Jump to content

Union Forces Marlins To Increase Payroll


BaltimoreTerp

Recommended Posts

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4819982

MIAMI -- The perennially frugal Florida Marlins have reached an agreement with the players' union to increase spending in the wake of complaints the team payroll has been so small as to violate baseball's revenue sharing provisions.

...

Baseball's basic agreement calls for each club to use its revenue sharing receipts in an effort to improve the team. In recent years, the union has complained the requirement was not met by some teams, including the Marlins.

Plagued by poor attendance in their current home, the Marlins have had the lowest payroll in the majors three of the past four seasons.

...

"The Marlins have consistently made every effort to put the best product on the field, and our record supports the fact that we have been successful in that regard," team president David Samson said. "Throughout the discussions, the Marlins maintained that there had been no violation of the basic agreement at any time."

Citing confidentiality provisions, the joint statement said there would be no comment by any of the parties on further specifics of the agreement. As a result, it's unclear what impact a spending increase will have on the Marlins' 2010 season.

They might now be less inclined to trade second baseman Dan Uggla, who is eligible for arbitration and due a hefty raise. And increased spending improves the chance of an agreement with ace Josh Johnson on a multiyear contract.

Wow. The union can DO that? :laughlol:

Cue all the doofuses requesting the Orioles be forced to do the same :rolleyes::P

Seriously though, interesting, if speculative, notes about them keeping Uggla and possibly Johnson. At the very least, that would be a boost for them going into their new park, and I believe I heard somewhere that they already were making plans to keep Hanley Ramirez for that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Union can force teams to spend at some floor level but putting a ceiling in is unacceptable?!?!? Something is really out of whack with the structure of this industry.

I didn't see any mention of a floor level for them to reach. It seemed to me like they simply agreed to follow league guide lines already in place regarding how to spend their revenue sharing. Its kinda sad that it takes 4 years of a league worst payroll for someone to point this out. Even more, I find it humorous that the team that ends up being called out for not spending funds appropriately has been extremely successful relative to their payroll level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Union can force teams to spend at some floor level but putting a ceiling in is unacceptable?!?!? Something is really out of whack with the structure of this industry.

No...a salary floor has always been a bigger problem than a cap.

The people clamoring for a cap are those fans who can't face reality and buck up. Baseball's problems are much more than the Yankees or Red Sox....it's more along the lines of the Pirates, Royals, and Marlins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...a salary floor has always been a bigger problem than a cap.

The people clamoring for a cap are those fans who can't face reality and buck up. Baseball's problems are much more than the Yankees or Red Sox....it's more along the lines of the Pirates, Royals, and Marlins.

Speaking of needing to face reality :laughlol:

I'm not saying that your first paragraph is wrong, just that the second one is not right. Controls on BOTH ends are needed, whether active or passive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...a salary floor has always been a bigger problem than a cap.

The people clamoring for a cap are those fans who can't face reality and buck up. Baseball's problems are much more than the Yankees or Red Sox....it's more along the lines of the Pirates, Royals, and Marlins.

Uh...no. And yes. OK, you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Revenue sharing (or lack thereof, when it comes to "local revenues") is the problem. Teams like the Pirates, Royals and Marlins aren't clamoring for redistribution (as they should be) because they've found they can still make a profit and not have to bother being competitive (at least in the cases of the Royals and Pirates).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even more, I find it humorous that the team that ends up being called out for not spending funds appropriately has been extremely successful relative to their payroll level.

I think the complaint is that the Marlins would be one of the more successful teams in the majors if they actually spent their revenue sharing money to keep players or sign new ones, instead of best relative to an almost zero payroll.

Miami is such a great city. It's too bad there is such little support.

A lot of support from a fanbase comes from history and shared memories of good times. The Marlins aren't even 20 years old, which is a big hurdle. The biggest hurdle is the fact that every time they've gotten really good their petulent ownership immediately stripped the team down like the Grinch in Whoville. I'm pretty sure some of the players from their first World Championship were traded for prospects during the postgame celebration. That's basically giving your own fans the finger at the height of their glory.

No...a salary floor has always been a bigger problem than a cap.

