|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by soxmuscle
How do you know he's going to pocket his share and not spend it on his team?
It's not like 1/30th of $26.9 million is going to land you Teixeira or anything... Odds are the money is being put into the team, whether that be bonus money for draft picks, lesser free agent pick-ups or an increased pay to their centerfielder ala the Coco Crisp trade. |
|
To the Sports Editor: In ''Even With Veterans, Woeful Royals Are Playing Like Court Jesters,'' (May 28), Jack Curry's statement that the Royal's owner, David Glass, ''has long been stingy with the payroll'' seems an understatement. Kansas City is a classic example of a team that should benefit from baseball's revenue sharing and luxury tax. The Royals' 2005 payroll, according to USAToday.com, was just below $37 million. But in the same year, according to Murray Chass, the Royals received more than $64 million in combined revenue sharing and luxury tax. These figures, if true, suggest that the Royals are not using their huge surplus of cash to field a better team. |
| Still, revenue sharing is clearly a flawed system. There need to be regulations as to how lower salary teams spend the money. Teams like the Florida Marlins get $30 million in revenue sharing, and an additional $30 million in shared profits from mlb.com. That's $60 million before you even factor in the money they make off of ticket sales and merchandising. Yet, the Marlins are expected to have a payroll which could be as low as $15 million next year. |
| Alas, not even the most skillful negotiators could devise an economic system to transform mismanaged clubs into contenders. Low-budget teams such as the Royals will receive larger revenue-sharing subsidies, but the agreement doesn't require them to spend the money. In other words, Steinbrenner might be financing the next addition on Royals owner David Glass' mansion. There is nothing to prevent Glass from maintaining low payrolls and dumping high-priced veterans in July, as he did in the past. |
