Odds and Ends: Crede, Swisher, Astros

What did the Nats offer a box of Mini Wheats for Swisher? Didn't everyone realize last year, while playing with the White Sox, that Swish had little to no value. Did you see him in CF? I must say though, he has a great glove for 1st base.

Yankees don't want "prospects" for anyone they trade, they want MLB proven players.
Swisher isn't going anywhere anyways, not with Nady, Matsui, Damon all free agents

"When an owner is receiving less in profits because his team has a larger payroll, the owner is dipping into his own pockets as the extra payroll would have gone to him/her had they not spent it on the team."

No, you're mixing apples and oranges. I'm talking about funding the team out of personal wealth which is what many think owners like Pohlad should have done and which is different from funding the team out of operating revenue. There is a difference. Yes, I know at some point revenue can become personal wealth, but I don't think there is any clear evidence to support a claim that Pohlad or any other owners group of a small market team has been getting any richer off their club than owners of big market teams.

"Yankees don't want "prospects" for anyone they trade, they want MLB proven players."
__

Why would a team that has spent big bucks on FAs, while simultaneously wanting to reduce their aggregate payroll from last season, want MLB proven players?

Answer: They don't.

Payroll for a 25-man roster is just a small portion of a team's expenses. I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

Those numbers on the Marlins you posted mean nothing.

If you think that owners of low payroll teams aren't profiting from those low payrolls, then you're crazy.

Do you really believe that multiple MLB teams couldn't afford to spend $50M+ on their payroll?

They all could, but it would cut into the owners profit

scribble, I bet you're a fan of one of the big market clubs, correct?

are you a Boras client Tim?

"You're completely ignoring the fact that increasing a clubs expenses does affect an owners personal wealth." No, to the contrary. Which is why I said the costs of a club go way beyond just a 25-man payroll. Do you think people apart from the players work for a club for free? Or do you think a club runs itself without additional employees outside of the roster?

"its that teams should operate closer to the break even point than they are. " No one can show that most of them don't. I bet most of them do.

"But unfortunately there are two types of club owners, investors and fans." And you have no way of knowing which is which. Only the club owners and Selig really know for sure.

I bet ECT also roots for a big market team, right?

If Marlins, Royals, other teams cannot create a profit then its time to relocate or downsize teams.

Yankees had an operating income of -$50m. How is it fair that MLB takes money from the Yankees and send them into the negative in order to make other teams profitable?

braves need to grab swisher. its a no brainer. throw some of our trash at them. we have plenty.

scribble, do you know what the Marlin's attendance has been like? Do you know that attendance accounts for a significant portion of revenues? Do you have exact dollar figures for all the Marlins' expenses including debt in a recent year? If not, there is no credible way you can say the Marlins could afford to spend more.

Regarding the ability to afford $50 million payrolls, did you not say: "They all could"? ... and what teams are your referencing when you mention the 4-6?

Zack where are you getting your -$50 million figure from? Does that include YES? I think if you're just looking at the Forbes figures, you're sorely misguided.

I'm aware of the YES factor, but that is not included in Operating Income.

The Marlins are +$80m over the past two years, how is that fair? He gets a check but doesnt spend it?

I don't care if a owner pockets his profits, that's fine. But don't cry and make the Yankees give you a check just so he can buy a new mansion or take a vacation

Exactly zack, because YES is not included in those numbers, the negative operating income is totally bogus. Not to mention Forbes has no access to the books and so is estimating and guessing for the most part. Are they in the ballpark for most of their numbers? I'd say yes. But I bet they're off for most of them and some of them perhaps by a lot.

Again zack, you're saying the Pohlads take the revenue sharing and use it to buy yachts or other personal things. There is no way to prove that.

scribble, I'm talking about the teams you said did not spend $50 mill but were able to. Which are these teams.

"Again zack, you're saying the Pohlads take the revenue sharing and use it to buy yachts or other personal things. There is no way to prove that."

Fine then he puts it in the bank so his great-great-great-great grand kids can be billionaires too. I don't know what he does with the money but I know it's not his money to pocket.

Pohlads is worth $3 BILLION. 3x more then the steinbrenners

"zack, the small narket teams aren't crying about profits. They're crying about the disparities in revenue streams."

Then move your team, sell your team, or downsize baseball. There's only so many big marks in the US.

I disagree that small market teams for the most part should just be eliminated or moved. That's nonsense. I'm for stricter luxury taxes or a payroll cap. And I hope the Yankees are preparing for it because I think it's coming with the next CBA.

there's not salary cap coming, the players will never agree to it.

plus what are you going to set it at? 100m? 150? so you're going to FORCE the yankees to cut/trade players?

Tampa Bay just proved you don't need a salary cap, they play against the two highest markets in the game and beat them both.

