RS Review Time!

[Colby]

Dan, are you suggesting having a luxury tax if, oh say, you are in one of the three higher tiers, and at one point in the season, you spent over 95% of your cap?

I think the revenue sharing issue may be close to dead.  It may be best to keep it simple and let our salary cap system "realize" the real life revenue sharing that exists.

[rcankosy]

Colby,

Why is RS dead?  I saw 2 approvals and only one dissenting vote.

Roy

[Colby]

Colby,

Why is RS dead?  I saw 2 approvals and only one dissenting vote.

Roy

It is not entirely dead - still an active topic, but this thread has been here for quite some time without much agreement.  I need to here from the rest of the RC on this matter.

[Colby]

The revenue sharing debate may officially be dead due to our cap system.  Over the next two years, the figures project in the following manner...

2010
Range: $200.0m, Average: $108.7m, Standard Deviation: $45.7m   

2011
Range: $171.5m, Average: $105.8m, Standard Deviation: $38.7m   

2012
Range: $158.5m, Average: $104.2m, Standard Deviation: $35.0m

Caps will regress slightly, the margin between the rich and poor will drop by just over 20% and the standard deviation of cap space will drop by over $10m (about 23%).  This trend will surely continue into the middle of the decade.

Unless someone else has a good argument and a simple idea, then I think keeping things simple and taking revenue sharing out of the equation may be the way to go.

[Colby]

Roy, see my last post as I am agreeing with Ben on the revenue sharing discussion.  It is safe to say that unless MLB changes its policies then we will be relying on our cap system.

[rcankosy]

Colby,

I see that the disparity in payrolls are getting smaller, but I don't think that eliminates the need for some kind of revenue sharing for the small market teams.  The expected 2012 salary cap for the Yankees is $2175m, while the Pirates cap is $60m.  I believe that example alone creates serious consideration for revenue sharing.

[Canada8999]

Colby,

I see that the disparity in payrolls are getting smaller, but I don't think that eliminates the need for some kind of revenue sharing for the small market teams.  The expected 2012 salary cap for the Yankees is $2175m, while the Pirates cap is $60m.  I believe that example alone creates serious consideration for revenue sharing.

Again, the question is if our salary cap calculations are built to adjust our caps year in and year out based on performance, what does revenue sharing offer? 

What is your proposal for revenue sharing?  Should we just do away with any variance in salary caps all together?

[lp815]

Again, the question is if our salary cap calculations are built to adjust our caps year in and year out based on performance, what does revenue sharing offer? 

What is your proposal for revenue sharing?  Should we just do away with any variance in salary caps all together?

In my opinion, I would be worried about the small market teams simply never winning.  If they can't win games, they can't increase their caps.  Case in point, I'm a relatively small market team, and I'm projected to have a decrease in cap space of over $10m.  Obviously my team is in no position to win in it's current state, so how am I to get better when my cap room goes down over 15%?  I'd have to check other smaller market teams like this to see if there are others in the same position.

[rcankosy]

Jake,

I had that same concern, and I shared it with the RC when the proposal of tying a portion of the salary cap to team performance first came up.

[Colby]

Jake,

I had that same concern, and I shared it with the RC when the proposal of tying a portion of the salary cap to team performance first came up.

Per my previous post, a small market team finishing dead last may just keep their cap static whereas the Yankees not finishing first will decrease their cap (this is actually true in real life).  The salary cap system made some progress in realizing some of the revenue sharing.  The question is do we want to add more as did last year?