It was announced today that the New York Yankees were the only team expected to have to pay the new "luxury" tax negotiated during the last labor agreement. Under that agreement, teams with a player payroll over $117 million would have to pay the tax toward a fund to aid struggling teams. The Yankees are the only team over that limit and will owe nearly $11 million. The story and the facts clearly show what a farce the luxury tax is in Major League Baseball.

Let's say that the struggling teams would be the Expos, the Brewers, the Marlins, the Devil Rays, Oakland and the Pirates, $11 million split six ways would yield each team $1.8 million. How will $1.8 level the playing field? Perhaps that money will buy Mike Bordick. No offense against Bordick, who is a good player and a good team player, but Bordick isn't going to buy you a pennant. Surely the old luxury tax structure produced more money for the fund.

Secondly, there are several teams over $100 million in payroll including the Mets, Boston, Arizona, Los Angeles and Texas (of all places). Why should the Yankees be the only team to have to even up the system? The Yankees spent their money well while the Mets spent theirs poorly. Arizona spent theirs for a World Series title and it worked but now they are restricted because of the money they have tied up. Los Angeles spend their money and are hitting .245 as a team. I guess they have all paid in one form or manner.

The other reality is that the teams that receive the money won't put the money towards the team. The stockholders and the owners will pad their pockets and the team will stay the way it is. And why should Steinbrenner pay for poorly run teams? Do the Pirates have to be perennial losers? Let's look at a little history.

The Cleveland Indians had a stretch in the 60's and 70's when they were the worst team in baseball. They came in last or next to last for more than a dozen years. During that time they had a decent following but they were lucky to draw a million fans. Slowly, they started building a good team with great players like Manny Ramirez and Juan Gonzales. Their now-well-run organization produced home grown talent and as the team got better, the fans came out. As luck (or planning) would have it, the improvement of the Indians coincided with the building of a great new ballpark. Between the two movements, the Indians drew over 3 million fans.

Back when the Indians were poorly run with a terrible farm system, why should the other teams have rewarded them with proceeds of a luxury tax? In addiction terms, isn't that called, "enabling"?

Cleveland lost a lot of those good players because they didn't want to pay them. And now they are rebuilding and their attendance is down again. Had the Indians kept the great players, their payroll would now be up over the $117 million mark. For doing things correctly and succeeding, the Indians would have had to pay a luxury tax to the next generation of poorly run teams. They chose instead to become the next poor team. Does the luxury tax then come to them for falling by the wayside?

Perhaps someday an economic genius can explain why all of this makes sense to those corps who own and run baseball. But it's obsurd to me. The system obviously doesn't work because the Pirates again dumped a good player for his salary and the Red Sox blithely picked it up tax free. For the exercise, the Pirates can expect a $1.8 million check courtesy of the New York Yankees.