The New CBA: How It Affects the Mets, Yanks and All the Rest
Before I get going, let me take a few seconds to propose to my future wife, Coop. Coop, it is nice to have an intelligent, classy female on board here. So if this proposal at all interests you, hit me up.
Now we get to business.
Baseball is at peace. With ticket sales at an all time high and popularity soaring despite all the steroid scandals and hoopla on Capitol Hill, and more importantly, owners with very heavy pockets, an extension of baseball's collective bargaining agreement seemed like a slam dunk.
The agreement features three key aspects for the common fan:
1. Continued Revenue Sharing
2. A mandate on teams to use funds from revenue sharing for on-field talent as opposed to other aspects of the team (i.e. stadium improvements and owners' houses).
3. A weaker (higher) luxury tax
It is the opinion of this author that unless the Mets are willing to drastically increase payroll, this new agreement could severly hurt the club.
The increased revenue sharing means that the poorer teams are now richer. Every year, teams at the bottom receive a larger chunk of baseball's collective pie.
The big difference? Now these teams at the bottom are forced to spend this money. No longer can the Marlins play with a $14 million payroll. While the exact stipulations are not clear, the Marlins will be forced to spend.
Like the floor in the NBA salary cap that requires all teams to spend a certain % of the salary cap, this new agreement now requires all teams to spend a certain amount of money.
What this means is simple.
Not only will the poorer teams have more money to resign their own young players, but they will also be more involved in competing for free agents, especially second tier free agents.
For example, while the Marlins will not be signing the Carlos Beltran's of the world, that is, unless they have a major change in philosophy, they could be potential suitors in the Gary Sheffield trade sweepstakes, something they never would have been a year ago.
With all the poorer teams involved, there's more money to spend, and player salaries stand to rise.
Buster Olney writes a somewhat exaggerated version of this on espn.com, but what he is saying is that pitchers like Jeff Suppan who previously command Matt Clement money (3 yrs, 25-27 mil) now they could be getting Ben Sheets Money (4 yrs, 40 mil).
It's simple economics.
The supply stays the same while the demand is going way up.
3. Then there is the issue with the luxury tax.
The luxury tax is now easier on the Yankees in two ways.
First, the Yankees will only be taxed for salaries over $148 million in year 1 and $178 million in year 2.
These numbers are both way up from the previous deal.
Second, the amount of money that they will be taxed decreases.
Simply put, the Yankees can increase payroll and not be effected by the luxury tax.
Well good for them.
In my opinion, the teams that are hurt the most from this CBA are the Mets and the Red Sox. That's not a good thing for readers of Y2K.
With the poorer teams having more money to spend, free agent prices will rise and the free agent pool will decrease.
While the Yankees and their outraegous spending will not be affected, in order for the Mets and Red Sox to adjust to the new CBA they will have to increase spending.
For example, whereas before there may have been 3-5 teams interested in giving Barry Zito a lot of money, there is now the chance that he may be able to resign in Oakland. If that is not the case, then there may now be 10-15 teams willing to pay him $13+.
All of a sudden the balances of power are becoming greater and greater.
Or so Bud Selig likes to argue.
This is not going to be the case, however. Without a salary cap there will never be partiy. There may be more winners in baseball than any other sport, but that is a result of a lot of things.
The one thing this CBA does is it evens a lot of teams with the 2nd tier wealth (Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers) but it still allows the Yankees to play Bankee baseball.
The Yankees' drought of championships is the best thing that the owners have going for them.
They all love the Yankees for stuffing their pockets with money generated from road ticket sales, merchandising etc.
Because the Yankees have found a way to lose every year, owners can justify allowing them to outspend the rest of baseball.
Here's my major concern. If the Mets decide to step up their game by paying players their newfound relative worth, then what is going to happen to ticket prices and the price of a beer?
Money don't grow on trees my friends.
With a new stadium with fewer seats and what could be a skyrocketing payroll, baseball will slowly drown out the common fan from attending ball games.
Great for owners who love their money. Not so great for the people that make baseball American.
We shall see.
Vaya con dios.
Sip
Now we get to business.
Baseball is at peace. With ticket sales at an all time high and popularity soaring despite all the steroid scandals and hoopla on Capitol Hill, and more importantly, owners with very heavy pockets, an extension of baseball's collective bargaining agreement seemed like a slam dunk.
The agreement features three key aspects for the common fan:
1. Continued Revenue Sharing
2. A mandate on teams to use funds from revenue sharing for on-field talent as opposed to other aspects of the team (i.e. stadium improvements and owners' houses).
3. A weaker (higher) luxury tax
It is the opinion of this author that unless the Mets are willing to drastically increase payroll, this new agreement could severly hurt the club.
The increased revenue sharing means that the poorer teams are now richer. Every year, teams at the bottom receive a larger chunk of baseball's collective pie.
