How to fix baseball and save the Royals

[shinatoo]

Here are my ideas for the 2006 season collective bargaining talks to fix the game, make the players happy and save the Royals from contraction.

For the Owners:

Salary cap

For the Players Association:

Add two teams (50 more players on the payroll)

Shorten the season to 130 games

Here’s how it works:

32 teams create a balanced schedule like the NFL (eight, four team divisions).

Season would last 26 weeks.

5 game series each week on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (Day/Night double header on either Sat or Sun)

2 home and 2 away in division (12 weeks, lets you play each team in your division 20 times)

6 home and 6 away in league (12 weeks, lets you play each team out of your division 5 times)

1 home and 1 away inter-league (2 weeks)

One featured Wednesday night and one featured Monday night game a week. (Except the Monday of week 13 and the Wednesday of week 14 because of the All-star game on Tuesday night)

Benefits:

Creates more excitement because fans get geared up for the series and more ace pitching match-ups, more of an “eventâ€

[KCK]

My thoughts to save baseball (and the Royals) would work like this.

1. Only evening games on weekdays.
2. A lot less games, how about 50-75 games a season
3. Smaller stadiums. They get full faster, and would open up the MLB to smaller markets.
4. More teams. Goes with last point. In my head, I don't see why a city of between 1-2 million can't have a team. Baseball should be for everyone.
5. Salary cap.


As shinatoo said, less games mean more people at each game. Also mostly evening games on weeknights would ensure the 9-5 folks can attend, and increase attendance as well. I also see no reason why we can't build 20-25,000 seat stadiums. Even smaller markets will always have a "full house" atmosphere to them that way. I feel sorry for large cities that the MLB refuses to grant a team like Indy, Charlotte, or Portland. Open up these towns to baseball, the fans are there, they just have no one to cheer for. Finally the salary cap. This will help the small market teams the most. To me it's no fun when KC loses it's best players because it can't compete financially.

[KCMax]

I think its funny that fans in KC think a salary cap will help them. How exactly? The Royals essentially play in a division with a salary cap. No one in the division has a payroll above $60 million and guess what? The Royals still can't compete?

A salary cap does nothing but deflate player salaries. It will not increase competitiveness because the Royals cannot/will not get their payroll up to $60 million. IMO, player salaries should not be deflated - they seem high, but the owner profits are higher. Player salaries as a proportion of net revenues are consistent with proportions in the 80s. Players are not earning more relative to owners - they are ALL earning more.

The problem is not players vs. owners - the problem is large market owners v. small market owners. The real solution?

1. Move the Devil Rays to the New York metropolitan area. It will increase attendance and eat into the mammoth market share enjoyed by the Mets and Yankees.
2. Split TV revenues more equitably - 33-66% split rather than the 20-80% split currently employed
3. Revenue sharing based on market share and winning percentage - encourage franchises to succeed on the field before they are given a welfare check from the larger markets - adjust the formula for market share - Kansas City faces burdens Detroit doesn't have to face.

And I'm sorry, but a lot of your suggestions are just a bit ridiculous. Why would MLB want to decrease the amount of games, and the seating in stadiums, when right now MLB is enjoying record attendance numbers?!?? Why would MLB turn down all that money?!? If KC needs the rest of baseball to adjust their schedule that dramatically just to succeed, then maybe MLB doesn't need KC?

[Beltonhawk]

If KC needs the rest of baseball to adjust their schedule that dramatically just to succeed, then maybe MLB doesn't need KC?

You hit the nail on the head with that comment. Baseball doesn't need KC. Baseball doesn't need most of the teams in MLB. Baseball needs the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., and then a bunch of other teams to make a league and play a bunch of games. They could give a shit where those "other" teams are.

[KC0KEK]

MLB needs markets outside of the top 10 for the same reason that the other three major leagues do: because the owners like the revenue from expansion franchises. So even if the Royals and every other sub-10-MSA team were contracted, sooner or later, the owners wouldn't be able to resist expansion and the money that comes with it.

[JBinKC]

There is only one thing that will fix baseball...the Salary Cap.   

I really don't understand how to this day anyone could argue against a salary cap making baseball better considering how incredibly successful it has been in the NFL and NBA in terms of keeping talent where it was raised and allowing most every team to feel it has a chance from day 1.  I assume you are a Cardinals fan Max.   

