View Single Post
Old
07-16-2012, 02:24 PM
  #43
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
I agree on the RFA comp issue-it has to hurt to sign one. As much as I would like it to be different for the Jackets sake, someday they will have an RFA that is coveted by other teams and I'd hate to see that guy go for a pittance.

As for the salary cap, without any real study, I believe it works to the advantage of the big market teams with their deep pocket owners and large local TV contracts in addition to better attendance. The only way around this is to make revenue sharing more penal to the big guys and then make sure the teams are putting it back into the team (ie.salary cap floor). But as Blah said, that is an owners issue, not a CBA one.
Bob Costas suggested that the following take place to eliminate massive disparities in the (non-capped) world of MLB.
1) Gate receipts are partially split; something like 90% to the home team, and the remainder going into a common pool.
2) National TV revenues are all into the common pool.
3) Local TV revenues are 50% to the team, 50% to the common pool.

The common pool is then divided among all 30 teams equally. When he first proposed all of this, the idea of YES was only on the board and hadn't yet been put into practice, but the possibility of the Yankees stacking the deck to put a quarter of a billion dollars right into the team via local TV while the Royals were begging for $10 million locally was a big part of it. The Royals would still have $5 million and the Yankees $125, but the rest would be derived from the pool.

Mayor Bee is offline