Tango on Baseball Archives

Let's Contract Two Different Teams
by Tangotiger

A simple plan

How can the Montreal Expos actually compete with the Yankees? That's the main question. The typical evidence is that Montreal's entire revenue stream is smaller than an average team's payroll. Yet, there are the Expos, competiting. Maybe Montreal is an aberration. What about the Tigers? Detroit is such a small-market that the large-marker Detroit Red Wings won the Stanley Cup. And of course, the small-market Cleveland Indians of the 70s have become the large market Cleveland Indians, and soon to become the medium market Indians. Are there that many people moving in and out of Cleveland? Over the last 30 years, I'd guess that half the teams were "viable" contraction targets.

Anyway, the real situation is that there is a disparity in revenue between the Yankees and Mets, against the Expos and Twins. So, if the Yankees and Mets trading and buying and cornering the market on all the good players is such a problem, then why not contract them? That's right, contract the Yankees and Mets! Who needs 'em?

Doesn't every non-New Yorker hate the Yankees? Even some New Yorkers hate the Mets. So, get rid of them. What would happen? Well, all their revenue streams would disappear, and maybe some revenue to other teams. But gone is also all their expenses, and all the trickle effect their salary signings have had. Do teams complain more about how much the Yankee/Mets payroll structure is setup, or do they cheer more about how much revenue these teams bring to them? I'm not sure if George Steinbrenner can here the question, as he has hundreds of millions of dollars from his Cable deal blocking his ears.

Don't teams love the Expos? Teams never complain about their payroll structure, and maybe slightly complain about the slight drop in their own revenue streams. Why get rid of the little brother who helps you out, so that you can keep that big bad brother that always pushes you around?

But, won't that leave a huge hole in the lucrative New York market? Why, yes it would. A huge gaping hole. A hole so big that MLB can finally own that market, instead of the Yankees and Mets. So large, that they can move a team they already own, the Expos, and buy out the Marlins, Twins, and Devil Rays, and move them ALL to New York. And since MLB will own these 4 teams, they can decide that all that great Cable and TV money they'll get from four teams might be redistributed to the other 24 teams.

Why stop there? Contract the Dodgers, the Cubs, and the Braves. Move other teams in there, and own their Cable and TV money, and give that to the other teams as well. Soon, you can contract out all the democratic businessmen who never want to share any of their revenue streams unless there is some ancillary effect to their bottom line, and replace them with socialistic businessmen who believe in the greater good. Something like Robin Hood. Or the NFL.

Donald Fehr has reminded us that since a large portion of the revenue comes from local gates, then the common business practice is to try to maximize that revenue locally. Good. Let's leave all that alone. Teams keep 100% of their local revenue, and share equally all the Cable and TV money.

Is all this ridiculous? On some level, of course it is. At the same level that contracting the Expos and Twins is, actually. But if the problem is caused by the free spenders, then get rid of the free spenders.

I am aware that this solution is impossible, because the Yankees and Mets et al have a market capitalization that is far higher than an MLB buyout could afford. Their market capitalization is disgustingly high only because they own the market they are in, and they own the Cable and TV deals as well. MLB needs to take back that ownership, rather than restrict salaries of players.

July 12, 2002 - Matthew Appleton (e-mail)

What a brilliant idea! Let the Yankees and Mets become barnstorming teams that either travel around the U.S. looking for opponents or pay their opponents to get beaten up in New York. While they're doing that, the other 28 teams can then duke it out for the chamipionship of MLB. If we still feel cheated of a true World Series champion, we can then have the MLB champ play off against the Mets or Yankees (let the two of them duke it out in a best of some-ungodly-number (I'm thinking 15 games at least) so as to make the Mets-Yankees rivalry REALLY intense). Or, to pacify all those out their that veterans from the Japanese leagues such as Ichiro last year shouldn't qualify as MLB rookies, have the sans-NY MLB champ, the winner of the Japanese World Series and the two NY teams go into a four team playoff tournament to decide once and for all the World Series champ. This is the type of outside-the-box thinking we really need.

July 12, 2002 - Common Sense

This whole article insults my intelligence.
It is not "thinking outside of the box", it is pitching a crazy, impractical, dumb idea for the sake of shock value.
Baseball traced its beginnings in New York [Read Concise History of Baseball by Koppett], and the teams have a following of millions.
Just because you and other fans are jealous of the Yankees doesn't mean a thing in regards to contracting.

July 12, 2002 - Matthew Appleton

Common Sense,
Obviously, you don't have what your name implies. If you had been alive in late 18th-century Great Britian, you probably would've thought that Jonathan Swift was completely serious when he wrote "A Modest Proposal." Yankee fans like you (specifically those who are looking for anti-NY bias in everything they read) need to lighten up and get a sense of humor.

