John Henry's MLB Financial Proposal

The owner of the Boston Red Sox, John Henry, isn't exactly a fan of the present system baseball has concerning the payroll disparity between the world champion Yankees and the so-called "small-market" teams. Of course, it's not necessarily the type of argument many would expect. For years, herds of fans of the have-nots have cried foul concerning the lack of a salary cap in Major League Baseball. The 2009 World Series reinforced their opinions, as the Yankees "bought" a championship (even though their payroll was basically the same as it was in 2007-2008).

Many may be surprised to learn the argument Henry is making actually falls somewhat in support of the Yankees.

"Baseball has determined that the best way to deal with the Yankees is to take as much of their revenue as possible. I see that in direct opposition to the ideals this country was built on. Baseball is a business and should be treated as such. Baseball is also a sport that needs competitive balance in order to prosper. Taxing their revenues and other large markets in the way it is presently done, is simply confiscation on an order of magnitude never seen in any industry in America," Henry said.

He's obviously correct, from a large-market perspective. The Yankees may spend gargantuan amounts of money more on their players than anyone else, but they also pay massive revenue sharing to small-market teams who don't -- according to Henry and many others -- use the money in the right places.

Where Henry seems to side with the Yankees is that they'd rather spend their profits on players -- which will please fans, who are their customers. Several small-market clubs, according to Henry, care more about making money than putting together a good on-field product -- thus neglecting their customers in favor of making more profit.

"Change is needed and that is reflected by the fact that over a billion dollars have been paid to seven chronically uncompetitive teams, five of whom have had baseball's highest operating profits," Henry responded in an e-mail. "Who, except these teams, can think this is a good idea?"

Henry added, "While the Red Sox are in the 16th largest media market we've found a way to be very competitive even though we are funding other teams. At the end of the day, the small-market clubs still can not begin to compete with the Yankees and have a very hard time competing with the teams that are struggling to pay them so much. Consequently, a system that directly impacts competition has to replace the current system, that hoped to, but ultimately did not cure competitive imbalances."

Earlier this offseason, superagent Scott Boras made a similar insinuation: that there were a handful (if not more) of teams who were just sitting back and taking the revenue sharing dollars without using them to improve their on-field product.

We can't definitely figure which teams Henry and Boras are referencing, but the Florida Marlins stick out like a sore thumb. Their payroll was reportedly only $36,814,000 last season. They repeatedly unload players who make or are set to make a lot of money in favor of continuing the profit margin as opposed to trying to win more championships (yes, they've won two, but can you really argue that's their owner's top priority every season?). The Miguel Cabrera trade to Detroit was the latest high-profile maneuver, but they do this type of thing frequently.

The other low payroll teams who could be under the microscope are the Pirates (which seems obvious as well), A's, Nationals, Rays, Twins and Orioles. Those, including Florida, comprised the seven lowest payrolls in 2009 other than the San Diego Padres -- who had to desperately shed payroll prior to the season due to the owner getting a costly divorce. For those curious, the constantly maligned Kansas City Royals had a payroll of just over $70,000,000, ranking them 21st in the majors.

The Twins and A's immediately jump out as teams who have refused to pay top dollar to keep elite players over the course of the revenue sharing period (which began in 1997), yet have found a way to be competitive through smart spending. Thus, the most egregious culprits would be the Pirates, Nationals and Orioles. However, this is pure speculation. Henry and Boras could be referring to teams in larger markets that don't necessarily have as high a payroll as they could.

Those who favor large-market teams generally believe there should be some sort of a minimum payroll -- especially if revenue sharing is kept in place. The line of thinking being, if we're going to give you this money, you better damn well spend it instead of pocketing it.

Henry's suggestion is in line with this thought process.

"It's a very simple approach in which payroll tax dollars replace revenue sharing dollars and go directly to the clubs that need revenues in order to meet minimum payrolls that should be imposed on each club receiving revenue. Further, players would have to be protected with a guaranteed minimum percentage of overall revenues. This would be a very simple and effective method in reducing top payrolls and increasing bottom payrolls with no tax on revenues," Henry wrote.

Henry added that "The World Series should be determined by fully competitive teams on the field - not by how much particular clubs can afford to spend. A better solution is to address competition directly so that clubs can generate revenue more equally as teams become competitive across baseball."

So, the top payrolls come down, the bottom ones go up. Teams who make money would be allowed to spend more, while teams would not be allowed to simply sit on a revenue sharing check and continue to field unproductive teams. The result would ideally be smarter spending by everyone -- including the vaunted Yankees and Red Sox -- and hopefully the inclusion of a bigger variety of teams in the playoffs.

Of course, we all know this isn't going to stop the complaining. There will always be that.