Why is it ridiculous to think that David Glass will increase his payroll? The Royals spend 97% of their total revenues to put their team on the field. The Astros spend more than their total revenues to put the Astros on the field (EDIT: The Astros spend 95% of their revenues. Sorry for the mistake). The Twins spend 93% of their total revenues (numbers are for 2001). Steinbrenner spent 91% in 2001. How is he any different than these other owners (other than he spends less of his revenue, as a percentage)? He just has more available to spend. The fact that the Royals are in Kansas City doesn't automatically make anyone who owns the team a bad owner, especially just because they don't feel like spending an additonal $40 to $70 million+ just to get their payroll to the level of the Braves, Yankees, and whatnot. The system created this desire of owners to not spend so much. The Royals could spend an additional $10 million and take a relatively small loss to do so, but they'd still be so far down the payroll scale that it would be unlikely to make any difference on the field. So why bother. Spend what you have, but don't go into losses. Because spending more just means money out of the owner's pockets without there to be much of a difference on the field, if any at all.
Some details of the deal from ESPN.com: The agreement calls for $258 million to be transferred annually from richer clubs to poorer clubs. The deal will be phased in, with 60 percent being transferred in the first year, 80 percent in the second and full implementation of the $258 million in the third and fourth years. In an effort to avoid the chaos of this year, when the sides were working without a contract, this deal calls for a rollover of the terms on revenue sharing and the luxury tax to rollover into 2007 if a new CBA still is being negotiated. Players agreed not to challenge any contraction moves in 2007. The worldwide draft has been set aside for further study.
I actually used Forbes numbers rather than Major League Baseball numbers. I mean, you can believe a publication whose entire job is financial reporting and analysis, or we can completely dismiss their in-depth reporting and analysis and believe some vague notion of what people generally believe to be true (or we could believe what MLB puts in front of us). I would venture to guess that Forbes' numbers are as close to reality as we're going to get. If you or anyone else chooses to not believe them, that's your business and your choice. But unless you can show me something from a better (or just as good as) source that contradicts Forbes, I'm going to continue to support them as being as close to reality as is possible.
looks like ESPN jumped the gun on reporting "no luxury tax in the final year of the deal" and i, in turn, did the same while reporting it on the BBS. my apologies.
