Comments on: Report: MLB could tax low-spending clubs

By: JB (the original)

JB (the original) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:52:09 +0000

That’s why I said they should factor in team performance (perhaps like the ”3 year avg” payroll suggestion above). If you’re a low spender AND your team sucks (again, some determined winning % avg. over 3 years) you fall into the penalty. That way heavy injury years, or trading away of the big, last year contracts could be buffered somewhat.

By: stex52

stex52 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:38:10 +0000

By “get to 50 MM$”, I meant “get as low as 50 MM$.”

By: stex52

stex52 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:36:47 +0000

As long as you have Tampa Bay on the list (or Oakland, once upon a time) it is hard to just arbitrarily assign a penalty. Some teams are just very efficient with their money.

By: stex52

stex52 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:34:35 +0000

I’d be surprised to see the payroll get to 50 MM$. Carlos Lee, Wandy Rodriguez, and Brett Myers alone will account for nearly 40 MM$. Rodriguez might go, but Lee is locked in and Myers won’t have that much interest.

By: boston992

boston992 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:11:04 +0000

It’s amazing to me that MLB has allowed this to go on for so long. How could they not force these teams to spend the money they are collecting from the other teams who are over the cap? The owners of these teams have been lining their pockets with the money from the other teams who are over the cap, while putting sub-par teams on the field. It’s ridiculous that this hasn’t been addressed up until now

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:18:24 +0000

I agree, 1 & 2 are huge potential problems.

We’ll have to wait and see how such a “tax” or penalty is implemented. If it is simply designed to prevent teams from pocketing revenue-sharing money, I have no problem with it even in the problem scenarios you outlined. An easy fix (which means MLB won’t do it) is to calculate a 3-yr running average, which would allow teams to dip below the threshold from time to time, but require them to be above the threshold on average of any given 3-yr time period. It shouldn’t matter if the money is spent on baseball expenses in year X, just that it is spent and not pocketed.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:13:51 +0000

You also have to realize that many tickets are sold at big discounts during promotions. The vast majority MLB tickets are not sold at the sticker price, but in bundles for discounts or as some promotion….teams know that times are tough, and they are doing anything they can to get people to the park….selling a $50 ticket for $10 is far better than having an empty seat.

By: JB (the original)

JB (the original) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:16:18 +0000

*Edit function*

By: JB (the original)

JB (the original) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 15:14:43 +0000

Oh, I’m not a low budget apologist, just providing some info…. If there were to be something I’d like it include all the costs the team has, otherwise you’d see salaries artificially driven up just to meet the minimum salary floor; I guess I look at the Rays; should they be forced to lay out more $$$? Maybe on field performance could come into play? If you’re under a certain $$$ amount, AND you finish with a .450 winning percentage (or some other TDB value), you have to pay up?

By: JB (the original)

JB (the original) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:52:39 +0000

If you go here: https://www.teammarketing.com/public/files/2011_mlb_fci.pdf

you’ll see that the Padres average ticket price is under $16; times 2.1M in attendance is under $35M (yes, not including concessions, memorabilia, etc., but also not including draft costs, administration, etc.)

By: dan1111

dan1111 — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:18:24 +0000

I don’t like this. A couple of problems:

1) There is a difference between a perpetually cheapskate team and one that temporarily lowers payroll in a rebuilding phase..Forcing a minimum would hamper rebuilding.

2) What if a team tries and fails to sign the players they want? They have to go out and spend on someone they don’t want.

3) What if an underperforming team wants to trade away their higher-paid players? Can they do this? If yes, that’s a huge loophole. If no, it really stinks, too.

4) including draft bonuses and minor league investments would be better, but I would be surprised if it happened. They are negotiating with the MLBPA, and this would not be in their interest.

I think the problem of low-spending teams does exist, although it is overstated. But any attempt to solve it with a minimum would hamper small market teams that are trying to spend wisely in order to win.

By: skeleteeth

skeleteeth — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:29:15 +0000

Stark has been talking about this for well over a year, initially billed as the only talking point to come out of the potential agreement. Guess he didn’t factor in the Astros sale/conversion to the AL.

By: mcsnide

mcsnide — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:51:04 +0000

And now we know why the Marlins are talking about spending money.

By: thekingdave

thekingdave — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:32:06 +0000

Sucks for Jim Crane. First he was stiff armed by Bud into moving to the AL, and now he might tax him after he inevitably cuts payroll.

By: icanspeel

icanspeel — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:24:27 +0000

They should have a minimum spending cap in MLB, but it’d be wise to open the books and come up with an educated value instead of just picking an amount.

I could be wrong, but I don’t understand this..
I’ll use the Padres as an example with their yearly attendance and Salary
2011 – Attendance – 2,143,018 Salary – $45,869,140
2010 – Attendance 2,131,774 Salary – $37,799,300

After all expenses, how could a team not be pocketing quite a bit of money just on attendance alone?

By: djpostl

djpostl — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:28 +0000

Couldn’t agree more. Factor everything in, even include the money spent on facilities for minor league systems, scouting costs etc…and do it. Sounds like a great idea. Teams have been openly crying about a competitive imbalance for a decade now while accepting luxury tax/revenue sharing checks that pay for their entire payroll and turning a tidy profit for sometime.

Don’t let em have both ways, whine about “we can’t compete” then not even try to.

By: dodger88

dodger88 — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:10:24 +0000

Agreed, while complicated some sort of minimum that accounts for the draft, international signings and other forms of development along with the big league payroll would make sense.