A's misusing revenue sharing?

[gunnarthor]

Interesting article on the A's and revenue sharing.  The A's, despite being in a big market, get revenue sharing because of their ballpark.  They get a check for 34m but agents and other teams are a bit concerned that the A's might not being using that money as intended.

 

"The current collective bargaining agreement, which ends Dec. 1, stipulates that revenue-sharing checks must go toward improving on-field performance and requires teams to detail the ways in which those monies were spent. In addition to big-league payroll, other expenditures that qualify include adding scouts or front-office staff, improving technology systems, and signing international players.

“There is leeway to justify other expenditures,” a union official said. “But if a team shows no progress year after year and most of the revenue-sharing spending is on non-major-league salaries, red flags go up. There are clubs that other clubs look at and say, ‘What are they doing? Is this really the best use of our money?’”

There are no indications that MLB or the union have found the A’s annual reports lacking. They continue to receive heftier revenue-sharing checks each year."

 

http://www.sfchronicle.com/athletics/article/Baseball-s-labor-negotiations-could-be-costly-10426202.php

[Mr. Brooks]

The A's are not in a big market.

They are the 2nd smallest media market behind Kansas City.

[Thrylos]

 

The A's are not in a big market.
They are the 2nd smallest media market behind Kansas City.

 

I think that your radius is pretty narrow.  Use the media marker radius the Twins are using, and see how that size changes.  Their market is identical to that of the Giants.

[jimmer]

 

I think that your radius is pretty narrow.  Use the media marker radius the Twins are using, and see how that size changes.  Their market is identical to that of the Giants.

According to Forbes, Giants Market gets them close to 900M, A's market gets them around 200M.

 

https://newballpark.org/2015/03/26/the-small-market-as-and-some-serious-equity/

 

The Giants dominate that market for many reasons not the least of which is their stadium and their recent success.

[old nurse]

 

According to Forbes, Giants Market gets them close to 900M, A's market gets them around 200M.

 

https://newballpark.org/2015/03/26/the-small-market-as-and-some-serious-equity/

 

The Giants dominate that market for many reasons not the least of which is their stadium and their recent success.

The market that the A's are in is the same as the Giants. The decisions they have made have resulted in them being a small revenue team. They are not a small market team. The attendance when they were winning in the early 1990s was near the league best. Every other team since then has figured out how to get a new stadium but them. Small revenue by their own action

 

[jimmer]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45960981

 

'What defines a small-market team is usually based on TV households and the size of the local population. St. Louis, Cincinnati and Arlington, Texas, are at the high end of the range, and Pittsburgh and Oakland are at the lower. Washington, Baltimore and Cleveland are toward the middle.'

[Mr. Brooks]

The market that the A's are in is the same as the Giants. The decisions they have made have resulted in them being a small revenue team. They are not a small market team. The attendance when they were winning in the early 1990s was near the league best. Every other team since then has figured out how to get a new stadium but them. Small revenue by their own action

Sano Francisco has 2.5 times as many people as Oakland, how exactly is their market size the same?

This isn't like the Yankees and Mets or Cubs and White Sox.

This is two separate cities.

You don't get to count the whole bay area as up for grabs. People in San Francisco aren't going to become Oakland no matter how the teams play.

[sthpstm]

I have to assume that people saying the Giants and the A's are in the same market aren't from the area or California.

As a California transplant I may have a little more knowledge, and for the people I know, they aren't, they aren't in the same market. Most San Franciscans wouldn't make the trek to Oakland for a game even if the A's were great and the Giants were in a Twins-like slump. Oakland and it's areas are generally lower income and industrial.

[jimmer]

 

I have to assume that people saying the Giants and the A's are in the same market aren't from the area or California.
As a California transplant I may have a little more knowledge, and for the people I know, they aren't, they aren't in the same market. Most San Franciscans wouldn't make the trek to Oakland for a game even if the A's were great and the Giants were in a Twins-like slump. Oakland and it's areas are generally lower income and industrial.

yeah, I was born in Cali and grew up in the Bay Area, and I agree (as I'm sure you already figured out).  plus there's tons of info out there confirming Oakland is a small market team (including two I've linked).

