Jayson Stark Makes It Up

by user DNL

I just sent this to the SABR Business of Baseball email list. I'd like the input of the ArmchairGMs out there as well.

In his Insider column, "updated" today (which means I haven't the slightest when it was first published), Jayson Stark notes that a few teams are spending less money then they're apparently getting via revenue sharing. Beyond Stark's highly questionable math -- he includes national contract money as shared revenue -- he adds this "solution" to the problem:

Is he correct in re the reason the union is opposed to minimum payroll? It doesn't seem to follow that being against a salary cap should require being agaisnt a salary floor. After all, those who favor the minimum wage (in the grander scheme of things) are not logically required to believe that there should also be a maximum wage. And clearly, the owners who would most want a salary cap would be against a salary floor, so, again, no logical disconnect there.

But that aside, if I were Donald Fehr, I'd be against a salary floor, too.

A salary floor guarantees that money will be spent on players. It does not guarantee that said money will be spent wisely. The result will be more bloated salaries. The more bloat, the less parity. And this leads to more "easy solutions," the vast, vast majority hurt the union.

Am I way off-base here, or is Stark being too much the simpleton?

Date
Fri 04/28/06, 12:04 pm EST