User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.1456 seconds
82 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Olney: The return of baseball’s great divide (Insider)
There have been nine different champions in the past 10 seasons, from the Yankees to the Diamondbacks to the Angels and Marlins, and there have been championship-level sprints by the Athletics and Indians, the Twins and Rockies and Rays. Baseball does not play on a perfectly level financial playing field and might never, but mostly, the past decade has seen the game sport toward competitive parity.
The events of the past few months, however, have some club executives in the game concerned about a possible shift in the other direction, back toward the world of haves and have-nots that John Helyar described so brilliantly in “Lords of the Realm."…
Here are the top eight MLB teams in payroll:
1. Yankees: $206 million
2. Mets: $139 million
3. Cubs: $138 million
4. Tigers: $130 million
5. Phillies: $128 million
6. Red Sox: $123 million
7. Angels: $117 million
8. Dodgers: $109 millionOf those eight teams, seven would qualify for the postseason if the playoffs were to begin today. (The Cubs lead the NL Central by mere percentage points.) The Mets are the only team on this list that would not qualify.
Dayton Moore is a Big Fat Idiot (AG#1F)
Posted: August 04, 2009 at 11:43 AM | 182 comment(s)
Related News: Business
Related News: Business
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sam Hutcheson's Top 11 Sabrenerd Baseball Dork's* Basements
(18 - 5:56pm, Feb 09)
Last: Sam Hutcheson (perhaps some sort of ninja)
(18 - 5:56pm, Feb 09)
Last: Sam Hutcheson (perhaps some sort of ninja)
Newsblog: Hardball Talk: Gleeman: Lenny Dykstra is back with some more can't miss investment advice
(96 - 5:52pm, Feb 09)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)
(96 - 5:52pm, Feb 09)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)
Newsblog: Mets' Citi Field to become more homer-friendly next season; center-field wall gets chopped to 8 feet
(22 - 5:49pm, Feb 09)
Last: PreservedFish
(22 - 5:49pm, Feb 09)
Last: PreservedFish
Newsblog: Kansas City Kansan: Sloan: It's time to trade Greinke, Soria
(49 - 5:42pm, Feb 09)
Last: jdbkaput
(49 - 5:42pm, Feb 09)
Last: jdbkaput
Newsblog: Orioles sign P Will Ohman to minor league deal
(2 - 5:25pm, Feb 09)
Last: Esmailyn Gonzalez Sr.
(2 - 5:25pm, Feb 09)
Last: Esmailyn Gonzalez Sr.
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
####
The Tigers, Dodgers and Mets didn't make it in 2007.
The Angels, Red Sox and Phillies didn't make it in 2006.
The Tigers, Mets, Phillies, Cubs and Dodgers didn't make it in 2005.
What I'm trying to say is that there is such a thing as a success cycle, and frankly, all teams ride it up and down (even the Yankees, as seen last year).
Looking at these teams, the Tigers may well not make the playoffs this year, as is also the case with of the Yanks and Red Sox (if Tampa or Texas get hot). In 2010, it's easy to see 3 of the AL franchises out of the playoffs (if Tampa wins the division, Chicago or Minny win the Central and the Rangers win the West).
In the National, the Dodgers and Phillies are locks for the playoffs this year (and probably next year, too), but the Cubs are not (and the Mets are obviously in a down cycle).
So it goes big market; big payroll; wins.
When I raised the point yesterday about the NFL and Green Bay and Pittsburgh winning (at least having the chance to do so), someone raised the question of why they deserved to win, instead of new York. Well, the point is that those small market teams win IN ADDITION to the big market teams (the NY Giants did win a super bowl 2 years ago). Other teams have a chance.
What is in MLB right now just isn't working. Snark all you want about how stupid the management of KC and Pittsburgh are; they just don't get to bury their mistakes by buying something else new and shiny. They don't easily get to pay over slot, because they are awash in funds.
I love this quote. It subtly leads the reader to believe that a salary cap would lead to a level playing field. Of course, if any of the reporters actually did research and looked at the NBA, NFL, and NHL, they'd see that the big money/budget owners outspend the small
mindedbudget owners in those sports, too. The only thing that changes is the upper dollar amount.The NBA is a perfect example on why not to do a salary cap. Some teams, the Knicks especially, have been dumping salary for two seasons now so that they have the chance to sign Lebron next year. And if they don't sign him?