The big difference? Now these teams at the bottom are forced to spend this money. No longer can the Marlins play with a $14 million payroll. While the exact stipulations are not clear, the Marlins will be forced to spend.
Like the floor in the NBA salary cap that requires all teams to spend a certain % of the salary cap, this new agreement now requires all teams to spend a certain amount of money.
What this means is simple.
Not only will the poorer teams have more money to resign their own young players, but they will also be more involved in competing for free agents, especially second tier free agents.
For example, while the Marlins will not be signing the Carlos Beltran's of the world, that is, unless they have a major change in philosophy, they could be potential suitors in the Gary Sheffield trade sweepstakes, something they never would have been a year ago.With all the poorer teams involved, there's more money to spend, and player salaries stand to rise.
Buster Olney writes a somewhat exaggerated version of this on espn.com, but what he is saying is that pitchers like Jeff Suppan who previously command Matt Clement money (3 yrs, 25-27 mil) now they could be getting Ben Sheets Money (4 yrs, 40 mil).
It's simple economics.
The supply stays the same while the demand is going way up.
3. Then there is the issue with the luxury tax.
The luxury tax is now easier on the Yankees in two ways.
First, the Yankees will only be taxed for salaries over $148 million in year 1 and $178 million in year 2.
These numbers are both way up from the previous deal.
Second, the amount of money that they will be taxed decreases.
Simply put, the Yankees can increase payroll and not be effected by the luxury tax.
Well good for them.
In my opinion, the teams that are hurt the most from this CBA are the Mets and the Red Sox. That's not a good thing for readers of Y2K.With the poorer teams having more money to spend, free agent prices will rise and the free agent pool will decrease.
While the Yankees and their outraegous spending will not be affected, in order for the Mets and Red Sox to adjust to the new CBA they will have to increase spending.
For example, whereas before there may have been 3-5 teams interested in giving Barry Zito a lot of money, there is now the chance that he may be able to resign in Oakland. If that is not the case, then there may now be 10-15 teams willing to pay him $13+.
All of a sudden the balances of power are becoming greater and greater.
Or so Bud Selig likes to argue.
This is not going to be the case, however. Without a salary cap there will never be partiy. There may be more winners in baseball than any other sport, but that is a result of a lot of things.
The one thing this CBA does is it evens a lot of teams with the 2nd tier wealth (Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers) but it still allows the Yankees to play Bankee baseball.
The Yankees' drought of championships is the best thing that the owners have going for them.They all love the Yankees for stuffing their pockets with money generated from road ticket sales, merchandising etc.
Because the Yankees have found a way to lose every year, owners can justify allowing them to outspend the rest of baseball.
Here's my major concern. If the Mets decide to step up their game by paying players their newfound relative worth, then what is going to happen to ticket prices and the price of a beer?
Money don't grow on trees my friends.
With a new stadium with fewer seats and what could be a skyrocketing payroll, baseball will slowly drown out the common fan from attending ball games.
Great for owners who love their money. Not so great for the people that make baseball American.
We shall see.
Vaya con dios.
Sip
posted by Sippy Momo at 11:25 AM
5 Comments:
Sippy, I'm flattered ;-) I am taken though, but I will keep your proposal as a rain check LOL (just kidding of course)
I plan on starting my own blog once I am done with school, coincidentally, about a week before Opening Day. So just remember to give me a plug when I start it!
You want classy? *BUUUUUURRRRRP* ;-)
PS Did you see Jeter talking smack about Delgado and the Mets on MSN today?
Didn't see it, else there would've been trouble. Y'all know. Wasn't Jeter in Europe?
$40 million for Jeff Suppan is some Sir Francis Drake shit. I'll no sooner give that stem cell-hating asshole $40 than I would resign Lima Time.
Sip, stop freaking out the ladies. I mean, more than usual.
What a dumbass!
You have so many holes in your arguments, I hardly know where to start.
Let us start with the basic fact that team chemistry is extremely important in a winning ballclub.
Second point, read "Moneyball." You may gain a clue, as the Yankee management has not.
Third point, NEW YORK SUCKS ASS!
Did you even read the piece, anonymous? Where does Sip argue either A) That team chemistry isn't important? or B) That Yankee management has done a good job?
He doesn't make either of those arguments. You're entitled to think New York sucks ass, I guess, but to read your critique it's like Sip's talking about apples and you're talking about oranges.
Not trying to knock you -- you're certainly entitled to disagree with what he wrote. But I am curious to better understand your disagreement; at the moment, I don't know where to begin. Funny, you said the same thing.
You know, for all the publicity "MoneyBall" gets, exactly what has Beane won? Not much. A couple of division titles.
So while it has it's place, sometimes, you need to go against the grain, kind of a hybrid of MoneyBall and big money. Draft wisely, lock up young guys, but make sure you keep a big ticket guy or two to help the young guys. Letting them all go for picks is going to eventually bite you in the ass.
If coop starts a blog, I might have to pack it in. She's damn good.
Post a Comment
<< Home