Joe Maddon on the Yankees complaints about the Trop:

“Tell them we’re trying to get a new yard ourselves. If they want to contribute in any way, we’ll take it. We’re all for a new ballpark. We’re not trying to hide that. … We’ll take all kinds of donations; any major-league team that wants to contribute to the new ballpark, we’d be happy to accept”

We know JoeMa was just being silly but the Yankees might not take to kindly to those words. You see, the Yankees do contribute. It’s called revenue sharing. And that is a sensitive topic right now as there are concerns about how that revenue is being spent.



  1. Carey says:

    Well, until YES Network's profits (all of them) count as part of the Yankees' overall profits, I'm calling BS on their complaints. Don't like revenue sharing? Stop spending like a cheap whore with her sugar daddy's gold card.

  2. Smokey Joe says:

    This is a classic case of Maddon running his mouth trying to be funny and instead he is just going to turn a non-story into some huge national story we are going to read and hear for the next 2 weeks.

  3. Cliff says:

    Revenue sharing is true and so, too, is the the fact the Rays need a new modern stadium, which doesn't have the population draw, financial base of business and tax dollars that has helped the Yankees grow and even build they new stadium. Because the Yanks operate in the richest market with the largest resources for business suites and advertising money, how else do the smaller markets operate when free agency allows them to buy which ever player they want - because they can out-bid anyone? And I mean everyone! Without the revenue sharing concept (or something else), MLB would eventually be reduced to about than 10 teams. And while the Yankees might have won the game of Monopoly, just like the game, as soon as someone wins the game is over and there is nobody left to play.

    • I agree. Revenue sharing is good for the sport. Last time I checked the Yankees can't play any games in Replica Yankee Stadium unless another team shows up.

      But there are problems with recenue sharing. when the Marlins payroll is less than their pull in revenue sharing then MLB has a problem.

      And it can be argued that revenue sharing hurts competetive balance. Take the Rays. Right now they receive money from the revenue sharing fund. But what happens if the Rays win the World Series and next year draw 3million fans and make a ton of money? Should the Rays then pump that new revenue into the roster? That's the argument right? But if they do that they no longer receive revenue sharing. So spending money costs more than just the salaries of the new players. It also costs the team millions in revenue sharing. So some will argue that revenue sharing keeps some teams from wanting to win. And it encourages teams to NOT spend money on payroll.

  4. leningan says:

    Well said cliff... will the steadily and rapidly increasing tv ratings for the rays lead to a Rays network? I see this as the only way to supplement our meager earnings cause, let's face it, we will never sell out 81 home games even if we won back to back series. Is a rays network a possibilty?
    And who cares if joe runs his mouth and upsets the yanks? Though, I would much rather upset them the only place they can feel it... on the field and in the standings

  5. leningan says:

    On the revenue sharing front... would a salary floor work? And what is the cutoff for when you pay out versus when you receive revenue?

    • Well technically there us a floor. Minimum salary us $400k x 25 players.

      I'm no economist, but I'm not sure how a floor would help. Hear me out...

      Let's say the Marlins are $10 million under the floor. I'm guessing there is some type of penalty for that right? So to avoid the penalty they have to spend another $10million. But what if there is nobody available that is worth $10million? Do they just give $10million to a $5million player? Or do they give a couple of players on their own roster raises totalling $10million?

      Either way, you have given player(s) a salary that wasn't dictated by the market. Now here is where it causes a problem.

      Let's say the Marlins give Cody Ross a huge raise to avoid arbitration and also to avoid the floor penalty. Let's say normally he would get $6m in arbitration but Marlins offer him $8m.

      Now, let's pretend that BJ Upton and Cody Ross are very similar players. Next year Upton is going to arbitration with a big picture of Cody Ross smiling and counting all his cash. And now BJ wants $8m when he probably should only get $6m.

      So now we have a situation where the Marlins were just trying to avoid the floor and in the end it causes a ripple effect in which a bunch of players demand more money than they are worth. And now there is a new breed of players that small and mid-market teams can't afford.

      My point is, if they ever install a floor (higher than the current one) they better be careful because itcould just end up pushing more free agents to the big market teams.

      • Ken Kandefer says:

        Professor, I agree with your logic on the "floor". The only way small market owners however would approve of a "floor" is if a "ceiling" (or cap) is also agreed upon. The only way the players union would ever approve a cap is if there is also a floor. So the best thing for MLB is for the owners to get with the players during the next CBA is once and for all get a floor and ceiling. MLB would be the last professional sport to have a salary cap, but the first professional sport to have a floor. Then you will really hear the Yankees complain!!!

  6. Cliff says:

    Professor, you are right and I don't know have answers other than perhaps require each team the receives revenue sharing to pay a minimum amount on their salaries or they lose some it the following year. Something like that. If they ask me, I would be happy to participate with a panel to search for a solution. I don't know all the rules and formulas for the current structure but perhaps they need to be changed. No doubt the Rays need a new place, but even with a new place, I doubt there is a large enough business base to support selling out all the Suites they would have. Just a tough market and bad location, but it is what it is and they have to make the most out of it.

  7. Mike says:

    The fact that the Yankees hate our stadium so much only reinforces my opinion that the Trop should remain our home for the foreseeable future. I love watching a game there, always have. An outdoor ballpark makes no sense in this area. I would prefer the Rays played in Tampa, but not if it means extra taxes.

    Screw the yankees and their crybaby fans and players. They won the game and they are still complaining. They really should trade for Youk as he is probably the only player who can add to the Yankees whining ability.

  8. Joe D. says:

    Good points prof., also baseball has had more parody then football that has a salary cap, and salary floor... at least in terms of champions, that is.... I think with the exception of the Rays in '08 you don't see teams seemingly turning things around over night, like you can have in football.

    Oh yeah, as far as Maddon's comments, good for him, it Tex, and Posada don't like it, they can chip in right along with 'da boss'...i hope our stadium and cowbells and fans piss them off every time they come to town...

  9. Justin says:

    Can anyone tell me approximately how much the Rays get per year in revenue sharing? I would love to know the exact number.

    However, I am skeptical--the idea that revenue sharing balances everything out seems absurd--the Yankees spent 14 billion dollars more than the KC Royals over a ten year period. Are the Rays getting 14 billion dollars from revenue sharing?

  10. Pipp says:

    Maury Brown wrote a great article on revenue sharing for Baseball America about a month ago. Just from the central fund (which includes profits from MLB revenue generators such as merchandise and national tv deals) each team received about $30 million.

    In addition to that is the fund made up of each team's local revenues. The individual team numbers haven't been published in a while (according to bizofbaseball, in 2005, the Devil Rays received about $33 million in revenue sharing). But in total, $433 million went from high revenue clubs to low revenue clubs last year.

    Even if the Rays received a small portion of that, easily half of this year's player payroll is funded by revenue sharing.


Leave a Comment