Bill Simmons Solves the Problems Plaguing American Sports

[Sanfran327]

His recent column discusses the biggest problems contributing to the NBA lockout, and he (as usual) has an opinion on how to fix it. This structure would work for ALL four major sports. Think of how much parody it would create in baseball, instead of seeing the usual suspects each August, September, and October.

I love this. How nice would it be to see this implemented in MLB?

Look, you know where I stand. I think the NBA should look more like Hollywood's movie structure. I think middle-class guys should make half of what they make now, and stars should make even more. I don't think any contract should last more than four years. I think we need a better rewards system in place, so that players who outperform their deals (like Derrick Rose winning the MVP while on a rookie contract) and stars who make three straight first-team All-NBA teams (like Dwight Howard) get rewarded in some way. I think the season should be shorter (75 games), and I think we need an April play-in tournament for the 8-seeds in both conferences just because it would be fun. I think we should contract/merge several franchises until we settle at 27 teams; I think Seattle should have a team; I think Chicago should have two teams. I don't think that the L.A., Chicago and New York teams should pay to keep struggling basketball teams afloat in Charlotte, Indiana, Sacramento, Milwaukee, Minnesota and New Orleans. I think teams should be able to pay their own stars more money than anyone else, and that it's extremely easy to build in competitive advantages so they can do that.

We need to create a league in which Orlando can offer Dwight Howard $25 million to $30 million more than anyone else (if he wants to leave that extra money on the table to play for a new team, so be it). We need to create a league in which Jose Juan Barea can't make more than $16 million for four years, and only because that's what a valuable third guard who doesn't sell a single ticket should make. We need to give owners better checks and balances (because 80 percent of them have proven they're too incompetent to handle a relatively free market), and we need to convince players that it's not always a good thing to grab as much money as you can possibly get (because nothing turns off fans quite like overpaid and underachieving athletes). We need better ideas. We need to keep thinking outside the box. We need to stop looking so freaking old and stubborn and intractable and painfully self-unaware.

Unfortunately, the MLB Players union is the strongest union in the known universe, and we're not likely to even sniff something like this in our lifetime.

[Can_of_corn]

His recent column discusses the biggest problems contributing to the NBA lockout, and he (as usual) has an opinion on how to fix it. This structure would work for ALL four major sports. Think of how much parody it would create in baseball, instead of seeing the usual suspects each August, September, and October.

I love this. How nice would it be to see this implemented in MLB?

Unfortunately, the MLB Players union is the strongest union in the known universe, and we're not likely to even sniff something like this in our lifetime.

Parody indeed.

I am willing to bet that Simmons would have no problem jumping ship to FSN if they offered him a significant pay bump.

[Sanfran327]

Parody indeed.

I am willing to bet that Simmons would have no problem jumping ship to FSN if they offered him a significant pay bump.

Just curious... is this statement an attempt to make Simmons look like a hypocrite?

[BaltimoreTerp]

The NBA and MLB are two completely different leagues with completely different financial systems and situations, each with advantages and disadvantages. Despite certain ideas I have for baseball that span from reactionary to radical on the spectrum I don't want to see any of those suggestions, made for the NBA to solve its own problems, jump to Major League Baseball.

[Sanfran327]

The NBA and MLB are two completely different leagues with completely different financial systems and situations, each with advantages and disadvantages. Despite certain ideas I have for baseball that span from reactionary to radical on the spectrum I don't want to see any of those suggestions, made for the NBA to solve its own problems, jump to Major League Baseball.

Interesting... I am wondering why you wouldn't want to see the parts that I've bolded make their way into MLB. It would be nice if teams could afford to keep their homegrown players without having to allocate 30% of their salary funds to a single player. I think if we continue down the current path too long, we'll end up going the way of American politics, where we'll all (the overwhelming majority) just be on one side or the other (Yankees and Sox are R & Ds), and there won't be any platform for the rest of the league because the price of competition is just too high.

Sorry, I definitely don't mean to start a political thread, but that was just the only relevant analogy I could think of. We don't really have to harp on that specific detail, please.

