PDA

View Full Version : White Sox GM recommends shutting down sport to put stop to escalating salaries



savafan
02-22-2011, 11:56 PM
http://www.csnchicago.com/02/21/11/Sox-Drawer-Williams-says-no-to-Pujols--i/landing_soxdrawer_v3.html?blockID=414958&feedID=661


“For the game’s health as a whole, when we’re talking about 30 million dollar players, I think it’s asinine,” Williams said in an interview with Comcast SportsNet. “We have gotten to the point of no return. Something has to happen. And if it means the game being shut down for the sake of bringing sanity to it, to franchises that aren’t going to stop the insanity, I’m all for it.”

1990REDS
02-23-2011, 12:25 AM
I wonder what Williams thoughts on this matter would have been back when he was a player and not a front office guy?

Unassisted
02-23-2011, 12:30 AM
He might be right, but IMO he should wait and see if that approach does the NFL or NBA any good. It seems like those leagues are both headed in the direction of a lost season.

RedsManRick
02-23-2011, 12:53 AM
This refrain sounds familiar. And yet the sport survived $1M salaries, $5M, $10M and $20M.

WVRedsFan
02-23-2011, 02:04 AM
Seems to be a trend. The mood of the country is that everyone makes too much money except the owners of businesses or corporations. Everyone wants to get top performance on the cheap, never thinking that the owners were the very ones who created this mess by over paying. Hang around awhile and it will change. It always does.

mth123
02-23-2011, 02:33 AM
Didn't they try this in 1994?

Didn't exactly work-out.

dougdirt
02-23-2011, 02:45 AM
Seems to be a trend. The mood of the country is that everyone makes too much money except the owners of businesses or corporations. Everyone wants to get top performance on the cheap, never thinking that the owners were the very ones who created this mess by over paying. Hang around awhile and it will change. It always does.

This. If the players aren't making this kind of money, the owners are just going to be making that much more money. Not that they is anything wrong with the owners making money. But is KW looking at it like that, or is he just thinking its ridiculous that a player is making that much money without figuring out that if Pujols isn't worth that much money, no one else is worth what they make and salaries are probably 15-20% more than he thinks and that means that the owners are probably making 13-18M more per season at that rate. It isn't like that money is just going to disappear, someone is going to be pocketing it.

Redsfaithful
02-23-2011, 05:51 AM
It's not like David DeJesus or someone random is making $30 mil a year, it's the best player in the game potentially making that much.

I'm sure Williams will get a nice pat on the head for carrying the owner's water.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 06:52 AM
This. If the players aren't making this kind of money, the owners are just going to be making that much more money. Not that they is anything wrong with the owners making money. But is KW looking at it like that, or is he just thinking its ridiculous that a player is making that much money without figuring out that if Pujols isn't worth that much money, no one else is worth what they make and salaries are probably 15-20% more than he thinks and that means that the owners are probably making 13-18M more per season at that rate. It isn't like that money is just going to disappear, someone is going to be pocketing it.

IF done the right way, the money could disappear. Ticket prices decline, $9 beers and $5 hot dogs become more reasonable, games can become more enjoyable by the common man than by corporations.

Notice the big if.

Strikes Out Looking
02-23-2011, 09:05 AM
IF done the right way, the money could disappear. Ticket prices decline, $9 beers and $5 hot dogs become more reasonable, games can become more enjoyable by the common man than by corporations.

Notice the big if.

IF the owners decide they only want a reasonable rate of return on their investment. Not going to happen.

Caveman Techie
02-23-2011, 09:07 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing a true salary cap. Level set the playing field from a salary point of view, and then everyone has to compete on their smarts instead of their wallets.

As for the price of what players make, they could set the salary cap as a percentage of money they league made, that way your not just capping how much the players can make and putting more money in the owners pockets, but it's a true partnership between ownership and the players. If the sport is doing well and bringing in more money for the owners, then the cap gets raised and the players make more money too.

I'm sure I'm overlooking something but it just seems to make sense to me.

