MLB:Where is the Revenue Sharing Money going?

[John Corn]

Good article from ESPN....it asks, what are teams doing with the money they are getting. Why aren't they putting it back into the teams as the new CBA states they have to?

http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/s/2003/0320/1526812.html

[FTA Michael]

I enjoyed that article, but IMHO, it never came face-to-face with the big issue. To paraphrase an old, accurate argument made in labor disputes: Paying players more money doesn't make them play better.

Just as there usually aren't bidding wars for experienced fast-food burger-flippers, so there probably shouldn't be a whole lot of interest in baseball players who aren't any better than a team's young, cheap players in the minors. Some teams are recognizing this notion. So when all the true stars have been signed, and all your "okay" players are under contract for double the league minimum, who do you spend money on? It doesn't make sense to give the 14th best third baseman in the league a $multi-million contract, especially if no other team is offering more than $500,000.

Smarter teams recognize that they should spend truly big money to hire players who truly make a difference in the standings. Everyone else, baseball's "middle class", may have to make do with a measly half-million a year. And the rookies get the benefit of the generous minimum salary of $300k.

I'm sure that some teams are abusing the system, and I hope that'll shake out. My big hope is that the teams will use the money to sign their young players to long-term contracts, as Toronto did this spring. We'll see.

[DChristmann]

And it's not entirely accurate to say that if a team is getting revenue sharing dollars and not spending those extra dollars on player salaries, that ownership is necessarily pocketing them.

For example, we don't know how much these teams are spending on improving their scouting and minor-league system. And if a team is getting checks from the "big teams," then turning around and using that money to create the best scouting department and minor-league system that has ever been seen in the history of Major League Baseball, then I'd call that smart.

Of course, none of those dollars show up on these reports of player salaries, but that still falls under the category of "improving your team."

None of us really know what the "have-nots" are spending their money on. And it wouldn't shock me if some of the incompetents running some of these teams really are pocketing the money.

[George_F]

Interesting article.

What i found the most strange about it all (because I am already bitter, jaded, callous and believe that the owners are full of $hit) was the tidbit in the little info-box about the spenders and non-spenders...

It showed the payroll for the respective top 10 and bottom 10 teams in MLB, with the 2002 payroll, and projected 2003 payroll based on 40 man rosters.

What I found so odd was that the collectively owned Montreal Expos, threatened with contraction, and confusing ever since, are actually going to significanly increase payroll this season, from $43 million to $57 million . Uh, have I been up all night smoking crack again, or does that really say that the 'Spos are increasing payroll by 14 million dollars?