Read on Twitter
Here's the basic problem with expanded playoffs.
If the owners offered 100% of the revenue from the new playoff round(s) to the players, I still don't think it's actually a good deal for the players.
Making World Series championships more random is AWFUL for salaries.
If the owners offered 100% of the revenue from the new playoff round(s) to the players, I still don't think it's actually a good deal for the players.
Making World Series championships more random is AWFUL for salaries.
Players are paid, largely based on whether they MOVE THE NEEDLE. The more the movement of the needle is due to randomness rather than player quality, the less valuable players are to a team's revenues. And the consequence of that should be quite obvious.
Take it a preposterous extreme. Imagine the networks pay $1 *trillion* a year to make the MLB's season a 32-team affair decided solely by single-elimination coin flips.
Despite $1 trillion in revenue, *all* salaries would be the league minimum.
Despite $1 trillion in revenue, *all* salaries would be the league minimum.
Baseball's revenue-sharing system, by sharing revenues based on *revenues* was specifically designed for this, *not* market parity.
And there's a very good reason why so much of MLB comes from sources that are shared equally - there's no win motivation to drive internet, national TV, merchandising, or international revenues.
A MASSIVE amount of Rays revenues comes from sources that have zero connection to whether the Rays win 50 or 100 games.
I've sold data to both teams and player-agents for 15 years. I don't do know specifics of individual situations -- I have to keep all relationships at an arm's length -- but I do know GENERALLY how wins and player wins are valued.