RedsManRick
02-23-2011, 09:18 AM
IF done the right way, the money could disappear. Ticket prices decline, $9 beers and $5 hot dogs become more reasonable, games can become more enjoyable by the common man than by corporations.

Notice the big if.

That "if" is "if the relationships between supply, demand, cost and price suddenly reverse".

Kenny Williams, like many business owners, wants to have his cake and eat it too. The only way Pujols makes less is if everybody makes less. Something tells me Jerry Reinsdorf would prefer to keep the salaries and the revenue high.

Even if you reduce the price of everything at the ballpark by 50%, the owners would still be demanding top dollar in the media contracts, which are a major source of revenue. Sure, revenue would fall some and salaries with it, but probably not by as much as you'd think.

Roy Tucker
02-23-2011, 09:42 AM
So, if a Pujols-like player doesn't make the $30M, who gets to keep the money? My confidence that it gets passed back to the consumer is not very high.

Redsfaithful
02-23-2011, 10:23 AM
I wish I lived in a world where MLB ownership would cut prices if their costs went down. That would be pretty cool.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 11:12 AM
That "if" is "if the relationships between supply, demand, cost and price suddenly reverse".

Kenny Williams, like many business owners, wants to have his cake and eat it too. The only way Pujols makes less is if everybody makes less. Something tells me Jerry Reinsdorf would prefer to keep the salaries and the revenue high.

Even if you reduce the price of everything at the ballpark by 50%, the owners would still be demanding top dollar in the media contracts, which are a major source of revenue. Sure, revenue would fall some and salaries with it, but probably not by as much as you'd think.

If salaries went down across the board, I am sure BofA, Ford, JTM and other mega US companies would be ready to renegotiate their contracts. Along with FOX and ESPN.

RedsBaron
02-23-2011, 11:16 AM
MLB needs sharing of all media revenue a la the NFL, so as to make the playing field among teams a little more level, not that the Yankees will ever let that happen.
As for Williams, he's full of it. The work stoppage/lockout in 1994 solved nothing. Yes, in a perfect world MLB players might not make $30,000,000 a season, but team owners wouldn't be making the hundreds of millions they make from the game either. In this battle between millionaire players and billionaire owners, I've got to side with the talent people pay to see, and it sure isn't Kenny Williams. Free enterprise means a laborer should be able to go where he can be paid the most, if he wants to do so.

Phhhl
02-23-2011, 11:22 AM
I have been saying what Williams said yesterday since the last strike. It would be so worth it to sacrafice a season or two to finally fix the game. So, obviously I agree with him. What bothers me is what Hank Steinbrenner said about eliminating the small market teams altogether, and that Bud Selig was in complete agreement with him. Reportedly, Bud quickly censored Steinbrenner last night, which only makes me believe what Hank said probably does reflect the Commissioner's sentiment. Just because a small market club like the Reds makes the postseason once in 15 years doesn't mean it has the type of fair shot at a championship that having a major league franchise implies. Yesterday was an interesting day because of those quotes and the discussion around them.

RedsBaron
02-23-2011, 11:59 AM
What bothers me is what Hank Steinbrenner said about eliminating the small market teams altogether, and that Bud Selig was in complete agreement with him. Reportedly, Bud quickly censored Steinbrenner last night, which only makes me believe what Hank said probably does reflect the Commissioner's sentiment.

Hard to believe that Selig agrees with Steinbrenner. If small market teams were eliminated, then Bud's Brewers would be gone.
I suspect that Steinbrenner would be happy with a couple of 8 team leagues, no divisions, dominated by the Yankees and a few other teams, just as it was for much of the 1920s through the 1950s. An AL made up of the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Angels and four bottom dwellers from whom the Yankees could take talent, and a NL made up of the Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Cubs and Cardinals, along with a couple of hopeless small market teams who could again cough up whatever talent they develop to large market teams. The other presently existing 14 major league teams could be AAA minor leagues, say the American Association and the Pacific Coast League.