[NoCal]

The Warriors play right next to the Oakland Coliseum and their games are full of people from all over the Bay Area. Oakland is actually better positioned to draw from the most populous parts of the metro area - East Bay, plus the north Bay Area via Richmond bridge, and Peninsula via San Mateo. The current owners of the A's are totally committed to low payrolls and maximum profits, unlike the Haas family who owned the A's in the glory years. The franchise is very cynically run, and the constant churning of its roster is driving away its core of fans. Contrast that with the Giants, who paid for their stadium (finally) and constantly strive to build teams with a long term view, including loyalty to their core players. Pray that the new Twins organization emulates the Giants, not the A's.

[jimmer]

 

The Warriors play right next to the Oakland Coliseum and their games are full of people from all over the Bay Area. Oakland is actually better positioned to draw from the most populous parts of the metro area - East Bay, plus the north Bay Area via Richmond bridge, and Peninsula via San Mateo. The current owners of the A's are totally committed to low payrolls and maximum profits, unlike the Haas family who owned the A's in the glory years. The franchise is very cynically run, and the constant churning of its roster is driving away its core of fans. Contrast that with the Giants, who paid for their stadium (finally) and constantly strive to build teams with a long term view, including loyalty to their core players. Pray that the new Twins organization emulates the Giants, not the A's.

The Warriors don't have another team competing for revenue/market.  They have it all to themselves.  Sacramento is something like 2 hours away if traffic cooperates. 

[gunnarthor]

The large market was taken from the article - "The A’s are in danger of losing some or even all of their substantial annual check from baseball’s revenue-sharing system, which redistributes income from richer teams to poorer teams to maintain competitive balance. Oakland was grandfathered into the program because of its antiquated stadium, despite being in a larger market, and received upward of $34 million in revenue sharing last season."

[Mike Sixel]

Well, I don't know how you prove how they are using that money, or other money.....

 

Should the A's spend money just to spend money? It is, I think, a pretty complex question.

 

Just go to, say, 75% of all revenue going into a pot, and that is divided evenly among all teams, with teams getting to keep 25% of their own revenue. Or, 60%, or something......level the playing field. There are no Yankees if there are not also 29 other teams....

[kab21]

The A's are definitely small to mid market since there is another team in their area. 

 

I am not sure that this is the time to get upset about revenue sharing though. The A's spent 85M (or 80M) on payroll last year. It was the 5th lowest but it isn't like the Marlins or Astros 3 years ago with a 22M or 36M payroll. If you have a problem with the A's then the problem is with the revenue sharing equation and not how much they spent.

 

I have thought that teams receiving revenue sharing should have to maintain a certain payroll or lose a portion of the revenue sharing. If they want to play a bunch of rookies instead of a mediocre FA that is fine but they don't receive the money (and pocket it) that they could have spent on the mediocre FA.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The A's are definitely small to mid market since there is another team in their area. 

 

I am not sure that this is the time to get upset about revenue sharing though. The A's spent 85M (or 80M) on payroll last year. It was the 5th lowest but it isn't like the Marlins or Astros 3 years ago with a 22M or 36M payroll. If you have a problem with the A's then the problem is with the revenue sharing equation and not how much they spent.

 

I have thought that teams receiving revenue sharing should have to maintain a certain payroll or lose a portion of the revenue sharing. If they want to play a bunch of rookies instead of a mediocre FA that is fine but they don't receive the money (and pocket it) that they could have spent on the mediocre FA.

 

That seems unfair.....imo. Why pay a FA and keep a rookie in the minors, just because, um, for no reason? 

 

The teams earn revenue sharing by existing. How they spend it should be up to them. 

[amjgt]

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45960981

 

'What defines a small-market team is usually based on TV households and the size of the local population. St. Louis, Cincinnati and Arlington, Texas, are at the high end of the range, and Pittsburgh and Oakland are at the lower. Washington, Baltimore and Cleveland are toward the middle.'

 

And yet St Louis has been in the competitive balance lottery every year.

[kab21]

 

That seems unfair.....imo. Why pay a FA and keep a rookie in the minors, just because, um, for no reason? 

 

The teams earn revenue sharing by existing. How they spend it should be up to them. 

They don't need to pay a FA though. Nothing is forcing them to. Losing the money they could have spent on a FA is the same as spending it on a player they don't want. If the best baseball move is to play the rookie then that should be the move.

Why subsidize teams that don't spend the money to make their product better and instead just pocket the money for easy profits?