Having a good scouting department, draft well, make good free agent signings and you can compete.

"stricter Luxury Taxes" = tax the yankees because they spend the most.

that;s like telling the rich kid that his parents have to buy everyone the new ipod because they cant afford it themselves

Still don't see where I suggested that you can't express an opinion.

But i got night class so im out

I don't want the Nats to get Swisher. It should be a Plan B, however, if they miss out on Dunn. But if they're inquiring on other first basemen, then what does that say about our chances in getting Dunn?

Plus, we have Nick Johnson, and even though he's injury prone, he's almost equal to Swisher in terms of power, but better at BA and OBP (I think).

If we sign Dunn, trade Johnson for pitching, and try to dangle Kearns and/or Pena if they have any value left.

Then just sign O-Dog plus maybe some pitching and we're set.

"Yankees havent won in 8 years!!" zack, that's because they have poor upper management. And what does that have to do with the fact that a small market team is at a severe disadvantage for winning a WS?

I think the point of the post was pretty literal, why use the "cant be proven" defense while talking about hypotheticals, nothing more.

As for a salary cap, I would think that there would have to be a salary ceiling and a floor for the owners and players to come to agreement (as is such with all other sports). That would put more of a burden on the lower revenue teams to raise payroll than it would on higher revenue teams to lower it.

The effectiveness of a cap would also largely depend on the hypothetical paremeters regarding how much teams have to adjust their spending. Also, there would likely be a transition period for any changes made so current contracts probably wouldnt be affected.

ECT, because you and others state these things as if they are facts and they are not. If I come on here and said "A-Rod does steroids" don't you think I should be challenged for saying this?

I'm sure if the players union agreed to a cap, the owners would agree to a floor. But the floor would have to be flexible based on a team's finances. For example, if a team is in debt because of a new stadium, they should be allowed to move that floor. There would be a payroll cop at MLB to determine this.

I doubt anyone would object to a phase-in period either.

But as I said, I think a stricter LT would be just as good.

caseyB,I agree that there are Boras surrogates out there.I found it extremely ironic that Gammons was indignant about this during an interview that he was carrying the Red Sox water.I'm just saying.

the issue with small market teams is the TV/Radio Contracts. The twins have never had great TV/Radio support. The whole state of Minnesota has as smaller population than the Bronx.

The issues as Spiney noted that the NFL has a national TV contract. MLB has a tiny national contract that generates very little revenu. Teams like the Yankees/Mets/Cubs/White Sox/Braves/Red Sox who have stations that carry games nationally get alot more in local revenu than the Twins/Royals types.

The Twins didnt spend alot on payroll but they spent a great deal on Scouts and training. They have one of the best scouting orginzaitions in all of baseball.

I think any owner who cuts checks and allows his baseball people to run things is a pretty good owner.

"I think any owner who cuts checks and allows his baseball people to run things is a pretty good owner."

Totally agree. Any owner that doesn't get in the way of his front office is a good owner. The owner doesn't decide the payroll, his revenue streams do. If you let the baseball people do their thing, then you can build a winning team for ~$50M.

"If a team is ran well, through player development, player evaluation and scouting, then they can easily contend, regardless of payroll ... Just watch the Marlins this year. And the Rays. And the A's. And the Brewers."

Sure, basically if you have a very good GM, you can compete on a small budget. No one is disputing that. And once in a blue moon, you may even win a WS like the Marlins did in 2003. But that's not the point. The point is those teams regardless of management still face severe disadvantages based essentially on geography that big market clubs don't. The point is to make the playing field more even from the start.

The Rays, A's and Brewers all have good management now but all three clubs are still at a disadvantage. None of them will win a WS anytime soon. As for the Marlins, I'm not impressed by their recent moves. I predict a last or fourth place finish for them.

Let's not forget... a salary cap should not be implemented until the last contract of an already signed player expires.

In other words... the league cannot say "Ok, starting in 2012, we're going to have a salary cap of $150 million" because there are players, such as A-Rod, that are signed for longer than that (in A-Rod's case, through the 2017 season). You can't implement a salary cap until that expires, because that contract was discussed and agreed upon during a time where no thought was given to a "salary cap."

A salary cap can't come into effect in the coming few years... it would handicap teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, ect. because of existing contracts. I know members of this site who root for small market teams will be like "so what? serves them right!" ... well, like it or not, the big market teams generate a lot of revenue for your team, too. Before last season, Tampa Bay would FILL with people when the Red Sox and Yankees were in town... and it certainly wasn't because Tampa was putting a good team out on the field. That obviously changed this past season, but my point stands.

Anyway, in conclusion, I highly doubt we'll see a salary cap until after the 2017 season. The players union, owners, and MLB can agree to it now, but it can't be implemented until after that year.

