Yes, they shouldn't get revenue sharing anymore. Yes, honestly no team should really be crying poverty. Yes, there are teams who seem to be just pocketing everything they can.Famous Mortimer wrote:Whether you think it's the MLBPA's fault for not negotiating properly, the fact remains that teams like the A's are spending less on their payroll than they're receiving solely in terms of kickbacks from the league. Even if the players left the door open, no-one's forcing the owners to "collude". Okay, I'm not wildly excited about the Cardinals lineup, but can you imagine being an A's fan and not even having to wonder at the contempt you're held in by the team's owners?
The fact remains though that the A's are fielding a mildly competitive team this year (while also having one of the best farm systems in baseball). Again, it's at least partially the players' faults that they made it so that owners can do so on a shoestring budget. Probably the only place they needed to seriously consider a replacement was at C because their current one has a pending assault case against him. The A's pathetic payroll (largely so pathetic because of how many prospects and young players they're going to field) is projected to be equivalent to that of the Rangers, Rockies and Brewers, with the first two teams spending nearly double on payroll. There's also nothing that says the revenue sharing has to be spent on the major league payroll.
That is absolutely ludicrous that a team can be projected to be within 4 games of .500 ball (i.e. tied for around 16th in record) while having the 29th lowest payroll.
That speaks to a systemic problem with how young players are paid. The teams get to extract the most value out of them when they're (theoretically) at the peak of their winning curve for nothing. Like literally peanuts in the scheme of expenditures.