Where I would agree with you is that just like football has the Bengals and Cardinals, and basketball has the Clippers and Hornets, baseball will still have the Royals and Tigers.  These teams are all poorly managed, but the difference in football is that if the Bengals' management ever got their heads out of their a$$e$ they could field a winning team.  However, in baseball this is only half the battle, and when you win this battle you are still barely good enough to make the playoffs, and even then it is simply because the other teams in your division have revenue pools just as small as yours(e.g. the Twins).  Once there you are steamrolled by Boston, NY, NY, LA (Angels), or Atlanta.  I am sure that you can give me an exception to this rule, but overwhelmingly this is the state of baseball and it is sad. 

What do 6 out of 7 of the worst teams in baseball right now have in common?  I'll give you a hint...its not poor management.  You can ask the same question for 2004's standings and get the same answer.  8 out of 10 of the best teams in baseball have the biggest payrolls...and have for some time.  Baseball's brand of revenue sharing just isn't enough. 

Shinatoo, I like the 5 game series idea.  It is too radical to work, but it would make for a weekly event, rather than just a string of games.  I think we would have to stay around 164 games though. 

[trailerkid]

Anyone else notice the association between the teams that need to "fix" baseball and their cheap ass owners? Yankees, Red Sox, Cards, Giants, Orioles, etc. have no need to "fix" baseball.

[doogieslap]

Baseball needs to continue to strengthen what they already have....a lot.

If George Steinbrenner is allowed to get away with paying 200 million dollars in players salaries, then baseball needs to fix their luxury tax' system.  because right now, teams that spend more than roughly 115 million(?...a guesstimated figure) will pay in to the tax, which isn't particularly damaging.

No....what baseball ought to do, is to declare that any payroll exceeding 100 million dollars have a 20 percent tax the first year, and 30 percent the next.    With at least 6 or 7 teams spening over that right now, not only would that restrain those teams from spending wildly, it will also allow smaller-market teams some cash-flow to compete for the high-market players.  (But the players association will never go for that...)

But baseball has put themselves in a predicament that they will never, NEVER negotiate through.  Consider this:  The NFL is going through some painful negotiations right now between OWNERS on how to better split a revenue pie that does not allow teams to hoard a lot of local monies....thus, they want MORE of a total revenue-sharing plan than the one they want now.  Baseball will never, ever even broach that topic......

With the NFL splitting up their TV packages even more, to the point where some of the games may not be shown in all parts of the country, to teams in the NBA still looking to state legislatures to save them from their overspending ways, to how 'exclusive' attending a game has become, and to these reports about how kids today really don't care as much about being a fan as they once were.....I sense a correction happening in this entertainment 'industry' looming on the horizon......
In other words, the days of incredible growth in these leagues may be over...(and in some, they already are).

[QueSi2Opie]

Wanna save the Royals?  Have'em score more points than Kansas City's soccer team!

[staubio]

Wanna save the Royals?  Have'em score more points than Kansas City's soccer team!

Ha!  Five goals in the last two games for the Wizards is more than the number of runs in the last THREE Royals games.  The Wizards are more exciting than ever.  Take a team that had the best defense in MLS last year and add a powerful offensive attack that is piling on the goals and you've got a formula for some exciting soccer.

Save yourself FROM the Royals and check out a Wizards game.

[doogieslap]

Hipity?

[KCMax]

really don't understand how to this day anyone could argue against a salary cap making baseball better considering how incredibly successful it has been in the NFL and NBA in terms of keeping talent where it was raised and allowing most every team to feel it has a chance from day 1.  I assume you are a Cardinals fan Max.   


You obviously didn't read any of my post. I'm a huge Royals fan and I detest the Cardinals. So explain to me how a salary cap helps the Royals when they cannot even compete in a division where no team has a payroll over $60 million?!?!? Unless you put the cap at $30 million, which would be ridiculous, it will do nothing to help the Royals.

The problem is the Royals are not spending enough on player payroll to be successful AND they are not being smart enough in developing talent (see Oakland, Minnesota, Florida).

