Rev Sharing

[AndyP]

It was brought up during last season, I wanted to allow people to chew on a few things. I attached to this post our official 2065 rev sharing and then two hypothetical rev sharing possibilities.

The first file we change from 31% to 41%

The second file we change from 31% to 50%

With cash mattering more, this is just something to think about. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts. I'm not committed to anything, but it looks like 50% would lower our max revenues down to around 190-200 million and pull everyone else up to at least 110 million. There is still a sizable gap, but, not like 240-250M compared to 100 million.

Just a thought, I told some people I'd post these after the season. No changes would go into effect immediately.

[mattynokes]

I like the 50% sharing. I know the example that was discussed was Boston and Tampa where the change to 50% basically meant Boston loses the money that can sign one top tier player while Tampa gains the money that can sign one mid-tier player. Essentially it's -1 Type A player for BOS and +1 Type B player for TBR. The swing for a team like Tampa that will never have a budget like Boston is great. It's good for balancing the inequalities that are nothing more than you have this city, while he has that city.

['PR']

What Matty said.

[gmoney]

I'm not opposed to a change in revenue sharing, but if it is increased, I would push for a change in when it is taken. I think revenue sharing should take effect before re-signings as opposed to after.

At 41 or 50%, the cash piles that each team has at the end of the season aren't really reflective of their revenue for the season any longer. If big market teams have to have another 40-50 million in their cash pile that they will lose, this will mean they will have to resign players at higher prices than they should. Consequently, the lower market teams will get bigger bargains. I'm not sure of the exact effect here, but at those levels of cash, I would imagine it would be fairly significant. (If someone has hard numbers here, I appreciate it.)

[AndyP]

But that works both ways, doing rev sharing that way punishes the teams gaining money.

Cash totals never directly reflect revenue, so for me that's a non factor.

[AndyP]

I added a poll, I want to decide this by the start of next season.

[AndyP]

Also, in case anyone is curious, my reasoning for proposing this is threefold:

1) Cash has stabilized, banks are largely cleaned out, and budgets are running much more normally. So cash has become important again. So teams like NYY, NYM, BOS, and others are raking tons of cash and many of those teams are pumping that money into making even more cash in the future. (FLA, DET, and others are doing this to. Not that I don't condone that, far from it, it just shows there is money that could be better distributed)

2) Winterball has been shrinking for quite some time as well, another indication that money can be better distributed

3) A 150M gap between top revenue and bottom is just too much. Closing that by 30-40% (down to 90-100M gap) seems perfectly reasonable and doesn't hinder the fact that there are still a wide range of markets to attract GMs.

[cadmus2166]

I voted 50%, because I think that's the fairest option, but any increase will definitely be a step in the right direction.

[Geaux Blue]

I voted 41% because i'm an American and work under the notion of a free market.

'MERICA

[warpriest]

I don't always vote for 50%, but when I do it's for something like this. :)

I think the case is made that cash is stabilized, and bringing top revenue closer to bottom revenue is most equitable if competitive balance is our perpetual aim here.