[Mike Sixel]

 

They don't need to pay a FA though. Nothing is forcing them to. Losing the money they could have spent on a FA is the same as spending it on a player they don't want. If the best baseball move is to play the rookie then that should be the move.

Why subsidize teams that don't spend the money to make their product better and instead just pocket the money for easy profits?

 

I guess you have to decide if MLB should share revenue, because it is a 30 team collective, or if you want to not share revenue. If you decide you are sharing revenue, then it should be up to each team how to spend it or not......

[kab21]

 

I guess you have to decide if MLB should share revenue, because it is a 30 team collective, or if you want to not share revenue. If you decide you are sharing revenue, then it should be up to each team how to spend it or not......

It is semantics but that is exactly what I am arguing. My point is that they should spend it instead of putting out a bad product and staying profitable because they collect revenue sharing.

 

[Monkeypaws]

 

Sano Francisco has 2.5 times as many people as Oakland, how exactly is their market size the same?
This isn't like the Yankees and Mets or Cubs and White Sox.
This is two separate cities.
You don't get to count the whole bay area as up for grabs. People in San Francisco aren't going to become Oakland no matter how the teams play.

And yet Oakland is being gentrified as we speak, and the tech industry is driving people across the Bay Bridge to seek affordable living, and even Oakland is getting crazy expensive. If you think this situation is any different form Manhattan-Bronx-Queens, you are dreaming sir. It would be equivalent to saying Mpls-StP were different markets

[Mr. Brooks]

And yet Oakland is being gentrified as we speak, and the tech industry is driving people across the Bay Bridge to seek affordable living, and even Oakland is getting crazy expensive. If you think this situation is any different form Manhattan-Bronx-Queens, you are dreaming sir. It would be equivalent to saying Mpls-StP were different markets

Minneapolis and St Paul would be different markets, for the purpose we are discussing, if they each had their own major league baseball teams.

 

I suppose you think the Mets have just as much chance of getting the average Bronx resident as the Yankees do?

 

It's silly to think the OAKLAND A's should be able to draw as much revenue from the city of San Francisco as the SAN FRANCISCO Giants do.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The As compete with the Giants. That's reality there.  These two teams are right on top of each other from a location standpoint and as such they compete for the same market share.  The Giants have been more successful too, so there's that.

 

Oh, and most importantly, Oakland is a dump... at least that was my experience when visiting this spring. I'm sure there are nice areas, but that type of stuff does play into revenue.  I get the distinct impression that the economy in SanFran is light years ahead of Oakland... that's my subjective opinion to be clear, but if I had to relocate to the area, Oakland is not where I'd go. The NFL is having similar problems. The Raiders want out.  The 49ers, just got a beautiful stadium in Santa Clara/San Jose.

[Monkeypaws]

Media markets aren't determined by sports franchises. Nielsen, the ratings folks, rank them like this:

 

1 New York, NY
2 Los Angeles, CA
3 Chicago, IL
4 Philadelphia, PA
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose, CA
7 Boston (Manchester), MA
8 Washington, DC
9 Atlanta, GA
10 Houston, TX
11 Detroit, MI
12 Seattle-Tacoma, WA
13 Phoenix (Prescott), AZ
14 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota), FL
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

[Mr. Brooks]

Media markets aren't determined by sports franchises. Nielsen, the ratings folks, rank them like this:

 

1 New York, NY

2 Los Angeles, CA

3 Chicago, IL

4 Philadelphia, PA

5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX

6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose, CA

7 Boston (Manchester), MA

8 Washington, DC

9 Atlanta, GA

10 Houston, TX

11 Detroit, MI

12 Seattle-Tacoma, WA

13 Phoenix (Prescott), AZ

14 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota), FL

15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

There aren't geographic and familial loyalties that go into play when considering market size for Nielsen ratings purposes.

 

That is apples and oranges when compared to a practical application of available market to a baseball team.

 

You honestly think that the A's have AN EQUAL chance at someone born and raised in San Francisco, whose family and friends influenced them to grow up as Giants fans, as the Giants do? I mean, come on, that's just not reality.

[Vanimal46]

So an interesting article on Deadspin today... The MLB will no longer allow the A's to be classified as a small market team. Meaning they will no longer receive revenue sharing checks from other teams in the league.