bucksfan2
02-23-2011, 12:12 PM
Hard to believe that Selig agrees with Steinbrenner. If small market teams were eliminated, then Bud's Brewers would be gone.
I suspect that Steinbrenner would be happy with a couple of 8 team leagues, no divisions, dominated by the Yankees and a few other teams, just as it was for much of the 1920s through the 1950s. An AL made up of the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Angels and four bottom dwellers from whom the Yankees could take talent, and a NL made up of the Dodgers, Giants, Mets, Phillies, Cubs and Cardinals, along with a couple of hopeless small market teams who could again cough up whatever talent they develop to large market teams. The other presently existing 14 major league teams could be AAA minor leagues, say the American Association and the Pacific Coast League.

Since 2007 the Brewers have been drawing 2.7M+ per season. While they aren't a big market club I don't think I would classify them with the likes of the Pirates, A's, and Rays.

If Selig agrees with Steinbrenner then he should be fired on the spot. His job is to represent all 32 owners in baseball. While the Steinbrenners may have the least amount of brain cells and the loudest mouths, the owners of the Pirates, Rays, Royals, A's, Marlins, etc. still count as well.

While there could be an argument made to relocate teams that don't draw at all (Rays, A's, Marlins) that likely won't happen.

REDREAD
02-23-2011, 12:13 PM
The owners really don't want competitive balance. That's been proven time and time again. They just want to line their pockets.

This model where a few big market teams dominate has made them a ton of money, that's not going to change any time soon.

Didn't the White Sox just pick up Alex Rios and about 60 million left on his contract? They are certainly hypocritical.. The current system benefits them a lot. They also signed Adam Dunn as a FA.. If they want to lower salary, they should put their money where their mouth is..
Instead, they want it both ways.. they want the competitive advantage, but they want it while spending less.

15fan
02-23-2011, 12:28 PM
The owners really don't want competitive balance. That's been proven time and time again. They just want to line their pockets.

This model where a few big market teams dominate has made them a ton of money, that's not going to change any time soon.

2010 WS: San Francisco def. Texas

2009 WS: NY Yankees def. Philadelphia

2008 WS: Philadelphia def. Tampa

2007 WS: Boston def. Colorado

2006 WS: St. Louis def. Detroit

2005 WS: Chicago (Sox) def. Houston

In the last 6 World Series, we've seen 11 different franchises compete.

That's more competitive balance than in Super Bowls, Stanley Cup Finals, or NBA Finals over the same time frame.

Which is interersting, because in the NBA, NHL, and NFL, they all have various versions of salary caps and revenue sharing...

Tony Cloninger
02-23-2011, 12:29 PM
I have been saying what Williams said yesterday since the last strike. It would be so worth it to sacrafice a season or two to finally fix the game. So, obviously I agree with him. What bothers me is what Hank Steinbrenner said about eliminating the small market teams altogether, and that Bud Selig was in complete agreement with him. Reportedly, Bud quickly censored Steinbrenner last night, which only makes me believe what Hank said probably does reflect the Commissioner's sentiment. Just because a small market club like the Reds makes the postseason once in 15 years doesn't mean it has the type of fair shot at a championship that having a major league franchise implies. Yesterday was an interesting day because of those quotes and the discussion around them.


I do not like Bud that much either but where are you getting your info that he agreed with him?

He censored him and that is what they are reporting that he did...not that he agreed with him. If he is that asinine to agree with him...let's see the quote beacuse he would really have a hard time justifying himself and there would be a bigger deal being made out of what he said....than what some D Bag like George's son says.

RedsBaron
02-23-2011, 12:42 PM
Since 2007 the Brewers have been drawing 2.7M+ per season. While they aren't a big market club I don't think I would classify them with the likes of the Pirates, A's, and Rays.