The people clamoring for a cap are those fans who can't face reality and buck up. Baseball's problems are much more than the Yankees or Red Sox....it's more along the lines of the Pirates, Royals, and Marlins.

I think there are arguments that both sides contribute to the problem. But they're both enabled by the overarching rules and system. The revenue sharing system is horribly designed, as it heavily incentivizes low payrolls. It really is far riskier for a small market team to try to compete than to mail it in with a AAAA squad and guaranteed profits.

It's hard to ask an owner to gamble on a 10%, 20% chance at a playoff spot, versus a 100% chance at turning a profit if they don't try to spend.

Uh...no. And yes. OK, you're right, but for the wrong reasons. Revenue sharing (or lack thereof, when it comes to "local revenues") is the problem. Teams like the Pirates, Royals and Marlins aren't clamoring for redistribution (as they should be) because they've found they can still make a profit and not have to bother being competitive (at least in the cases of the Royals and Pirates).

Most of MLB's problems would be fixed if revenue sharing rewarded trying harder, instead of being designed to keep as many payrolls as small as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...a salary floor has always been a bigger problem than a cap.

The people clamoring for a cap are those fans who can't face reality and buck up. Baseball's problems are much more than the Yankees or Red Sox....it's more along the lines of the Pirates, Royals, and Marlins.

It's a combination. If you are in the same division as the Yankees it makes no sense for a team like the Rays to carry a 60-70-80m or more payroll. They should keep it as low as humanly possible while developing players so that when they do hit and have quality they can extend their window a longer than they would have been able to by carrying the larger payroll year in year out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of support from a fanbase comes from history and shared memories of good times. The Marlins aren't even 20 years old, which is a big hurdle. The biggest hurdle is the fact that every time they've gotten really good their petulent ownership immediately stripped the team down like the Grinch in Whoville. I'm pretty sure some of the players from their first World Championship were traded for prospects during the postgame celebration. That's basically giving your own fans the finger at the height of their glory.

All of this is true and a factor but I think the biggest one is that their stadium is a truly awful place to watch a ballgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is true and a factor but I think the biggest one is that their stadium is a truly awful place to watch a ballgame.

I'm sure that's a contributing factor. In an era of downtown retro mallparks they play in a cavernous football stadium with intentionally bizarre outfield fences way out of the city in a giant parking lot by the interstate. Imagine how die hard the O's fanbase would be if they played in the Raven's stadium. In White Marsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man aren't unions wonderful!!! Telling a business that they must increase payroll or get a slap on the wrist. If I was the owner I would refuse the money and do what I want with my business, and as a player if I did not get a fair offer for my services I would pack up and leave. Isn't this the way we all do things when we go to another job. What makes baseball any different??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man aren't unions wonderful!!! Telling a business that they must increase payroll or get a slap on the wrist. If I was the owner I would refuse the money and do what I want with my business, and as a player if I did not get a fair offer for my services I would pack up and leave. Isn't this the way we all do things when we go to another job. What makes baseball any different??

I think you have things a little confused. Revenue sharing is something the owners negotiated among themselves with help from the union, to allow more teams to be able to be financially viable within baseball's current structure. It's a cludge, it appears to have been designed by monkeys, and until now there was no mechanism to force anyone to spend said money, but it's something the owners and the union both agreed to. The intent was for this money was to allow teams like the Marlins to be more competitive, but because of the way it was implemented it ended up being an incentive for them to stop trying while still turning a nice profit.

I'm not sure the Marlins are allowed to refuse the money, and if they did they'd be committing suicide. Without the revenue sharing they'd have to try and turn a profit (and be competitive) using the revenues they get from their 112 paying fans and their two-bit local cable deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man aren't unions wonderful!!! Telling a business that they must increase payroll or get a slap on the wrist. If I was the owner I would refuse the money and do what I want with my business, and as a player if I did not get a fair offer for my services I would pack up and leave. Isn't this the way we all do things when we go to another job.

Methinks you have fallen prey to 30 years of anti-union propaganda. Unions are what made being middle class normal, rather than just an aspiration reached by a few...

What makes baseball any different??

The fact that everybody who has a say-so is a millionaire?

But that has nothing to do with the core issue. Most of what's wrong is because the owners insisted on it among themselves, not because the union crammed anything down their throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...