July 12, 2002 - alex Gasner

Very funny article, one point missing, however. Everybody loves the Expos (and youppi) OUTSIDE of Montréal.

July 12, 2002 - Proofreader Guy

Yet, there are the Expos, competiting.
Is that some sort of French thing?

July 12, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

Proofreader guy: you know, I read and reread and re-reread my article, and it amazes me what I miss. How about "here" for "hear", and "marker" for "market"? Competitif is french for "competitive", so I don't think I can use the french excuse.
Common Sense: do you think that if Steinbrenner reduces his payroll from 140 million to 90 million that he will give that 50 million$ of savings to you? In fact, don't you think that now that he set up the YankeeNets that it will be very easy for Steinbrenner to claim much less revenue because the YankeeNets corporation owns the Cable rights, and not Steinbrenner?
If teams claim that they can't play in the same playing field as the Yankees, then either level the playing field by introducing teams into a lucrative market to siphon off some of that revenue, or take some of that Cable money, or realign the two leagues by market size. Let the Yankees and MEts and REdsox and Braves and Dodgers spend themselves crazy. Let the A's and Expos and Royals and Twins spend smart.
To think that by controlling player salaries that you will get an outcome that is different from today is ludicrous. Nothing is going to change. In 5 years, you'll be right back to where you started.

July 13, 2002 - Tim

Great idea, but you're not taking it far enough. Contract all players to the league rather than to the teams, so the league can move people around at will, and make extra money renting their best players out to the Japanese leagues as promotional stunts.
Baseball, after all, needs to be more like MLS.

July 13, 2002 - Jeremy M

This article, of course, was written in jest but how about just moving the Expos to Jersey. That would sure cut down on a lot of the yankees and mets revenues. There are 3 nhl teams in new york (including the devils) and it works well. A New York team will always have an advantage (lets remember how the yankees got their stars of the past-they had the money) but not too much of one. Also, maybe if bad teams wouldn't give mediocre players $7 million a year (re: Jeffrey Hammonds) they'd have a lot better ballclubs and revenues.

July 13, 2002 - Jeremy M

This article, of course, was written in jest but how about just moving the Expos to Jersey. That would sure cut down on a lot of the yankees and mets revenues. There are 3 nhl teams in new york (including the devils) and it works well. A New York team will always have an advantage (lets remember how the yankees got their stars of the past-they had the money) but not too much of one. Also, maybe if bad teams wouldn't give mediocre players $7 million a year (re: Jeffrey Hammonds) they'd have a lot better ballclubs and revenues.

July 13, 2002 - Mookie

Probably picking nits, but don't the Braves (and probably the Cubs as well) have a far more lucrative cable deal than the Mets? New York is a great market, but having two owners who last agreed with each other in the 1980's is a good way to make sure that the other team dominates financially.
Aside from that, amusing way of presenting the real problem. The Braves currently receive zero from cable broadcast, because they are owned by the company that broadcasts. As of next broadcast contract the Yankees join the zero club, so if there is to be equal sharing of cable revenue someone will have to deal with the "Enron" accounting.

July 14, 2002 - Mr Cub

Let's contract two!

July 14, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

There's no question that we are introducing accountants into the fold with the owners' plan. As if lawyers aren't bad enough. How many white collar solutions do we have to introduce to "solve" the problem?
Just re-align based on market size. 4 divisions of 8 teams. The top team of each division goes foward, while the 2nd and 3rd place go into a wild-card system where the 2nd place of Divison 1 plays 3rd place of Division 4, etc. There's no need to force a socialistic solution. Just change dance partners.
There's no need to overhaul anything. If you want to overhaul, then disband the league, and do it right.

July 15, 2002 - Common Sense II

I condone thinking outside of the box.
Writing a shock article suggesting something impossible and impractical is another story.
The writer should have simply pitched a more reasonable idea.
"Baseball Primer Suggests to Contract Yankees, Mets" is ridiculous.
Contracting New York teams is not an option.

