PDA

View Full Version : 10% Rule



Bk718
11-03-2010, 04:29 PM
Hey guys I'm a long time reader but i made an account today to see what you guys thought of this idea i made up.
Problem-
1)Alot of people complain there is no salary cap in baseball, but i don't think a cap is the correct solution..I know this has been debated to no end on this website, but this is not another salary cap thread lol
2) Revenue sharing is not working very well because a lot of teams that receive revenue don't put it back into the team and instead pocket the money.
3) Small market clubs can't keep their stars and because of this lose their fan base over time.

Solution- I came up with an idea i call the 10% rule. Basically it goes like this..The top 10 biggest markets or top 10 highest payrolls have to pay a tax, much like the revenue sharing works now, or every team that signs a television contract have to give a certain percent to MLB. MLB in turn sets up a fund of sorts and every small market team will receive money from this fund. Im not sure how you would determine which teams would be involved but I'm sure it could be figured out. Now here is where my idea is different from just revenue sharing.. Much like the NFL every MLB team will be able to franchise tag 2 players on their team and when they do the Fund that is set up will pay for 10% of their contracts.. Hypothetically teams will now be able to spend 10% more and compete with the big markets when it comes to resigning their home town heros. Any team that does not not tag a player loses the possible money they would receive, meaning they should always have two players under the franchise tag. This could prevent team from just pocketing the money. I understand their are flaws to this idea..

1) Teams will just offer the same amount of money and save the 10%
Solution - First off if teams do this they won't end up with the player and will forfeit their share of the fund.
2) Teams will tag lesser players so they will have to pay less.
Solution- Only players an arbitrator deems worthy will be able to be tagged
3) Team has no one that is worthy of the franchise tag.
Solution- the team will not just receive the money, instead they will be given a credit that can be used in the future on the player.

I know this idea has some holes, but i think something like this could be a solution to the current problems in the MLB when it comes to small markets losing their big names.

Gunzito22
11-03-2010, 04:44 PM
meh...

teams need to spend to compete. this is the same in every sport, salary cap or not. Lets not make another convoluted way for cheaper owners to not-resign their players and call the Yankees "Baseball-Nazis"...

The Patriots, Giants and Colts have franchise QBs and surround them with talent. the Panthers, kinda don't. The Lakers, Celtics, and Magic are up there every year and they pay franchise players... Pistons & Nets? meh...

Ron!n
11-03-2010, 05:38 PM
Thats kind of like the way teams can resign their players for more in the NBA. Not a bad idea overall but it does add some unnecessary complicated-ness.

I think the whole salary cap thing is going to calm down a bit this offseason. The Yanks have alot of money tied up and they probably wont be able to sign much more than Cliff Lee. Not to mention that 2 teams without a huge payroll just made the WS and some new teams made the playoffs/were competitive (Reds, Padres, etc...).

People are beginning to realise that smart team building can beat outright spending and theyre going to go for that. Heck id imagine some small market teams dont even want a salary cap, since that probably lessens their revenue sharing and might institute a salary floor.

Lloyd Christmas
11-03-2010, 06:15 PM
This would be a start, but teams like the Rays still wouldn't beable to afford say, Crawford and Pena at 90% of their salaries. Maybe if this tax would cover the full salaries of one to two star players then we would be onto something.

EDIT: 20 million which a team would have to spend on players should do the trick

Rdy2PlayBall
11-03-2010, 06:28 PM
This would be a start, but teams like the Rays still wouldn't beable to afford say, Crawford and Pena at 90% of their salaries. Maybe if this tax would cover the full salaries of one to two star players then we would be onto something.

EDIT: 20 million which a team would have to spend on players should do the trickOf all the ideas I have seen, this is among the worst.

Lloyd Christmas
11-03-2010, 07:09 PM
Of all the ideas I have seen, this is among the worst.

haha. I won't argue with you there.

Pinstripe pride
11-04-2010, 08:40 AM
not happening. leave it as is. if teams want to be cheap thats there problem. people seem to be missing that is not that most of the small market teams don't have the money, they just choose not to spend it

Gunzito22
11-04-2010, 09:57 AM
you have to spend money to make money... sorry *insert small market team name here*

Jeffy25
11-04-2010, 01:05 PM
meh...

teams need to spend to compete. this is the same in every sport, salary cap or not. Lets not make another convoluted way for cheaper owners to not-resign their players and call the Yankees "Baseball-Nazis"...

The Patriots, Giants and Colts have franchise QBs and surround them with talent. the Panthers, kinda don't. The Lakers, Celtics, and Magic are up there every year and they pay franchise players... Pistons & Nets? meh...

This

VRP723
11-04-2010, 01:21 PM
First off welcome to the forum.

The franchise tag is an interesting theory, but I feel it would be too convoluted with some positions, like 1st base, where no one would ever use it.