Comments on: Fixing Baseball’s Real Cheating Problem…Revenue Sharing

By: Jorge Costales

Jorge Costales — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:44:11 +0000

… I can take my finger off …

By: Jorge Costales

Jorge Costales — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:39:13 +0000

Thanks for the quick response – now I can my finger off the ‘Delete Blog’ button – that was a relief

By: garmida

garmida — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:33:28 +0000

Jorge–First off, thank you for reading here. I checked out your site and loved it. I will be reading.

Actually, after looking into it more closely, both you and Tom are correct. I took Tom’s comment as saying that I wrote that the money came from luxury tax only. That’s why I said I should ammend that line.

What I meant in the original piece is what you wrote in yours. The luxury tax is a part of the puzzle.

I hope that clears it up and doesn’t make it even more confusing. Again, thanks for reading. I truly appreciate it.

By: Jorge Costales

Jorge Costales — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:19:40 +0000

Gary

I confused – Tom wrote on one of the comments:

“You’re incorrect to say that a large contribution to revenue sharing comes from the luxury tax. In fact, luxury tax payments don’t go into the revenue sharing pool at all.”

You agreed with him and now I’m lost – I had researched and written on my blog the following:

“Revenue Sharing [based on Local Media revenues] and Luxury [based on payroll] Taxes are all part of the revenues which are redistributed from one MLB team to another.

Those differ from MLB Central Fund revenues [National broadcast & cable contracts, MLB Advanced Media, merchandise, etc] which are derived from external sources and distributed equally among all the teams.”

Bottom line then is that Revenue Sharing dollars are strictly based on Local Revenues. Is this a new development with the new CBA?

Thanks

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:48:53 +0000

Please explain what is right with a system when the best player in baseball gets little action on the free agent market because 90% of the teams cannot afford him? Or, why the best pitcher can only be traded to a few teams that can afford him? Congress, Don Fehr and Bud Selig all derided the use of PED’s because they made the playing field uneven. The basic financial structure of MLB does not provide any hope for fair competition, just a 90% unevenly tilted playing field.

By: garmida

garmida — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 04:25:55 +0000

Thanks Joe. I appreciate the kind words. It’s nice to see fans who care about the game. Thanks for reading.

By: Joe S.

Joe S. — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:56:19 +0000

Amen brother!
I have been thinking and saying the exact same things you just said in this article. And all along I thought I was the only one. Keep it up (only get louder so someone might actually listen)!

By: garmida

garmida — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:27:09 +0000

Kyle–Thanks for the kinds words. I do agree that hard data is tough to find. I would start with the Bob Costas book Fair Ball: A Fan’s Case for Baseball. I would also check out maurybrown.com as he has done some outstanding work on this. A site like baseballprospectus would also help you out with this. I also used forbes magazine for this piece as well. If you’ve used these already, shoot me an email (garmida@fullcountpitch.com) and we’ll get some stuff for ya.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:05:14 +0000

Gary,

Hi my name is Kyle Henn. I am actually looking to write a term paper for an upper level finance class at the University of Delaware on the financial structure of Major League Baseball. I really wanted to touch upon the major ideas of the luxury tax, revenue sharing and the like. Are you familiar of any sources I can use other than just hearsay.

Not to say your insight is not worthwhile, and I actually agree, but I have been struggling with the research side and actually stumbled upon your blog.

If you have any recommendations I would greatly appreciate it. Your comments here seem wise and I assume you have read a great deal of information on the subject. You are clearly not speaking from a background of little information. Thank you very much.

By: garmida

garmida — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:52:30 +0000

Jeff–Thanks for the kind words. I will say that I truly see your point, especially on the long-term contracts. I have always admired the Twins organization for their approach to staying competitive. Long term is risky for Santana, but I think he’s special enough for that risk. Guys like Hunter, Cuddyer, even Morneau and Mauer are not. But, I do see the risk you are talking about.

Hopefully, for the Twins’ sake, Liriano can come back and be that ace for the next few years.

Again, I really appreciate you reading and commenting. This is why I love baseball so much. It sparks so much great conversation.