I personally don't think a "hard" salary cap will ever be implemented. I could see tougher luxury taxes, though.

"The only point I've questioned throughout the thread is whether or not big market owners invest their own money into teams. By increasing their costs, they decrease their profits, and get less money from the team and therefor the extra expenses come out of the owners pockets. That is a fact."

ECT ... it is also a fact for the small market owners as well.

I am not disputing that.

My opinion regarding payroll is its secondary to good management. Teams can be sustainably good if they follow regionally viable business plans.

LOL, I realize that last sentence sounds a little screwy. I should have said money is almost as immportant.

"Why not. A cap can be implemented using a gradual phase-in period starting within a few years. Special concessions could be made for existing contracts but only to a point. IOW, the cap would be flexible starting out but it would be there."
____________________

I see what you're talking about, but implementing a cap is more complicated than just talking about straight up numbers. How would arbitration figure into the mix? How about bonuses? How about incentive-based clauses? Flexibility would be key with these answers, I understand that... but what if you're the Philadelphia and have some major arbitration to hand out... would you have to release people to pay for that? Or do away with the arbitration process all together?

I just think a cap would be too complicated, and in the end, it wouldn't work right. Instead of punishing big market teams by telling them how much they can spend, shouldn't the league be promoting smaller market teams to put more into their operations? A.K.A. luxury tax?

Its all about fan base, population, and marketing. Milwaukee for example has a population of roughly 602,000 compared to NY with a population of over 8 million (split between 2 teams), and that just with in the city limits. They can never be on equal playing fields unless NY had over 10 teams to compete for it potential fan base/revenue. A salary cap is simply unfair for larger markets, and teams that run successful businesses, socialism does not work even in sports.

The bottom line is baseball is either over or under expanded (depending how you look at it). The only true solution in my opinion is two fold to split the majors into 2 leagues (at least) that don't directly compete against one another with the potential to move up or down based on the teams performance from the previous season. Then expansion needs to occur to compete with the teams that draw from huge population areas (ie NY, LA), to better spread its fan base, and potential revenue. This is basically the system thats in place in most European football leagues (Soccer), and is the only way to be truly fair to all fans.

How can people say Brewers will never win? Look at the guys they picked and developed, if CC wasnt abused and Sheets didnt get hurt it would have been a different series in philly

"Second, a club shouldn't be able to recognize a net profit larger than they're recieving from revenue sharing. The revenue sharing program was instituted to balance the league and instead its padding the bottom line."

See, ECT, this is what I was talking about earlier today. You have no proof for this yet you are stating this as fact. Forbes numbers are best guess estimates at best. MLB has long taken issue with the Forbes numbers. Further, the commissioner's office already reviews each team's finances to ensure the teams that get net monies from revenue sharing utilize it properly.

"How can people say Brewers will never win? Look at the guys they picked and developed, if CC wasnt abused and Sheets didnt get hurt it would have been a different series in philly"

Because a team like the Brewers can't build a team with as much depth and backups like big market teams can. So when someone like Sheets goes down, that's it for them. They also can't afford to cover up their mistakes (like a Pavano) the way big teams can.

"scribble, the very owner you bashed in your first post did just that."

Yeah.. I'll retract that statement. Pohlad was fine as an owner.

"Beane is the most overrated GM in the game, he had Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Izzy, Giambi, Chavez, Tejada, Damon, and Dye and did what with that talent? trade them away, get prospects, develop them, trade them away."

I don't think you can be the most overrated GM in the game when you have won like six division titles in ten seasons.

Plus the guy has made some brilliant trades, even if he's also made some crappy ones.

He landed Sweeney, Gonzalez and De Los Santos for Swisher, which was a great haul.

He landed Anderson (which is huge), Gonzalez, Cunningham, Smith, Eveland and Robertson for Haren. That haul is unreal.

He landed Haren, Barton and Calero for Mulder.

He managed to land Joey Devine for Kotsay.

He landed Jack Cust for cash considerations.

He landed Ray Durham for Jon Adkins.

He landed Jermaine Dye for three now nameless minor leaguers.

He landed Foulke in the Koch deal, where Koch essentially blew up after the trade in Chicago.

He kept Zito, Giambi, Izzy, Tejada, Damon and Dye through their contracts because he built contending teams, and you don't trade away key pieces when you're a serious WS contender. He just simply could NOT afford to keep any of those guys at their market prices, and he had to let them go.

Billy Beane is a fantastic GM.

So is there any source you can give to suggest that theyre not legitimate or do you just not like them because they don't support your point of view? You havent given anything aside from a personal opinion as to why such a report can't be discussed and I believe you were earlier complaining about people passing off opinion as fact.