Every trade in the NBA is now made for financial reasons. A team's goal isn't to get better, it's just to shed cap space. Yes, there's been lots of movement, but a lot of it has just been moving horrible assets around like Randolph and Richardson. This is not the solution and Buster's pandering for the owner's here shows his lack of knowledge and research into his article.
Other than that, when I see teams like the Padres do a fire sale because their owner is in the middle of a nasty divorce or the Marlins being the Marlins or the Oriooles (a huge market which should be top 8, but isn't because of how lousily that franchise has been handled), I simply don't have patience for this haves and have nots argument.
Actually, the Orioles aren't near the top anymore because all their key players are young. Adam Jones, Wieters, Markakis, Matusz, Tillman, Riemold are the core, and with the exception of Markakis they're all making the minimum. Plus, they've done a good job of signing stop-gap veterans and getting rid of the overpriced. The Orioles over the past three years have become a perfect example on how to rebuild quickly.
And yet, would you bet that they will reach the playoffs at any point during this best-case scenario for a rebuilding process?
Not Olney's article.
what do you propose? NFL sucks ass, NBA is horrible, and the NHL isn't any better.
MLB can't do what the NFL does because they have national tv contract that is worth a lot more and their game is different. Add in that it's a broken union and that the owners would love to have a cap as restrictive as the NFL, it tells me there is something wrong with their system.
How is this less preferable to the current system in baseball where only a handful of teams even have a shot at a LeBron-like superstar?
Every trade in the NBA is now made for financial reasons.
Many, if not most trades in baseball, especially in the last few seasons, are for financial reasons.
I actually think Olney bringing up the draft is a red herring. There is nothing preventing small market teams from spending more than the big boys, in fact the Pirates and Royals outspent everyone last year. The differences in draft budgets isn't so great that small market teams can't compete.
But the budget for player payroll certainly is. And I think it is a problem. Certainly teams should not be rewarded for stupidity, but well run teams like the Twins, for example, should have the resources to retain their top talent like Joe Mauer.
It does? I didn't read it that way.
Is this the same article as the ESPN cover story? The byline basically says that if you can't pay for draft picks, you're screwed.
To which I say, if you can't pay for draft picks, you shouldn't be an owner. Period.
That would be the 89 win yankees of 2008, which was the third most wins in the league. We just need to explain to the good citizens of KC and Pittsburgh how 89 wins represents the downside of the success cycle. Perhaps they can offer some solace to the grieving yankees fans; flowers and cards would be nice.
that is one thing I do support. Not suggestions, but locked into contract prices. Of course this would prevent teams from drafting players that are on the cusp of making a decision of whether to go to college or not. So there is at least one fatal flaw with that method.
Why not? Whether you measure by playoff teams, LCS teams, WS teams or WS winners the MLB has the same level of diversity as the NFL. This decade has seen the Patriots create a mini-dynasty and the Eagles make something like four consecutive Conference Championship games yet it's MLB with the competitive balance problem?
Really? baseball allows any team to sign anyone without having to do contortions to clear up salary, if the owner wants to spend the money he can. Supposedly baseball spends the least amount of money relative to league worth on salaries of the four major sports, most teams can make a splash. The Rangers signed A-rod, Angels Vlad, Cardinals McGwire, etc.
I think this is a chicken and egg thing, and I do not know if it is possible to fix, but I do think that a part of the reason that the NFL has a better and bigger national contract is because of the competitive balance. People will watch Seattle play Carolina on a Sunday afternoon because Seattle and Carolina have some nice success in the recent past, and they get to buy their share of great players and have stars on their team, just like the big boys in NYC do.
"salaries for draft picks must be negotiated into place in talks with the union based on slotting recommendations set by the commissioner's office"
Low-revenue teams can absolutely afford to go over slot in the draft if they want to. Most of the time, they choose not to because:
1. Bud Selig is threatening them.
2. They choose to allocate their funds elsewhere, often because they don't have the guts to tell their fans "We aren't going to trade for Jason Michaels. Instead, we're going to go over slot for Rick Porcello."