The Brewers have been a mid-market team since Miller Park opened in 2001, drawing from 1.7 million (2003) to 3.1 million (2008) fans a season, and ranking as high as 6th in the league in attendance (2008 and 2009) to a low of 13th in attendance (2003 and 2004). The last four seasons they have averaged roughly 3 million fans a season, with 2.9, 3.1, 3.0 and 2.8 million (rounded numbers).
They haven't been down in the depths with the Pirates when it comes to attendance but they are not a large market team either.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 12:47 PM
2010 WS: San Francisco def. Texas

2009 WS: NY Yankees def. Philadelphia

2008 WS: Philadelphia def. Tampa

2007 WS: Boston def. Colorado

2006 WS: St. Louis def. Detroit

2005 WS: Chicago (Sox) def. Houston

In the last 6 World Series, we've seen 11 different franchises compete.

That's more competitive balance than in Super Bowls, Stanley Cup Finals, or NBA Finals over the same time frame.

Which is interersting, because in the NBA, NHL, and NFL, they all have various versions of salary caps and revenue sharing...

How many different teams made the playoffs? The WS doesn't tell the whole story.

But I do agree that it has been getting better.

Jpup
02-23-2011, 01:17 PM
The game is as healthy or more so than it has ever been. I'm over all this talk of big markets and too much money to players. The Reds proved last year that they can compete. Someone should get the money. I think the players are the soul of the game and without them MLB wouldn't be much fun to watch. I think some folks forgot about the scabs that played back in 1994.

Would it be nice if every team in baseball was on a level playing field? Yes, but the game has always been this way and has survived and prospered through it all.

Chip R
02-23-2011, 01:56 PM
How many different teams made the playoffs? The WS doesn't tell the whole story.


Only 8 teams make the playoffs as opposed to 16 for the NBA and NHL and 12 for the NFL.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 02:02 PM
Only 8 teams make the playoffs as opposed to 16 for the NBA and NHL and 12 for the NFL.

No, I meant what was the diversity in playoff teams. 11 of a possible 12 made it in the last 6 WSs, how many of a possible 30 made it for those same 6 years in a possible 48 playoff slots?

Homer Bailey
02-23-2011, 02:17 PM
No, I meant what was the diversity in playoff teams. 11 of a possible 12 made it in the last 6 WSs, how many of a possible 30 made it for those same 6 years in a possible 48 playoff slots?

I'll help you out.

The high payroll teams have been far more consistent than the low payroll teams.

Roy Tucker
02-23-2011, 02:31 PM
MLB needs sharing of all media revenue a la the NFL, so as to make the playing field among teams a little more level, not that the Yankees will ever let that happen.

I actually think this has a decent shot at becoming reality. One thing Bud and MLB did right is that all internet-based revenue from MLB Advanced Media is being split evenly between all teams.

When this deal first happened, I thought "pfffttt, peanuts". But the revenue has grown. And I also think that internet-based video streaming "stations" is the future of video. I can honestly see cable-based TV go by the wayside ala Blockbuster video stores and internet streaming become the next big thing with all or most games being exclusively "broadcast" over the intrawebs.

Its not going to happen tomorrow, but I can honestly say that I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen in the next 5-10 years. At which time all "TV" revenue will be split evenly. Or at least the precedence has been set unlike how things are today with local revenues staying local.

westofyou
02-23-2011, 02:35 PM
Jerry Reinsdorf was a MAJOR player in the 94 strike, no surprise that this is coming from that corner.

Dom Heffner
02-23-2011, 02:36 PM
Unfortunately, we are living in a world where hundreds of people are supposed to bust their butts while one dude gets rich. Oh, you are an owner? Oh, well, let me show you what I have for you....

Funny, without owners, players could still play baseball. Not so much the other way around.

You also have to like Hank Steinbrenner comparing revenue sharing with communism, and basically saying small market teams shouldn't be there if they can't hang in financially.

This coming from a guy whose team is in a market that contains 1 in 16 Americans.

The other 29 teams split up the other 15 LOL...seriously, any Yankee loss is a good one with that attitude.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 02:37 PM
I'll help you out.

The high payroll teams have been far more consistent than the low payroll teams.

That's shocking.

