling other people how to spend their money’ stuff. > > Who made contraction an issue? Not the players, not the fans. Just the owners. They’re the ones who say contraction’s necessary for “the good of the game”. But contraction’s a pretty drastic move, in a sport that has a major stake in historical continuity. By raising the issue in the first place, they’ve opened up the floor to others who are suggesting less severe remedies to their problems. > > Sure, they involve other people’s money - but so what? If you tell me, “my business is in such trouble, that I’ve got to close a couple of plants,” and I give you a number of ways to avoid that, coming back with “you’re trying to tell me how to spend my money” is pretty bogus. I certainly **am** telling you how to spend your money - but you invited my opinion. > > > [@](#): > > > > IF there were still cities with taxpayers stupid enough to shower money on existing teams, there’d be a way out. But there aren’t any such cities at the moment. So, unless one side or the other is feeling extraordinarily generous (fat chance!), contraction is the only viable solution. > > I responded directly to you in my previous post. You’ve chosen to ignore it. I believe I mentioned the D.C. area in that post. You’re wrong. \*\* Sadly, DC may indeed be stupid enough to do that – wait, the federal gubmint would be chipping in hugely on that deal, too. I saw the proposal – amazing that someone can ask for such a handout. The private owners propose to pay some, maybe, of the stadium development costs (and none of the rest, such as land acquisition, infrastructure, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/63 "2001-11-11T02:22:23Z")
\*\*RickJay \*\*, 1. Allow me to paraphrase this exchange to show how silly it is: ME: This is bad for baseball because it turns away potential fans who believe the local ( losing ) team can never be winners. ## YOU: Fans of winning teams believe their teams can win. 2. I am unfamiliar with this franchise but I am completely willing to concede the point that the Browns fans didn’t think their team had a chance. What does this have to do with Bob Costas’ point? Do you really think that their discontent was good for the game? Do you feel that discontent was shared by people in other cities? Just my 2sense _I think this line’s mostly filler._ - Willow [from Buffy The Musical] ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/64 "2001-11-11T14:46:31Z")
**Rick Jay** I am becoming a bit unclear about what is a big market team and what is a small market one. I had thought of Cleveland as a big market team, but you consider it a small market one. The link helpfully provided by **dangerosa** supports your position. So I don’t know - if there are other factors besides size of metropolitan area, I don’t know what they are (they may be some intangible ones, that will of course be subject to much dispute. I seem to recall that Atlanta is considered to have a large potential revenue base due to their affiliation with TNT). Another example of a small market team unloading players would be the Seattle Mariners unloading Johnson, Griffey, & Rodriguez in successive years. I would think their phenomenal success in the past year is due to lucky acquisitions of Suzuki and to flukey performances of Boone et al. But again, I am now unclear as to why some teams are classified as small market and some as large market. So I can no longer maintain a definite position with regards to the issue until this is clarified. One question about historical success: when was the draft instituted? It may be that the true era of competitiveness was after the draft began but before free agency (if there was such a tiime). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/65 "2001-11-12T03:26:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\*\*\*RickJay \*\*, > > 1. Allow me to paraphrase this exchange to show how silly it is: > > ME: This is bad for baseball because it turns away potential fans who believe the local ( losing ) team can never be winners. > > YOU: Fans of winning teams believe their teams can win.\*\* Fans of LOSING teams believe their teams can get better and win. I honestly don’t know any baseball fans alive right now who have given up on their teams, and believe me, I talk to a lot of them. Hell, even EXPOS fans are convinced the team can win if it isn’t contracted. Lots of Kansas City fans have given up on Allard Baird having a brain and lots of Tigers fans think the Tigers will take years to recover, but I don’t know any fans who say “My team has no chance of becoming good because of economics.” Anecdotal evidence, of course, but I would like to see evidence such fans exist, and are more numerous than they were in 1953. There is certainly no RATIONAL reason for fans to believe that, since small market teams do as well now as they ever have in 125 years of professional baseball history. Besides, you don’t even understand what I’m saying. Costas isn’t saying “losing teams breed losing fans,” he’s saying thyat some franchises are economically disadvantaged so they have no chance of winning. Once again, I will ask: WHICH ONES??? What team is so economically disadvantaged it cannot win? Show it to me. I’ll buy Montreal; now, who else? > [@](#): > > **2. I am unfamiliar with this franchise but I am completely willing to concede the point that the Browns fans didn’t think their team had a chance. What does this have to do with Bob Costas’ point?