If you haven't had a chance to read yesterday's column, please spend a few minutes to do so as this article builds on that material.

In the wake of Selig's announcement regarding the reinstitution of his debt restriction rule, I calculated the present day value of all of the contracts with three years or more left on them for which I had data. My reason for doing this was to be able to obtain some idea of where teams currently stand in complying with this rule. Below are my findings:

Note: The available debt is based upon AP revenue numbers for each team.

Anaheim: $73,384,800 allowed debt; $168.05M present value remaining (PVR) on the contracts of Kevin Appier, Troy Glaus, Ben Molina, Troy Percival, Tim Salmon, Aaron Sele, and the portion of Mo Vaughn's contract that they are still paying.
They are over the allowed debt by $94,665,200.

Arizona: $100,105,600 allowed debt; $46.49M PVR.
$53,615,600 available.
(Danny Bautista, Craig Counsell, Curt Schilling)

Atlanta: $117,480,800 allowed debt; $99.74M PVR.
$17,740,800 available.
(Andruw Jones, John Smoltz)

Baltimore: $102,641,600 allowed debt; $37.56M PVR.
$65,081,600 available.
(Marty Cordova, Buddy Groom, David Segui)

Boston: $141,585,600 allowed debt; $211.07M PVR.
$69,484,400 over.
(Johnny Damon, Nomar Garciaparra, Manny Ramirez, Jason Varitek)

Chicago Cubs: $103,819,200 allowed debt; $125.89M PVR.
$22,070,800 over.
(Moises Alou, Alex S. Gonzalez, Todd Hundley, Sammy Sosa)

Chicago White Sox: $89,345,600 allowed debt; $75.66M PVR.
$13,685,600 available.
(Magglio Ordonez, Frank Thomas)

Cincinnati: $56,709,600 allowed debt; $108.8M PVR.
$52,090,400 over.
(Sean Casey, Ken Griffey, Jr.)

Cleveland: $129,793,600 allowed debt; $14.46M PVR.
$115,333,600 available.
(Einar Diaz, C.C. Sabathia)

Colorado: $105,450,400 allowed debt; $309.21M PVR.
$203,759,600 over.
(Mike Hampton, Todd Helton, Denny Neagle, Larry Walker)

Detroit: $85,432,800 allowed debt; $70.85M PVR.
$14,582,800 available.
(Matt Anderson, Bobby Higginson, Danny Patterson, Jeff Weaver)

Florida: $48,437,600 allowed debt; $58.2M PVR.
$9,762,400 over.
(Craig Wilson, Charles Johnson)

Houston: $99,703,200 allowed debt; $92.02M PVR.
$7,683,200 available.
(Jeff Bagwell, Lance Berkman, Richard Hidalgo, Billy Wagner)

Los Angeles: $114,885,600 allowed debt; $183.8M PVR.
$68,914,400 over.
(Kevin Brown, Darren Driefort, Shawn Green, Kazuhisa Ishii, Paul LoDuca, Paul Quantrill)

Kansas City: $50,956,800 allowed debt; no applicable contracts

Milwaukee: $90,680,000 allowed debt; $31.04M PVR.
$59,640,000 available.
(Geoff Jenkins, Richie Sexson)

Minnesota: $45,012,800 allowed debt; $62.33M PVR.
$17,317,200 over.
(Joe Mays, Eric Milton, Brad Radke)

Montreal: $27,336,800 allowed debt; $15.91M PVR.
$11,426,800 available.
(Jose Vidro)

New York Mets: $146,104,800 allowed debt; $94.71M PVR.
$51,394,800 available.
(Roger Cedeno, Mike Piazza, Mo Vaughn, David Weathers)

New York Yankees: $193,766,400 allowed debt; $489.76M PVR.
$295,993,600 over.
(Jason Giambi, Drew Henson, Derek Jeter, Steve Karsay, Mike Mussina, Jorge Posada, Mike Rivera, Bernie Williams)

Oakland: $60,375,200 allowed debt; $63.47M PVR.
$3,094,800 over.
(Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, Jim Mecir, Mark Mulder)