[MikeAD]

I would like to see a performance based system but the unions would never go for it. And as long as the MLB owners are making as much money as they are, the players union will have the leverage to get as much money as they can (and good for them).

[Can_of_corn]

Just curious... is this statement an attempt to make Simmons look like a hypocrite?

He certainly didn't seem to have any issues leaving AOL's Digital City Boston for ESPN now did he?

Notice none of his "fixes" help the general fan, in fact he is advocating removing franchises that everyday normal folk root for.

[Sanfran327]

I would like to see a performance based system but the unions would never go for it. And as long as the MLB owners are making as much money as they are, the players union will have the leverage to get as much money as they can (and good for them).

You know, I agree with you probably 99% here. I think EVERYONE is entitled to make as much money as possible. Not a lot of people luck into piles of cash, rather they work their butts off to get there. However, you begin to reach a certain level as a player (not an innovator, just a participant), where you're making a sum of money that is likely to change the economic climate of your family for generations. It's stupid to compare Alex Rodriguez to Bill Gates (not that you or anyone else did, just bare with me) because ARod isn't doing anything to change lives. Gates, on the other hand, drives innovation through competition, thus making America a safer and more convenient, enjoyable place to live. Players are contributors to recreation, not necessity.

Pay bands exist in almost all companies. Not sure why they don't have a place in sports.

[Sanfran327]

He certainly didn't seem to have any issues leaving AOL's Digital City Boston for ESPN now did he?

Notice none of his "fixes" help the general fan, in fact he is advocating removing franchises that everyday normal folk root for.

The difference is that he left a forum that I've never even heard of for the premeir sports reporting enterprise on earth. Also, he didn't go from making $180M to $220M with that jump. He probably went from something like $90k (probably far less) to $250k (possibly far greater). If you had a chance to go from making $50k to making $100k, wouldn't you pretty much do it in a heartbeat?

I'm not saying that players should leave $40M on the table for out of loyalty to fans, but rather I don't think they should be in a position where they have that choice in the first place.

[MikeAD]

You know, I agree with you probably 99% here. I think EVERYONE is entitled to make as much money as possible. Not a lot of people luck into piles of cash, rather they work their butts off to get there. However, you begin to reach a certain level as a player (not an innovator, just a participant), where you're making a sum of money that is likely to change the economic climate of your family for generations. It's stupid to compare Alex Rodriguez to Bill Gates (not that you or anyone else did, just bare with me) because ARod isn't doing anything to change lives. Gates, on the other hand, drives innovation through competition, thus making America a safer and more convenient, enjoyable place to live. Players are contributors to recreation, not necessity.

Pay bands exist in almost all companies. Not sure why they don't have a place in sports.

I hear you, but as long as the industry continues to make money, the charge by the players will go up. If it crashes or something that could change but as for now, its still a financial draw that makes more and more money.

NBA, not so much. Unlike the NFL, where owners are making money hand over fist, the NBA owners are making less money (relatively). The profit is less guaranteed and their is more risk.

But for Baseball, we can't really compare other industries or other sports. A lot of the popularity and the profit of baseball depends on the big players and the big teams. The Yankees and Red Sox (and down the way the Phillies, the Dodgers, the Mets) are guaranteed fan bases and guaranteed money. The reason you pay the biggest player on the Yankees the biggest money is because (from a profit standpoint) its the best for everyone. Its just like when George Clooney can get 10s of millions for a film. He doesn't always. Sometimes he will do one for virtually nothing. George Clooney is essential as a draw for the audience and for the movies he is in and his high contract ensures more money for other actors, and other popular actors. This is a really awful analogy I know, but there are plenty of industries that work like Baseball. A cap doesn't really make sense from a profit stand point. The owner of the Royals can still make a ton of money with the way things are. If you make him spend significantly more and the Yankees an even more significant amount of money more, he isn't making money. He is probably losing money or selling that team.