July 15, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

Common sense: it seems that you've been getting more and more common sense. How much longer before we get Commen Sense the third?
Seriously, when I say to "contract" the New York teams, I intended it to be in a humorous note. But the point of contracting the teams is to reposition the power that is highly concentrated in the New York teams. Since Steinbrenner is consolidating and hiding his power and revenue in a second enterprise (that exists only because of the first), it is unlikely that he will reduce the market value of his interests.
Why would 29 intelligent men buyout a franchise that has limited value (Expos) when they can buy out a franchise that has substantial value (Yankees). Steinbrenner used the system to its fullest, he capitalized on it with the unanticipated TV value that has created the great divide. Everyone has his price. So, buy out Steinbrenner at fair market price, and redeploy the value of the Yankees by siphoning away the cable and TV value, and selling the rest of the team to an interested buyer. That is, buy Steinbrenner's TV and cable rights away from Steinbrenner.
If that is too hard or too expensive to do (as if maintaining the status quo does not have its own expenses), then just take the "barnstorming" idea to something more palatable. Put the Yanks, Mets, Redsox, Dodgers, Braves, Orioles, Rangers, and Cubs in the "Division 1" league. Put the Expos, Pirates, Brewers, Reds, A's, Marlins, Devil Rays, and Blue Jays into the "Division 4" league.
What would happen? Well, all those Division 1 teams will soon realize that they can't hope to buy their way in because they've got too much competition for too few spots. They'll have to be smart. The Division 4 teams will realize that with just a little effort and smarts, they'll have a decent chance to make a run for the playoffs.
Once in the playoffs, anything can happen (especially if you make the first round 5 games instead of 7).
Without spending a single dollar on either side, we can reshape the entire competitive balance by simply changing divisions.
And what's more shocking: that I say to redistribute the wealth of the Yankees to the poor teams, or Selig redistributing the wealth of the Expos to the rich teams?

July 16, 2002 - Final Common Sense

Yes, the plan to have divisions based upon market value is more competitive than the current system.
And it makes more sense to redistribute the wealth from a filthy rich team.
Of course, The Boss is an achiever and self-made mogul. Wouldn't taking away his team go against the American Dream of individual accomplishment?

July 16, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

Willy Loman is all in favor of the American dream. And I didn't say to steal it from the Boss, but buy it back from him. MLB made a huge error in not securing the TV rights the way the NFL did. Now they've got to pay for it. Literally. Once they do that, the chips will fall into place. But to restrict player salaries through non-American ways? I don't think so.

July 18, 2002 - Three Teams

I think a third team in the new york area would be a fantastic thing for baseball. It would create a geographic rivalry, which is always good for increasing fan interest. It would better even the playing field in terms of market size. It would also reestablish the classic arrangement of New York baseball, harkening back to the days of the Yankees, NY Giants, and Brooklyn Dodgers. It is hard to deny that New York has always been the "capital" of baseball. As such, I think there is great potential for a 3rd New York franchise, probably by moving the Expos. The enhanced value of the franchise would allow MLB to sell and realize a HUGE profit to be shared among the other 29 teams the currently own the Expos.

July 18, 2002 - Marc Hugunin

Not to get serious in response to a funny article...but here's another criteria for contraction.
No more bail-out loans from MLB or fellow owners. When a team can't make payroll, boom, contraction.
Why should small market teams that don't lose $30 million a year be contracted, while other teams lose $30 million every year and call on Bud Selig for a bail-out loan get to keep on spending? In what other business do companies that make a little money go out of business while those that lose a lot keep on truckin'? Don't answer that.

July 19, 2002 - Zen Student (e-mail)

Well, really I find all of these comments to be halfway measures as is the article. If indeed baseball is in bad shape financially -AND- baseball is vital to the well-being and entertainment of Americans, this makes it critical that it survive and flourish.
Therefore, the U.S. government, instead of ending the anti-trust exemption, should instead nationalize major league baseball. Players would then be paid like federal employees beginning at G-1 and receiving a one grade increase for each year played in baseball up to G-15. players would receive government pensions, insurance, and so on.
In return, fans would receive low-price tickets and the US government would have a new source of income that should pay off the cost of nationalizing the league. How much could nationalizing baseball cost--$3 billion? $4billion? Big deal....

July 24, 2002 - Go Spurs

One of the few things that makes football (the round-ball version) watchable is the tiering. While Man U and Arsenal maintain a stranglehold on the top (the 'pool was a fluke), teams like Middlesborough, Nottingham, and Blackburn Rovers can
Instead of completely segregating the teams, we can leave 30 teams in the majors, another 30 in AAA, and so on. At the end of each year, the top eight teams in the Majors would go to the playoffs, as it is now. The bottom four (read: Detroit, Milwaukee, Florida, Tampa Bay) would move to Triple-A, and the four top "Trips" could move up. Over time, the stronger markets, the stronger management teams, would rise to the top. Portland, Chatanooga, and Louisville could end up with a major league team while teams with a tendency to fade from the race by Memorial Day could remain competitive in a lower circuit.
Of course, each major league team would have to disassociate their farms, but after the Padres maintained themselves as the league's farm club three times now, we can follow their model for player distribution.
This way, Thomas Payne up there can maintain the Capitalist structure that keeps his Yankees on top and the other teams can dig deep into the pits of their souls and decide why they REALLY exist.

