The Money Plea

Jason Michael Barker

Fixing baseball's "financial problem" -- it seems nearly every writer and/or fan has offered a suggestion as to how to go about things, so I figured I might as well take my shot. But before I get into my ideas, I'd like to throw out some facts and then take a look at a few of the main- stream solutions you hear floating around now and again.

As you well know, the Baltimore Orioles entered last season with the game's highest payroll, at just a hair under $69M. As you also know, they fell flat on their collective faces and failed to make the postseason, much to the delight of baseball fans everywhere. But the Yankees checked in at $63.5M, and that seemed to work out pretty well for them, didn't it? Cleveland, Atlanta and Texas round out the top five, and all three were playoff teams.

Head down a bit further to include the top ten payrolls, and you have six playoff teams among them. The final two postseason participants, San Diego and Houston, began 1998 with salaries of $45.3M and $40.6M respectively, which ranked #14 and 15. For their part, Houston added part of Randy Johnson's salary late in the year, so that number is a bit low.

Based on figures from opening day 1998, the average payroll of the eight playoff teams was $53.1M, which again is low due to teams adding players later in the season. By contrast, the combined opening day payroll of the bottom four teams in terms of spending (Montreal, Pittsburgh, Oakland and Cincinnati) comes in at just $64.7M.

Whenever the economics of baseball are discussed, someone is bound to suggest that there be a salary cap, as there is in the National Basketball Association or the National Football League. The idea of a salary cap is something of a misnomer in the NBA, or at least it was before the lockout (I'm not all that familiar with the terms of the settlement). Because of the so-called "Larry Bird exception," teams could go over the cap to re-sign their own players, a rule which allowed the Bulls to pay Michael Jordan more than the actual salary cap. This doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

There are other problems with a salary cap as well. The primary reason people seek to solve baseball's financial problems is to make the game more competitive for teams like Minnesota, Montreal and Pittsburgh, who simply don't spend enough money to compete. However, a salary cap wouldn't fix this problem. If the cap were say, $50M, there would be a handful of teams (Atlanta, both New York teams, Baltimore, and so on) spending every allotted penny. And guess what? Minnesota and Montreal would still spend $10M or $15M, because it simply doesn't make sense for them to spend more.

With a salary cap (and under the current system), spending in the middle ground won't get you anything more than you'd get being near the bottom, except for a few wins here and there. Honestly, if you aren't going to spend upwards of $50M, what's the point in spending $30M? You might as well spend $10M and pocket the rest.

The other idea that has been bandied about recently economic realignment, wherein teams would be divided up based on how much money they spend. Fellow staff writer Derek Zumsteg already did a nice piece on the problems with this, so I won't go into too much detail. Basically, my biggest problem with economic realignment is that it would actually make the game less competitive, despite the desire to do just the opposite.

Consider the following: Six divisions based on payroll, with the top three comprising one "league" and the bottom three comprising the other. Come playoff time, eight teams make the playoffs, just as in the current system. Yet instead of having the eight best teams in baseball (which the current system gives us, for the most part), you'd have three or four really good teams, and four or five mediocre or downright lousy ones. Suppose Atlanta, Cleveland and Houston were all denied the postseason because they were in the same division as the Yankees. You can imagine how exciting the playoffs would be?

"So, what to do?" you're probably asking. I don't have a specific plan of action, only suggestions, so bear with me. The first is increased sharing of revenues. The current "Luxury Tax" system requires the top five teams, payroll-wise, to pay out some cash to the other teams in baseball. However, the system is widely regarded as a joke, and is only in place through 1999. Instead, baseball should take a suggestion from the NFL, who split their television revenues equally among the league's 31 teams. Last season the Yankees raked in a reported $70M in TV revenues, while the Royals took in around $5M. That's the local TV money, mind you.

Second, baseball must find a way to encourage teams to try to compete. As discussed earlier, the Twins might as well have a $10M payroll (and lose 100 games) because it makes financial sense. What's needed is some sort of salary cap with a minimum and maximum that rewards teams based on performance (or perhaps cost per win).

Finally, baseball needs more smart people running its teams. It is especially important for teams that don't have big payrolls to spend their precious dollars wisely, adding players like Roberto Petagine instead of overspending on mediocre free agents. There are smart baseball people out there -- and if you read rec.sport.baseball, you probably know some. Heck, you might even be one yourself. Instead, a guy like KC's Herk Robinson is given a GM job by a front office who doesn't know any better.

Bastards.

about the author

Jason Michael Barker is currently trying to settle before he gets to arbitration. Explain that it's a good idea because the boss is so cheap he's going to arbitrate himself at jmb@strikethree.com.