** It proves he’s wrong. Costas claimed that many fans now feel their teams have no chance, and that this was not the case before. (Well, that’s what it was claimed, in this thread, he said.) He’s wrong. **IzzyR** : > [@](#): > > \*\*I am becoming a bit unclear about what is a big market team and what is a small market one. I had thought of Cleveland as a big market team, but you consider it a small market one. The link helpfully provided by dangerosa supports your position. \*\* You’ve fallen upon one of the most important points; the notion of “small/large market” is played with by the owners to present a situation that doesn’t exist. Cleveland’s a small market team and always has been, and eleven years ago - I am not making this up - many, many sports journalists, as well as the Commissioner and the owners, came right out and announced that Cleveland was such a poor market that it could not possibly succeed (without salary caps, of course.) The oft-quoted Bill James, himself a skeptic like me, said that the Indians had given up any hope of fielding a competitive team and that “The Cleveland Indians are the canary in baseball’s coal mine, and the canary just dropped off his perch.” Eight years ago Toronto was said to be a gigantic supermarket buying championships; now they’re presented as a poor market. It’s all bull, of course; Cleveland’s still a small market and Toronto is still large (larger, anyway; they’re about middle of the pack), and the difference in their fortunes is due to their own management decisions. In the 80’s and early 90’s the Blue Jays ran their team really, really well, and the Indians ran theirs poorly; after 1993 the Indians ran a tight ship and the Blue Jays fell into chaos. In order to further their agenda, baseball owners will ALWAYS define “large market” as being “a team that is winning” That way you can always make the circular argument “Look! All the winning teams are large markets!” which of course is just saying “all winning teams are winning teams.” I remember sportswriters in 1995 saying Cincinnati was a large market. (!) It’s hilariously illogical but it scored PR points. If you define a large market team in a meaningful fashion - “a team with a larger potential for revenue than the average team as a result of the size of the local market” - you will find that the connection between market size and success is tenuous at best. I’d actually say that large markets DO have a slight advantage, but no mroe so than they ever have since 1901, and maybe even less, since baseball now has structures in place for drafting amateurs. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/66 "2001-11-12T06:34:06Z")
**RickJay** , Again you fail to come to grips with my posts. I’ll try an even more simplified paraphrasing to make it clear. ME: **Some aren’t fans** of losing teams because they believe they can’t win. YOU: **Fans** of losing teams believe they can win. Hopefully the bolding will help you understand that we aren’t talking about the same thing. As for the StL Browns, I’ve conceded that their fans didn’t think they could win. How does this affect my point exactly? Again note that I am **not talking about fans**. Rather I am discussing **potential fans**. I’ll also concede that potential fans were turned away by the perception that the Browns couldn’t win. So what? As described here the financial problems seemed localized. Why would people in other cities with teams that didn’t have those particluar financial difficulties believe those teams couldn’t win? What does this have to do with the small revenue teams of today? It seems to me that you are in a big hurry to negate the point that you aren’t looking at the big picture. I read over the [Senate Testimony](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=74416.wais&directory=/diskb/wais/data/106_senate_hearings) I remembered. It turns out I misremembered. Mr Costas’ statements only touch upon the point I attributed directly to him. This paragraph seems to fit here though: > [@](#): > > \*Fans of the NBA do not believe that the Clippers are doomed to failure because of a systemic problem in the NBA. They believe it is because their management is incapable. NFL fans have no reason to believe that the Arizona Cardinals are doomed to failure by the structure of the league, but rather by either a colossal run of bad luck or the ineptitude of their management. - ## Similarly, I see no reason for those Browns fans to believe there was a systematic problem with MLB at the time. It seems that it was just their peculiar problem. It really is just my 2sense ( damn my untrustworthy memory ) ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/67 "2001-11-12T06:37:20Z")
Don’t know why that link didn’t work. C&Ping the following URL gets me to the page: [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=74416.wais&directory=/diskb/wais/data/106\_senate\_hearings](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=74416.wais&directory=/diskb/wais/data/106_senate_hearings) ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/68 "2001-11-12T06:43:28Z")