July 24, 2002 - Doug Frobel

Of course this will NEVER happen... And I'm expecting Donald Fehr to come crashing threw my door with Janet Reno and and the ATF to keep me from posting this... But straight from FantasyLand I bring you PAY FOR PERFORMANCE!!
Yep, we just take X% of revenues and throw them into the central fund and then pay players based on how they actually perform during the season. Sure, it's a radical proposal - what employer in his right mind would ever base his employees compensation on actual performance? - But it would certainly justify the Devil Rays actually wanting to keep Greg Vaughn in their line up as he cruises along hitting .125.
Think of all this would cure... Free Agency? Who needs it... A home run in Atlanta is worth just as much as a home run in Colorado. The whole small market/big market bugaboo goes PFFFFT! cause there's only one market! And we know how much Don Fehr cries cause there aren't any 43 year olds batting in the NL cause there's no DH. But come August when the Padres are comfortably 35 games out then can load up their line up with assorted light hitting has-beens and save a few bucks. The possibilities are endless.
Just imagine signs popping up in outfields all across the country... "HIT IT HERE and get PAID!".

July 24, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

I think the soccer relegation/promotion idea is viable. But I question the 30 teams/league decision. The disparity will still exist. Why not have a 12 team premier league, 24 team division-1, etc, etc. Which just brings us back to my proposal of having leagues segregated by market size, but having ALL of them play for the World Series. By having each league have its own championship, the fans will question the legitimacy of any except the World Series.

July 24, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

As for pay for performance, why not simply limit contracts to 1 year? And make everyone a free agent? That would make it truly free market. You'd end up paying rotisserie style prices (about 15% to your top player), because of the abundance of supply. So, a team with a 60 million$ payroll will pay say Mike Piazza 9 million$. A-Rod would have a tough time getting more than 15 million$.
So, we have a mechanism that can severely limit top players' earning potential. All owners have to do is declare everyone a free agent, and no more guaranteed contracts. Too hard. It's like going to the Playboy mansion and being told you have a chance with 1 girl, and 1 night only. The owners want control, and they want to feel empowered. It'll cost you.

July 31, 2002 - Dennis

The point that the advocates of the "increase the supply and make them all free agents" always ignore is the demand side of the equation. In a free market, prices are determined by supply _and_ demand. If you make everyone a free agent, there might be more shortstops available, but there will also be a lot more teams that need a shortstop, and it will all balance out. A-Rod will still get his $15-$20 mil.

July 31, 2002 - tangotiger (www) (e-mail)

It would turn exactly into a rotisserie style system. The top guy would get at most 20% of the payroll. In any case, it doesn't matter how much the #1 guy gets. It's the overall payroll that matters. Players will be willing to sign for below market in some cases, simply because they don't want to be left out.
Teams will have their budgets before the bidding starts, and they won't try to run up prices, because of all the other fish in the sea.
Owners need help controlling themselves, and this is the best way. And if they overpay? So what, it'll only be for 1 year. You won't have all those 5 year contracts guaranteed to worry about.

August 1, 2002 - Dennis

Yes, it would get rid of the stupid long-term deals, but the salaries will be just as high. There might be more "fish in the sea" but there will also be more fishermen.

September 6, 2002 - David Farter (e-mail)

You obviously have no common sense. As a matter of fact, I think you're ignorant. First of all, don't blame the Yankees, Mets, or any of the other teams you so blindly listed for the problems in baseball. These teams played within baseball's ridiculous rules. The blame should be placed on Major League Baseball itself for ALLOWING these teams to rape all of the other small-market teams of their talent. The irony of all this is look where the Mets are. They have over 100 million dollars in salary due to marginal players (come on, Mo Vaughn is a fat washed-up piece of you-know-what) and they are in last place. Major League Baseball should just cease operations and not come back until they have an entirely new system of rules and regulations that can make Owners, Players, and Fans alike truly enjoy the game for what it is - a game. Now THERE'S common sense. Idiot.

September 6, 2002 - Misha Feldman (e-mail)

Want to fix the lack of competitiveness? Instead of having only 4 teams make the playoffs from each league, how about 6, with the teams with the 2 best records having a first-round bye? That would definitely stir up more "competitiveness". There's some more "common sense". Oh yeah, and contraction sucks. Whoever came up with that idea is a moron. Like contracting teams would really help? How stupid. Bud Selig should be sent to Cuba to live with Fidel Castro.