Caveat Emperor
02-23-2011, 02:40 PM
So, if a Pujols-like player doesn't make the $30M, who gets to keep the money? My confidence that it gets passed back to the consumer is not very high.

I honestly don't care who gets rich so long as the product on the field is good. At the end of the day, like the NFL, it's two groups of wealthy people fighting over who is going to be more wealthy. I have a hard time feeling bad for either side -- even if the players don't get their fair 50% share of a boatload of money.

30-40% of a ton of money is still a ton of money.

Caveman Techie
02-23-2011, 02:47 PM
@all the "game is fine" crew

So you don't see a competitive advantage to a team having a 200 Million dollar budget over a team that has a 70 Million dollar budget? How many times since the last strike has the Yankees failed to make the playoffs? Once, in 2008. Are you certain they would of had the same success if they could only spend the same amount of money that the Orioles spent in that stretch from 1995 - 2010?

Yes the small market teams luck out and make a run for it every now and then, but to have that sustained success, it sure helps to have an unlimited payroll.

EddieMilner
02-23-2011, 02:49 PM
A lot of comments have been made to the effects that if the players don't get the money the owners will simply get it. I can't speak specifically about the taxes baseball teams pay to the Federal government. However for my company, any profit over $50,000 annually is federally taxed at a rate of 39%. Many business owners choose to reinvest in their business instead of handing $.39 of every dollar the make to the US Government. If they simply give it to themselves as a dividend or have the teams set up as a flow through entity then the owners are taxed at a rate of 35% of everything they make.
My best guess is that the owners are overwhelmingly republicans, and not big fans of paying taxes. So investing in their businesses would be pretty attractive to them rather than handing Uncle Sam millions.

edabbs44
02-23-2011, 03:31 PM
I honestly don't care who gets rich so long as the product on the field is good. At the end of the day, like the NFL, it's two groups of wealthy people fighting over who is going to be more wealthy. I have a hard time feeling bad for either side -- even if the players don't get their fair 50% share of a boatload of money.

30-40% of a ton of money is still a ton of money.

It might be good now, but part of what Williams is talking about is the future of the game. In 10 years the product on the field might be absolute crap with this being one of the reasons.

Phhhl
02-24-2011, 12:13 PM
I do not like Bud that much either but where are you getting your info that he agreed with him?

He censored him and that is what they are reporting that he did...not that he agreed with him. If he is that asinine to agree with him...let's see the quote beacuse he would really have a hard time justifying himself and there would be a bigger deal being made out of what he said....than what some D Bag like George's son says.

I don't know that Bud agrees with Steinbrenner. But, that is one interpretation of why he would censor the guy. Just my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Selig did agree. Didn't he want to look at contraction during the last labor negotiations?

Slyder
02-24-2011, 12:33 PM
2010 WS: San Francisco def. Texas

2009 WS: NY Yankees def. Philadelphia

2008 WS: Philadelphia def. Tampa

2007 WS: Boston def. Colorado

2006 WS: St. Louis def. Detroit

2005 WS: Chicago (Sox) def. Houston

In the last 6 World Series, we've seen 11 different franchises compete.

That's more competitive balance than in Super Bowls, Stanley Cup Finals, or NBA Finals over the same time frame.

Which is interersting, because in the NBA, NHL, and NFL, they all have various versions of salary caps and revenue sharing...

Expand those numbers, I had this discussion on another board I visit.

2004-2006: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.
2007-2009: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.

Once the playoffs start its a crap shoot, its about who gets hot at the right time (Cards '06). Ridiculous amounts of money may not guarentee rings, but it does guarentee opportunities to win rings.

EddieMilner
02-24-2011, 02:26 PM
Expand those numbers, I had this discussion on another board I visit.

2004-2006: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.
2007-2009: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.

Once the playoffs start its a crap shoot, its about who gets hot at the right time (Cards '06). Ridiculous amounts of money may not guarentee rings, but it does guarentee opportunities to win rings.

How many teams were in the top 10 payrolls between 2004-06 and 2007-09?
Just curious if only 14 teams were in the top 10 payrolls for those seasons or if it was a higher number.