That didn’t work either. Now I’m at a loss. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/69 "2001-11-12T14:20:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 2sense \* > \*\* > ME: **Some aren’t fans** of losing teams because they believe they can’t win. > > YOU: **Fans** of losing teams believe they can win.\*\* I see, so now we have to find people who aren’t fans at all but who would be if the imaginary barrier to success was removed. Show them to me. Let’s see some evidence. Today’s reality doesn’t support Bob Costas’s claims. > [@](#): > > **It turns out I misremembered.** Then it would appear your initial point was in error, anyway, so my counter to it hardly matters. > [@](#): > > **Similarly, I see no reason for those Browns fans to believe there was a systematic problem with MLB at the time. It seems that it was just their peculiar problem.** And I would argue that that is exactly the case today, absent contraction. Small market teams can win. The fans know it. Fan support is going up, not down. I see no evidence that there is a huge base of disaffected people who refuse to become fans because their local team is systemically prevented from winning. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/70 "2001-11-14T00:02:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > **Hey, what _does_ a new stadium cost?** It depends on the design, of course (and the cost of the land). According to [http://www.ballparks.com](http://www.ballparks.com), Enron Field in Houston was a relative steal, coming in at only $250 million. Safeco Field in Seattle cost more than **half a billion** bucks. All the other new domes built in the last ten years fell in somewhere between those two extremes. (And Minneapolis needs a dome.) (NOTE: Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg cost a mere $138 million in 1990, but the Devil Rays did not play there until 1998 after $70 million was spent on renovations. However, the Trop has all the character and charm of a shopping mall.) ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/71 "2001-11-14T04:33:12Z")
No proposals for Minnesota have included a dome. In fact, outdoor is a very important feature of these stadiums. The original stadium plan had a retractible roof, but not one that would keep freezing tempertures (or 100 and humid) out. It was estimated at (IIRC) $450M. Current proposals do not have the roof and come in around $250M. We (apparently) hate our dome and (apparently) love outdoor baseball. And outdoor park will (supposedly) draw more fans than the dome even in April (brrrrr!) or late September (brrrrr!) or in the rain or in 100 and humid. Hey, if the St. Paul Saints were outselling the Twins (and they were in 1997 and 1998 for at least a couple games), must be the stadium, right? Probably not the cheap beer, loud music, tailgating, pig on the field, massage and haircuts in the stands, hometown (hey, St. Paul gets a team!) support and horrible (but league winning) baseball played by the Saints. ---
**Author:** ![Coil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Coil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coil)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/72 "2001-11-14T12:39:48Z")
I don´t know anything about baseball but this thread reminded me of an interesting article in Slate about the NFLs salary cap. It is an economists view of how it works (and doesn´t work). I hope it helps the debate. [http://slate.msn.com/?id=84859](http://slate.msn.com/?id=84859) /Coil ---
**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2001, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846/73 "2001-11-15T18:17:35Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > > Your link says that the Twins turned an operating profit last season but does not go into detail. I read elsewhere that the Twins were being paid $20M by the other teams, due to the luxury tax revenue sharing. If the “profit” is due to this, then it is misleading to suggest that the team is a profitable enterprise, and the owners are justified in calling for it’s shutdown. \*\* Recently on SportsCenter, ESPN showed the revenue statistics for the 5 lowest teams in MLB. The Twins made apporximately $58 million last year. Their payroll was $18 million. Even if the $20 million in luxury tax is applied to that, the Twins still made $20 million! I don’t care how much money the Yankees make, $20 million is a LOT of money. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/baseball-revenue-sharing-salary-cap-contraction/91846.md?page=3)