You can argue that 2 might be the right decision, but the situation is not comparable to the "choice" the Indians had with CC Sabathia, for example.
Who says they don't have the resources? Ownership? Why should we believe them?
If an ownership group in this day and age is truly too poor to keep the talent they develop, they should sell the team to someone who can. And if the market is really so bad that they can't support a winning franchise, maybe that market shouldn't have a major-league team.
Oh, I think everyone forgot to tell you the rules, in these discussions the NFL is the wunderkid and it's the absolutely most perfectest, prettiest, competitiveness system out there, to derail these discussions with facts takes away from the salary cap is a good thing point of view.
/end snark.
Well, that settles it, I guess.
I find that if NFL and NHL teams which have smaller revenue bases, but are actually winning games, want to keep their good players that they developed, then they are able to. Not so much in the NBA because the squads are so small and therefore one big contract can make up such a disproportionate amount of the payroll, and there are so many situations where a team can sign one player and exactly one player to a market contract because of various "exemptions" and "maximums". And not so much in baseball.
I don't think this has much to do with the NFL's weak union (the main effect of which is the non-guaranteed contracts), either.
Or if your team is getting decimated because your owner is in the middle of a nasty divorce, MLB should damn well be able to take the team away from the owner for a previously pre-determined price.
nfl has a bigger better national contract because they only play 16 games a year, almost all games are sold out so almost everyone at home has an interest in the games being played. I mean even in the fourth week of the season, your teams rival performance that day has much higher significance than a typical baseball game.
and again, NFL has such a high turnover of players that makes it less fun to root for a single team. Football is a Sunday thing, people watch it at the bar and make it an event type of thing, baseball individual games will never have the meaning that individual football games have so they'll never have the ratings to sustain a national contract like the NFL.
and then of course, why would the Yankees and other teams with their own network give up the contracts? heck a salary cap would be something that the Yankee ownership would profit tremendously from.
national tv contract that is worth a lot more and their game is differentnon-guaranteed contracts.There's your real reason.
Who says they don't have the resources? Ownership? Why should we believe them?
Exactly. The Twins most certainly can keep Mauer. It's whether they really want to try and win that's the question. A lot of sports owners forget basic business when they enter pro sports. One big thing that's always forgotten: when your business sucks, you lose money. So, when you go under .500 for 17 straight season, you aren't going to turn a profit. You can try and change the rules of business, but usually the easier thing to change is how you do business.
Yes, there should be an obligation to lose money by owning a team.
Yes, ten major league teams should be eliminated. Or maybe the big markets shouldn't be monopolized.
First of all, the NFL doesn't develop talent - the NCAA develops almost all the talent for the NFL, with the various other pro leagues around the world filling in the gaps.
Secondly, I don't follow the NFL too much, but it seems to me that good talent moves around in the NFL all the time. Some teams are able to stay successful despite that because there are a ton of market inefficiencies in football (not that I'm claiming to understand these inefficiencies, but there are teams that are clearly much better at selecting NFL talent than others), and there are a half-dozen teams that are run so horribly that they're essentially not competition.
Finally, there's no such thing as an NFL team with a "smaller revenue base". It really doesn't matter where geographically you put a football team. The nature of the sport (play once a week, on the weekend) ensures that you'll be able to draw for hundreds of miles around.
No, the reason people watch a SEA/CAR game on a Sunday boils down to a few things:
1) Gambling/fantasy football. Sure, plenty of people play fantasy baseball, but most people aren't going to watch the whole game unless their guy is pitching.
2) Winter Sundays often don't give you many other entertainment options. Let's face it: you're a sports fan, what else are you going to in December on a Sunday afternoon?
3) Division/playoff interest: With only 16 games, the entire season is basically September pennant races. So if you are a fan of teams in those divisions, or even the NFC in general, you'll watch.
4) Football is a much better TV game than baseball. I love baseball, love watching it, but TV presentation lacks, and football, while not always great, is good enough.
Then maybe you can talk about competitive balance. Though you may not want to in Detroit or Cincinnati...
Ten teams? That's total ########. There are MAYBE two MLB markets (Kansas City and Pittsburgh) that I can see the argument for them not being able to support a team.