KronoRed
02-24-2011, 04:11 PM
I don't know that Bud agrees with Steinbrenner. But, that is one interpretation of why he would censor the guy. Just my opinion. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Selig did agree. Didn't he want to look at contraction during the last labor negotiations?

Sure, but not his team, which is in the smallest market of all, of course they have drawn 3mill fans a few times, something other markets have yet to accomplish.

EddieMilner
02-24-2011, 05:37 PM
Expand those numbers, I had this discussion on another board I visit.

2004-2006: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.
2007-2009: 14 of 24 teams in the playoffs were top 10 payrolls.

Once the playoffs start its a crap shoot, its about who gets hot at the right time (Cards '06). Ridiculous amounts of money may not guarentee rings, but it does guarentee opportunities to win rings.

So I did the math and using Opening Day Payrolls via this http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm#2005payroll
I found that from 2004 - 2006 only 13 different teams were top 10 payrolls.
I found that from 2007 - 2009 only 13 different teams were top 10 payrolls.

What did you use for your team payroll reference?

kpresidente
02-24-2011, 10:04 PM
Funny, without owners, players could still play baseball. Not so much the other way around.

Where are they gonna play? In the street? They gonna make their own teams, scout their own players, sell their own T-shirts? Are we going to watch the games off somebody's iPhone with Brandon Phillips tweeting the play-by-play?

Etc, etc, etc.


You also have to like Hank Steinbrenner comparing revenue sharing with communism, and basically saying small market teams shouldn't be there if they can't hang in financially.


Steinbrenner's an idiot. In sports, competition is the product. If the Yankees don't have somebody to play, he has no product to sell.

Slyder
02-24-2011, 10:57 PM
How many teams were in the top 10 payrolls between 2004-06 and 2007-09?
Just curious if only 14 teams were in the top 10 payrolls for those seasons or if it was a higher number.

I just summed it up rather than copying and pasting every number for space restrictions. 14 of the 24 teams that reached the post season in those windows of time were listed as having a top 10 payroll. So on average 5 of 8 teams in post season could be expected to be a high payroll team.

Slyder
02-24-2011, 11:01 PM
So I did the math and using Opening Day Payrolls via this http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm#2005payroll
I found that from 2004 - 2006 only 13 different teams were top 10 payrolls.
I found that from 2007 - 2009 only 13 different teams were top 10 payrolls.

What did you use for your team payroll reference?

I just used the total numbers and looked for the teams that reached the playoffs in a given year. So those that made multiple trips would have counted twice. For example the Yanks would have counted if we were using 2010 and 2009 numbers.

Ill try and find the numbers I used. And edit a link when i can find it. But regardless of 13 or 14 having a top 10 payroll increases your opportunities at playoffs.

Slyder
02-24-2011, 11:13 PM
I used CBS Sportsline, Getlisty, and a couple other sites in gathering the older payroll. But for example

2010 Payroll:
Yankees 1st
Phillies 4th
Giants 10th
Twins 11th
Braves 15th
Reds 19th
Rays 21st
Rangers 27th and got a bailout from MLB to keep em afloat.

Regardless either set of numbers you are looking at the average year you have 2/3rds of the teams competing for 4 or 3 spots while the top 10 by themselves get 4 or 5.

MartyFan
02-25-2011, 03:44 PM
Tis the season for Union busting!

traderumor
02-26-2011, 07:30 AM
Unfortunately, we are living in a world where hundreds of people are supposed to bust their butts while one dude gets rich. Oh, you are an owner? Oh, well, let me show you what I have for you....

Funny, without owners, players could still play baseball. Not so much the other way around.

You also have to like Hank Steinbrenner comparing revenue sharing with communism, and basically saying small market teams shouldn't be there if they can't hang in financially.

This coming from a guy whose team is in a market that contains 1 in 16 Americans.

The other 29 teams split up the other 15 LOL...seriously, any Yankee loss is a good one with that attitude.Here I thought you were referring to attorneys ;)