The NFL and NBA have been successful not because of the cap, but because each team has nearly equal revenues. If there were no national TV revenue sharing package in the NFL, the Chiefs would be left to get a paltry amount of revenue from KCTV5, while the Giants and Jets would form humongous media channels. A salary cap would do nothing for the Chiefs who would be outbid by all free agents by larger markets, and probably would find it difficult just to sign high draft picks.

Revenue sharing, not a salary cap, is the answer to the Royals woes.

[StL_Dan]

Anyone else notice the association between the teams that need to "fix" baseball and their cheap ass owners? Yankees, Red Sox, Cards, Giants, Orioles, etc. have no need to "fix" baseball.

I disagree.....all of the teams mentioned save the Yankees are spending money they don't really 'have'.

Filthy rich ownership willing to overspend, such as is the case with the Cards, will only go on far so long before the team is sold for a 'profit'.   Heck, the Cards have a high payroll, but they can only tease at 97M.

NYY and Boston are the real players at 240M and 170M respectively.

97M is chickenfeed in comparison....the Royals 36M is chickensheite.

YES...for the game to survive and retain a high level of broadbased fan interest in the future, a SALARY CAP at say 90 - 100M and EQUITABLE REVENUE SHARING, such as the NFL enjoys, are an absolute MUST.

Without BOTH of these components, the odds of the Royals and Pirates continuing to outright SUCK are immense.

I wish it were not so...but that is the simple reality.   It would be a disaster to lose the Royals, but, in many ways, it's even more harmful that they will continue to be shunned by MLB by getting the shank economically speaking.

Apathy, a result of inequality financially, will ultimately doom the Royals franchise.

That would REALLY SUCK.

[shinatoo]

We have revenue sharing right now, In fact the Royals receive about 15 to 20 million MORE form the league than they SPEND on payroll (one of the keystones for my theory that the Roy Als will be contracted after the 2006 season).

A salary cap would have to come with a base also.

But what we have seen in football is that if everyone has basically the same revenue, everyone is more willing to spend near the cap. There will always be exceptions, i just don't think the Glass's have the bling to support this team.

Remember the late 70's and the 80's. Mr. K consistently had the highest payroll in baseball, he always lost money too. That man loved this town and was a giver, we may never see that again.

But the Royals do have other problems than money.

[phuqueue]

A combined revenue sharing/salary cap system like the NFL has would be best.  Greater revenue sharing would level the playing field while a salary cap would establish both a minimum and maximum level of payroll.  Even without a salary cap, strengthening the luxury tax would still help.  The major problem with baseball is that while Moneyball can work for a while, it eventually runs out, as we saw with Oakland having to ship off Hudson and Mulder this past offseason.  We'll have to see how far the A's slip this season.  I really believe if the Royals follow the blueprint correctly, they can become good in this system, but as with the A's (and eventually the Twins, I imagine), it'll only last as long as the existing contracts of their players.  So the problem isn't that small market teams have no chance at all to win, but that small market teams have no room for error while New York or Boston or California can play around and see what works and if they make a bad move, they can just throw more cash at it and bring in someone else.

Adding more teams deludes the talent pool, which degrades the product.  And besides, six divisions of 30 teams can still be balanced.  If you want symmetry, it just needs to be realigned again.  Let's not forget that just adding teams to the league with wild abandon is what got the NHL into trouble.  Obviously MLB is on stronger footing than the NHL, but it's still something to keep in mind.  Putting a MLB team in every single 1-2 million metro area would mean a number of new teams that the league can't necessarily support.  Symmetry or "baseball should be for everyone" aren't really good reasons to do something like that.  Besides, most cities or towns of any respectable size at least have minor league baseball, so it's not as if there's nothing for them.  It may not be MLB, but it's still professional baseball.

I don't really think there's anything wrong with the length of the season as it is now or the current scheduling system.  It might be better to play weekday games later at night after working hours are over, but other than that, I don't see any pressing reason to overhaul the scheduling.

I especially think the smaller stadiums idea is crazy.  Small market teams don't often pack their stadiums because their teams aren't usually winning.  It's not that they can't do it, they just won't.  Look at the Chiefs.  With immensely higher ticket prices and 30,000 more seats, the Chiefs have filled Arrowhead for every single home game for the past 13 years.  If Kansas City wants to fill Kauffman, it'll be full, but that's not going to happen until the Royals start winning.  Cutting it down to 25,000 seats just means that on those occasions when the Royals can sell out, there'll be that much less revenue coming in.