[Can_of_corn]

The difference is that he left a forum that I've never even heard of for the premeir sports reporting enterprise on earth. Also, he didn't go from making $180M to $220M with that jump. He probably went from something like $90k (probably far less) to $250k (possibly far greater). If you had a chance to go from making $50k to making $100k, wouldn't you pretty much do it in a heartbeat?

I'm not saying that players should leave $40M on the table for out of loyalty to fans, but rather I don't think they should be in a position where they have that choice in the first place.

He is asking players to do something that he himself wasn't willing to do. The fact that he did it for less makes the situation worse. Limiting player salaries and mobility only helps the owners. Notice he doesn't say anything about owner profits or lowering ticket prices?

(for the record I think everyone players and owners should makes as much as the system will allow them to make)

[Sanfran327]

He is asking players to do something that he himself wasn't willing to do. The fact that he did it for less makes the situation worse. Limiting player salaries and mobility only helps the owners. Notice he doesn't say anything about owner profits or lowering ticket prices?

(for the record I think everyone players and owners should makes as much as the system will allow them to make)

I disagree because I think your ratios are off. With Simmons, you're talking about a much larger percentage of a nominal sum of money. With the players, you're talking about a small percentage of an astronomical figure. The squabbling over an extra few million dollars is what irritates (and alienates) fans, not the fact that a guy is trying to achieve market value. Auctions, which is basically what MLB free agency is, rarely end up in paying market value for a commodity. Rather, the outcome is usually far higher or far lower than true market value.

[Can_of_corn]

I disagree because I think your ratios are off. With Simmons, you're talking about a much larger percentage of a nominal sum of money. With the players, you're talking about a small percentage of an astronomical figure. The squabbling over an extra few million dollars is what irritates (and alienates) fans, not the fact that a guy is trying to achieve market value. Auctions, which is basically what MLB free agency is, rarely end up in paying market value for a commodity. Rather, the outcome is usually far higher or far lower than true market value.

I have a sneaky suspicion this is about to get political so I am bowing out now.

[Sanfran327]

I hear you, but as long as the industry continues to make money, the charge by the players will go up. If it crashes or something that could change but as for now, its still a financial draw that makes more and more money.

NBA, not so much. Unlike the NFL, where owners are making money hand over fist, the NBA owners are making less money (relatively). The profit is less guaranteed and their is more risk.

But for Baseball, we can't really compare other industries or other sports. A lot of the popularity and the profit of baseball depends on the big players and the big teams. The Yankees and Red Sox (and down the way the Phillies, the Dodgers, the Mets) are guaranteed fan bases and guaranteed money. The reason you pay the biggest player on the Yankees the biggest money is because (from a profit standpoint) its the best for everyone. Its just like when George Clooney can get 10s of millions for a film. He doesn't always. Sometimes he will do one for virtually nothing. George Clooney is essential as a draw for the audience and for the movies he is in and his high contract ensures more money for other actors, and other popular actors. This is a really awful analogy I know, but there are plenty of industries that work like Baseball. A cap doesn't really make sense from a profit stand point. The owner of the Royals can still make a ton of money with the way things are. If you make him spend significantly more and the Yankees an even more significant amount of money more, he isn't making money. He is probably losing money or selling that team.

Admittely, this is an awful analogy.

The difference being, people go to see a Clooney movie for no other reason than because it features George Clooney. While we all have our favorite players, our love for the Baltimore Orioles trumps all of that. If Matt Wieters played for a different team each year, my attention would not shift from team to team with him the way I'd continue to see every Clooney movie that comes out. I'd still follow the O's day in and day out regardless of who's on the team (clearly!).

Also, I'm not asking any team to spend more money. I'm hoping for the richest teams to have less of an opportunity to outspend their competition. To really make it hurt for the Sox and Yankees to spend like they do in hopes that it will make them think a little harder about it. I'm hoping for more teams to have more of an opportunity to succeed.

[Sanfran327]

I have a sneaky suspicion this is about to get political so I am bowing out now.

That's too bad, because it really doesn't have to.