Should MLB force other teams to raise payroll like they did to the Marlins? Details inside->?
According to an article i read the Marlins have been forced into an agreement with MLB to raise payroll. MLB will be keeping an eye on the team for the next 3 seasons to make sure they are using the money to help the team instead of putting the money they make from revenue sharing into their own pockets. Should MLB also do this to teams like the Pirates the Royals & other reams who's Owners put the money they make in their pockets instead of helping the team? I think they should.
Other teams i meant. Sorry for typo error.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
If they need to.
I'm just proud to say the Brewers reinvest revenue money and continue to generate it back into the team and the fans. There may be teams who don't, but I really dislike finger pointing. If the Marlins are going to have an eye on them, then maybe the rest of the teams should to-or at least show where the money is going.
It's interesting what small market teams can do, according to Forbes Magazine the Brewers had the 2nd most valuable fans in the MLB in 2008 (haven't seen an update) First were the Giants.
This is because the Brewers Generate revenue, they spend it, improve the team and the experience for their fans. The Brewers, yes the Brewers generated 114 million in LOCAL revenue...not national, just local in the smallest city in the MLB.
I'm just saying that not all small market teams are jerks, many actually do care about their teams and fans and Milwaukee is a Prime example of that. So maybe the MLB does need to babysit some of these other teams.
I wonder why these other owners just can't get that? You do this and you team will thrive.
- ?Lv 61 decade ago
Its good for the Yankees, so the Red Sox don't use the Marlins like the Yankees used the KC A's in the 50s and early 60s... as their own personal farm team fr lopsided trades.
Look, the MLBPA is a very powerful union and they want to make sure that their guys are getting a big cut. This means that the Marlins and Padres and Pirates (yr wrong to say the Royals, they spend pretty well, they just suck at team building and luck) need to spend more to keep up payroll amounts.
In Florida's case is is very clear that they are not spending revenue sharing dollars on their baseball operations, the same can most likely but not as clearly be said about the Pirates and Padres.
I have mixed feelings about this... I don't think its great to drive up the amount that a baseball player makes when I know ultimately it's going to mean that the price of a ticket and beer and peanuts is gonna go up at the local yard, but on the other hand, they should spend some effin money, they have awesome player development in Florida if they ever held on to anyone they would be like the 1990s Braves...
- viphockey4Lv 71 decade ago
There is a major difference between what the Marlins are doing and what other teams have done. The Marlins have received 24 mill. in revenue sharing each of the past 2 years and were forced to add salary last year to get to 37 mill.....a massive salary increase from the 22 mill. in 2008. Simple math suggests they received 48 mill. in revenue sharing and spent only 59 mill. in salary so they took in their own gate and also get the tv contract money and merchandise money yet only parted with 11 mill. of their own profits. In contrast you mention the Royals who had a payroll of 70.6 mill. last year alone which is 11 mill. more than the Marlins spent in 2 years. They spent 58.3 mill. in 2008 so they paid in 2008 what the Marlins paid in the past 2 years. Even Tampa Bay has spent 107 mill. over the past 2 years with the same revenue issues the Marlins have. No other team has come close to the low payroll of the Marlins who pocketed 3 million in revenue sharing (which was instituted to allow lower gate teams to have reasonable salaries) plus the entire amount of their own receipts which means while other teams spend the money the fans give to build a respectable product (or at least attempt to) the Marlins ownership was pocketing 50-60 million in profits. Their fans deserve better and with their penchant for finding and producing young talent there is no good reason to not build a contender instead of trading away every guy as soon as they are eligible to be paid on par with other players (like the fact they actively sought offers for Uggla since he is due a big raise). MLB shouldnt get involved except in extreme cases....this was an extreme case and it has been reported they will be monitoring the Padres too (they know the finances in Pittsburgh and are satisfied they are spending pretty much all they take in so far or they will be the next team put on notice). The Royals are spending money...the Rays are spending and so are all the other teams.
- 4 years ago
I was actually thinking about this yesterday in fact. I always wondered if MLB would ever do this and it's funny it came up now. I think it's interesting but probably not in the best interest of teams. I mean depending on how people look at it, religion can play an important role in people's lives but having days dedicated is a little fuzzy. It is respectful don't get me wrong, but I don't think religion should be brought up in baseball games as people can be pretty disrespectful towards certain religious groups. Some might even boycott the games for example. Baseball games should just remain public, if someone passes away, a team should have a moment of silence and all but introducing faith days is a little silly. I'm Russian Orthodox for example but I wouldn't want the Blue Jays to have a "Russian Orthodox" night at the Roger's Centre. I mean it would really clash with baseball.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- papawLv 71 decade ago
Every MLB team should contribute the same percentage into one fund, because some markets are richer than others, but the money should be distributed dollar for dollar equally so smaller markets can compete for good players and brfing more equality to the teamks, and thereby rais their own markets! If something like this isn't done, the Steinbrenners of the baseball world will always be 0ne(or two or three) up on the other smaller teams and continue to crush competativeness.
- тѡiƞᵴtʀiρεɗLv 61 decade ago
I don't think a team should be forced to raise their payrolls if other teams aren't forced to lower theirs.
It's ridiculous the huge gap between the lowest teams' salary a the highest teams'.
I mean yes, the Marlins needed to raise their payroll.. but it's not going to help them compete much better with other teams spending so much.
- el ÁguilaLv 71 decade ago
I don't think a team should be forced to raise it's payroll just for the sake of raising it's payroll, but they should be kept an eye on. This is a good idea if it means the Marlins would get punished for trading away great young talent just so they can make a bigger profit. It should then also be applied to other teams.
- Big DLv 51 decade ago
I think that they should but with the way the economy has been I don't MLB has the payroll to
do this to every small market team. The Marlins are an exception because they've accomplished more success than the Pirates and Royals combined. If they want to increase payroll, they better start winning games. The more success you generate the higher the payroll will rise.
Edit: wtf is up with the thumb down?
- Michael QLv 51 decade ago
Yes they should. They need to convince the Players Union to agree to a salary floor in the next CBA and put pressure on all teams below that to raise their salaries.
It would make baseball much more competitive and interesting if they did this. At least make the teams spend all the revenue sharing money they get on salary or player development.
- 1 decade ago
Absolutely. No big fancy explanation needed here. I mean, if money is being allocated to teams for a specific purpose and the teams use that money for something different, shouldn't there be consequences? When federal money is allocated to a state for them to use and it goes to something else, aren't people usually upset?