-=> Quoting Ed Grinnell to Scott Zolnoski <=-
 SZ> all, the Royals would feel like real chumps if they'd given Bob Hamelin
 SZ> a big contract after his rookie season...
 EG> Well, ANYONE would have been a chump to give a rookie as old as
 EG> Hamelin that much money. I don't think that Cleveland was lucky, they
 EG> simply out-thought the rest of baseball. The guys that they signed
 EG> were nearing arbitration and they had already proven their worth so it
 EG> wasn't a really big gamble, especially when you consider that while
 EG> those players got good money, they got far less than market value. 
True, it helps when players WANT to play for their team.  Look at Molitor
in Minnesota, or Montgomery in KC.  Both could have signed larger contracts,
but opted for less money to play for a team they liked (well, it could
be argued that Monty may not have been as sought-after as other relievers,
but that's a whole other topic! :) ).  However, Cleveland did get more
out of Hershiser and Martinez than *I* expected.  Hershiser in particular
was questionable when he signed with the Indians.
Actually, I had another idea for baseball economics.  How about a system
where the league encourages free agents to re-sign with their current team?
Say each team paid 1% of their total revenue into a pooled fund (just to
pluck a number out of the air).  Each team could recover that money, but
use it ONLY to sign players that have played on that team for 3 years or
more.  I think this would encourage players to stick with one team, and would
encourage owners to retain their players.  This is just an idea, mind you;
something that occured to me the other day...
 SZ> the Browns to move to Baltimore, I have lost a bit of my enthusiasm
 SZ> for the NFL.
 EG> I recently did a study on the last revenue figures for the Big 4
 EG> sports. I was looking at the variances in revenue to show how much
 EG> differences there is between each league. Not surprisingly, the top
 EG> dog was the NFL. What might surprise some people is that the NHL was
 EG> NOT at the bottom (they were, in fact, second) - MLB was. When Modell
 EG> was whining about the have's and have nots in the NFL, he was whining
Well, the Browns drew like 40,000 fans pretty consistently until the team
announced it was leaving, as I recall (don't hold me to that number; the
point is, they had fan support.), which is why I was so upset when the team
moved.  I was even MORE upset when the league approved the move.  Sure,
they threw Cleveland a bone by allowing them to retain the Browns name
and promises of a expansion team, but I still think they got the shaft.
But then again, this is the BASEball echo, isn't it?! :)
The problem of teams using shared revenue merely to pad profit margins
is what led me to the above idea regarding re-signing players.   What
if teams could only use the income from revenue-sharing for player salaries?
I think this NFL season will be a good test for the whole idea of revenue
sharing.  Many observers feel that the Cowboys and 49ers will be weaker
this year due to the loss of players due to the salary cap.  If this is
the case, I think it will strengthen the argument that salary caps
encourage parity.  Of course, 4 superbowls in 5 years is hardly parity, but
baseball already has a championship monopoly in Atlanta, so it could hardly
make the situation any worse!
... I want to sleep for a million years - Madder Rose  
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------