Philadelphia: $65,212,000 allowed debt; $65.59M PVR.
$378,000 over.
(Bobby Abreu) Pittsburgh: $86,964,800 allowed debt; $78.06M PVR.
$8,904,800 available.
(Kris Benson, Jason Kendall, Aramis Ramirez)

San Diego: $63,777,600 allowed debt; $35.43M PVR.
$28,347,600 available.
(Kevin Jarvis, Ryan Klesko, Bubba Trammell)

San Francisco: $136,236,000 allowed debt; $145.28M PVR.
$9,044,000 over.
(Barry Bonds, Jason Christiansen, Robb Nen, Jason Schmidt)

Seattle: $161,947,200 allowed debt; $52.03M PVR.
$109,917,200 available.
(Bret Boone, Jeff Cirillo)

St. Louis: $105,967,200 allowed debt; $80.8M PVR.
$25,167,200 available.
(Jim Edmonds, Mike Matheny, Matt Morris)

Tampa Bay: $64,476,000 allowed debt; no applicable contracts

Texas: $107,928,000 allowed debt; $333.54M PVR.
$225,612,000 over.
(Rusty Greer, Chan Ho Park, Jay Powell, Alex Rodriguez, Todd Van Poppel, Jeff Zimmerman)

Toronto: $78,479,000 allowed debt; $51.45M PVR.
$27,029,000 available.
(Carlos Delgado)

Fourteen teams are in violation of this rule even if we only count this limited number of contracts. The sixteen teams that have money available aren't in the clear by any means; most of them would be easily pushed over with the addition of the remainder of their major league contracts, not to mention the annual payroll required to field six or more minor league teams.

Debt also isn't limited to money owed in player contracts. San Francisco, already among the teams over the limit due to contracts alone, must repay millions of dollars in loans needed to build their stadium. Other teams also have stadium costs in rent or loan payments owed for the portion of their new ballparks that they helped fund.

Potential Minnesota owner Donald Watkins has expressed interest in building a ballpark without public financing, but if he were to buy the team with this rule in effect, it would be virtually impossible for him to build a park costing hundreds of millions of dollars while obeying this rule. Any other team attempting to privately finance a new stadium will run into the same problem.

Debt for large entities like baseball clubs is not the same as debt for average income individuals. Individuals with a limited income are frequently burdened by debt because of the high interest costs involved in borrowing. However businesses must be able to accumulate and use debt as a fundamental tool of growth. While teams like Arizona can still manage to dig themselves into holes, these organizations need a generous measure of flexibility in the level of debt they can accumulate.

The inclusion of contracts in restricted debt makes little sense if the purpose is not to artificially drive down salaries. Multi-year contracts are a tool that frequently allows teams to reduce long-term costs in a trade-off with the player of dollars for security. As written, this rule definitely discourages lengthy commitments to players, since they will immediately harshly impact the debt of a team if signed to a multi-year deal. Teams need to field a full team each year, so one could theoretically project infinite totals for future salary owed. Singling out the salaries of certain players simply because they have been given a set value in advance is an extremely myopic stance.

Selig demonstrated an additionally unbelievable level of naiveté in the construction of this rule if he truly believes that doubling last year's revenue would be an appropriate approximation of team value. Five times last year's revenue would probably produce a figure closer to an organization's asset value, as five years is also the amount of time over which a new owner can amortize player depreciation, but even that calculation would be just as arbitrary as the current rule. Since the 2001 revenue statement obviously doesn't include stadium value and other club assets, any relationship between annual revenue and asset value is coincidental. No team can be precisely valued based on any calculation using only their revenue figures. Every team will need to exercise the available option of requesting an outside evaluation to obtain an accurate profile of their total asset value.

I will be happy to discuss this topic further via e-mail if you have any comments or questions. Until there is word on a grievance from the players union, I will be returning to other news. There isn't likely to be a quick response from an arbiter, as the contraction grievance was filed months ago and the arbiter is still hearing arguments. I'm amazed that MLB ever accomplishes anything considering these people appear to both work slower than Congress and recess more frequently.