I suggest the next big free agent season all of the "other teams" pool some free agent resources into a temporary custodian (referred to as "the syndicate") who negotiates for next year's CC's and Tex's and whomever. Once the syndicate signs the player a lottery is held for all the participants to see who the player and the funds are attached to.
Is this feasible? No. Is it practical? No. But dammit I would love to see Doc Halladay announce he is not signing with Boston or NY or Chicago but instead taking a contract with a small market team (yet to be determined) and watch the lottery. Suddenly every team has a chance at the big guy.
Now that I have derailed your serious discussion I will log off to avoid the appropriate ridicule.
Actually, you're wrong here. That's the main thing heading into the next NFL labor negotiations. Teams like San Diego, Buffalo, Green Bay, etc are not happy that Chicago, the New York teams, Philly, and Dallas are hiding their revenue from game day things (like stadium income) from revenue sharing. The NFL's national tv contract helps a lot, but the big money teams like Dallas, Washington, and others still have a huge advantage.
I don't think this has much to do with the NFL's weak union (the main effect of which is the non-guaranteed contracts), either.
the problem is that the NFL has less competitive balance than MLB, the only real difference is in a teams ability to mainipulate the salary cap becomes important, vs a teams desire to win in MLB. I'm not sure I'm a big fan of rooting for an accountant over a real gm.
and I'm sorry but NBA's system is just a disaster. I honestly can't tell you what team my favorite player plays on(Shaq) partially because I don't like basketball, and partially because the game is just not interesting anymore. Players move too much in the NBA, and yes they move in MLB but not nearly as often for as many weird reasons.
as I said on the other thread, I would love to see a system in place that supports a team keeping it's own player(NBA and NHL has a system like that) but that doesn't limit the players choices to move around. If the team isn't trying to be competitive then it's not going to make a difference to the players who do probably prefer winning even over money(on occassion and as they age)
of course MLB has one advantage is that they have a minors which only the NHL has a similar system.
I'm sure this is some form of collusion. You are depressing the market by removing lots of teams, and doing it explicitly.
Small market teams like MIN can afford a Mauer, but only one. (And that assumes when Joe came to free agency their offer of 5/$95m survived a NYY or BOS offer of 12/$250m or whatever.) And if they've got their Mauer for 6/$115m and they develop another stud, then when stud2 approaches free agency they can't handle a second contract like that and they have to choose who to keep (or tie up a third of their payroll in two guys.) And if they do throw down for him they have no freedom to go get help in July or roll the dice on the coolest new kids coming out of Latin America. And all of this is predicated on things working out well so that the studs develop and stay healthy and don't want to flee for other reasons.
There's no rational way to pretend that revenues don't affect teams' choices. Folks who think that there are a bunch of untapped markets that'll support $100m payrolls are delusional. Removing teams from markets means contraction or expansion into the largest existing markets (NY primarily), and neither will pass muster with the union or NY area teams.
or maybe moved (how many NFL, NHL and NBA teams have moved over the past 30 years? MLB had one move and it was a bs move to be honest, but it's not like the other leagues that just willy nilly pull up shop and move a team---heck there is a strong possibility the Rams will be leaving St Louis in the next few years and that is a team that went 7 years selling out every game)
I disagree with eliminating teams, but fully support making teams attempt to win, and nearly everything I have read has said that most of the MLB teams(prior to this season) are making substantial profits regardless of market size.
Well the idea is silly and impractical for a whole host of reasons but I don't think collusion is one of them. In theory the teams involved were already out of the running and had no budget or intention of signing the player in question. By pooling their resources the free agent actually has more options than the current system.
But I appreciate the serious comment on a ridiculous idea.
What proof of this does anyone have? We can take the owner's words, but this is the same group that's colluded three times and sworn to just about every city that stadiums are an economic boom. Sure. They also have ocean front property to sell you in Iowa, too.
They're just creating the story to increase their profits, and the sportswriters are gullible enough to fall for it.
Cincinnati made the play-offs in 2005. I cannot explain why Detroit can remain so bad or defend them, but they did make the play-offs in 1999 and 1997. Before anyone excitedly points out that 12 out of 32 NFL teams make the play-offs, while only 8 out of 30 MLB teams do, Pittsburgh and KC would not have made the MLB play-offs in those periods, if they had 20 teams making the play-offs.
Your points are all interesting and well-made.