Finally, I think talk of contraction is just fear mongering.  The league itself hasn't been talking contraction at all lately.  If the Expos can survive contraction (particularly when contracting them would have netted the league more money than moving them to Washington), I think the Royals have nothing to worry about.  An eventual move to a larger city, maybe.  But I'm not going to worry about contraction until the league says it's back on the table.  It's an option after 2006, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

[shinatoo]

phuqueue, I want to touch on a few points

1. I was impressed by how civil you post was considering your screen name. Welcome to the board.

2. You cannot have a balanced schedule with 30 teams and two leagues. That makes 15 teams in each league which means there would always have to be an interleague series going on.

3. I agree that having too many teams is bad for base ball but with a real salary cap and a shorter season I don't think adding two teams is going to kill the game. If anything its more incentive for the players union to accept because the "Stars" will have more of an opportunity to get the "star" contract. But that’s all objective so it’s no really worth hashing over again and again.

4. Shorting the season to 75 games and building 25,000 seat stadiums makes no financial sense.

5. Weekday day games are typically "getaway" days. It means that the team has to travel that night and they don't want to be on the road until 4 in the morning. I think that’s crap but the players union runs the show now so, there you go.

6. As for contraction being fear mongering read this article by Scott Rosner and then let me know what you think.

http://lgst.wharton.upenn.edu/srosner/F ... .11.02.pdf

I found it interesting that the KC Cowboys were the first team ever contracted by MLB.

Let me know what you think.

[KCMax]

Baseball will not contract. I don't really see any viable candidates and you need two to contract. Tampa Bay has a pretty tight lease. The A's have too much history and have a bunch of markets they could move to (Portland, San Jose, Sacramento, Las Vegas) before contracting. Florida has available markets it could move to. And the Royals wouldn't be contracted because David Glass has no incentive to do so - he cannot legally profit off the sale of the ballclub - all profits from the sale go to KC charities. He promised Mr. K baseball would stay in KC, and I know its hard to believe, but I believe he'll do his best to do so.

The game is more popular than ever before. Revenues are at all time highs. Attendance is at all time highs. It would be absurd to close down two markets. Contraction was just a ploy to get the players to budget on the last CBA. It will not happen.

[shinatoo]

1. David Glass is the outright owner of the team now, he can (and will) profit on the sale/contraction of the team. When Mr. K died the team went to a trust that David Glass was the chairman of (I think this is where you are confused). When that trust sold the team the proceeds went to a number of predetermined charities in the KC area. But David Glass the owner is not bound under any of those rules. It is his team to profit (or lose) from.

2. Kansas City and Tampa are not profitable for Major League Baseball. The TV Revenues are nothing and they both receive more money from the league profit sharing and revenue tax then they spend on payroll. If you were one of the top 12 owners who have to pay money to these guys because they wine about not being able to compete and found out that they were pocketing the money instead of spending it on there teams would you want to kick them out.

3. MLB will have to pay market value for the team if they contract it. Current market for the Royals is over 200 mil. David paid less than 100 mil. So no matter how sincere he is about not being a candidate for contraction I'm sure a 100 million dollar profit will change his mind.

4. Jackson county is already in violation of its lease and it will take more than three years for them to get in compliance. So cost to get out of the lease is zero.

5. Many of the higher ups in baseball already believe the talent pool is to thin, they would be happy to contract those two teams.

I will keep an eye on this thread and we will see what happens next summer. Either a major change in the business of baseball or contraction.

[KC0KEK]

1. David Glass is the outright owner of the team now, he can (and will) profit on the sale/contraction of the team. When Mr. K died the team went to a trust that David Glass was the chairman of (I think this is where you are confused). When that trust sold the team the proceeds went to a number of predetermined charities in the KC area. But David Glass the owner is not bound under any of those rules. It is his team to profit (or lose) from.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 924.htm?1c

Here's another little-known fact that would discourage the Glass family from dumping the team: Under terms of the succession plan and the Royals' purchase agreement, the Glass family cannot profit from the sale of the team.

“That is correct. If we were to sell the team, whatever profit is made would stay in Kansas City,â€

[shinatoo]

I'm not going to argue with you if you are going to use facts.