Isn't that the draft with selection and signing just in reverse order? Why is chance better than prior won-loss record for determining who gets the higher selection? Don't see much appeal in this for anyone.
Absolutely. But there are several owners (Steinbrenners being the biggest example) who are willing to lose money (if they have to) on their baseball team in order to put forth their best shot at winning. Every MLB owner made big bucks doing something *other* than owning a baseball team. Many of them use their revenues from those other ventures to fund their baseball teams.
In short, competitive imbalance exists because some owners are willing and able to go into the hole for their team. Others can't or won't. It has everything to do with human entrepreneurial nature--the desire to be the best at what you want.
George Steinbrenner wants the best team in baseball enough to spend loads of money on it. Carl Pohlad did not. Jeffrey Loria does not. The Nuttings do not. David Glass does not.
A cap might solve this. But you can bet that, even with a cap/floor, owners will continue to look for an edge in whatever they are concentrating on.
Why is this our barometer? Diversity of teams making the playoffs is not the problem. The problem is that the Yankees have far more resources to play with than the Twins, even when both make the playoffs.
The Twins HAVE the resources to pay for Mauer. They just won't use them.
Then isn't this the problem? All I hear is a bunch of "oh, the NFL system sucks, salary caps suck, all these proposals suck, therefore, the current system is fine." If you believe the small market owners are just sitting on a pile of money, isn't this a problem for the game? How about a system that requires them to spend money? And do you really think the owner of the Twins has the same resources as the owner of the Yankees?
I think most of us who do not live in Chicago or NY or Boston are really just frustrated because our teams are unwilling or unable to go after the big free agents each offseason.
I think the bigger frustration with fans is when the star player of the team is dealt because the team can't/won't sign him to a long-term deal. I think being bypassed for free agents is a lesser issue.
Well put Cris.
You're right. What was I thinking? Of all the teams in smaller cities, not one has had an owner who was competitive, who wanted to win more than he wanted mere profit, and so none has ever broken ranks to re-invest in the team and distance himself from the pack. There hasn't been a single maverick. No, wait, on the horizon I see the hero George Steinbrenner! He has had the integrity to attempt a break-even budget and see what what be. Excuse me, I'm being sarcastic.
Perhaps those teams who have large ticket sales, more expensive seats and big cable contracts have more income than the other teams. Perhaps the TV revenue available is a function of the size of the city, or potential attendence and corporate box sales can be linked to population. Of course team performance drives some of this, but that's pretty short-lived compared to historical advantages derived from market size.
Your points are all interesting and well-made.
it's partially the nature of football, if you get a few lucky games in before the other teams catch on, you can parlay that into a successful season. Of course since it's only 16 games, the Royals would have made the playoffs this season after 16 games, Pittsburgh would have been 1 out of the wildcard. :)
The billionaire paupers in the "small markets" receive enough money to pay a Mauer every single year in the form of their "revenue sharing" welfare check with enough free money left over to sign their top draft picks. That's before they sell a single ticket or $10 beer in their brand-new taxpayer-funded stadium. At some point these welfare queens are going to need to show some accountability and either earn adequate revenue or scram.
Also, the NFL (and football in general) share the whole "any play could could be his last" potential thrill that NASCAR provides. The hits are ferocious, the players are anonymous and there really are casualties. Whee!
Well rather than try to limit or restrict the Yankees in any way from signing Halladay or whomever(thru caps or whatever) the KC's and O's compete fairly in the free market.
In theory KC and Baltimore can compete against Boston and NY for Halladay by each paying 50% of the contract for a 50% of landing him. Ideally more teams would contribute to lower the cost.
So I think this idea would be popular with big city fans because no one is stopping them in anyway. It would also be big with small city fans as they at least have a shot at having a big name land in their city.
But no owner or player would like this idea so I recognize its limits.
That's why they got rid of the people running the team two years ago.
I'm not certain how true this is, but a Minneapolis columnist recently wrote that the Twins expect to start contributing to the revenue sharing pool next year.
It's only a problem when other franchises are forced to subsidize these phony pauper teams out of their own hard-earned coffers. Get rid of the "revenue stealing" scams and I couldn't care less how penurious David Glass wants to be in his pursuit of "everyday low prices" in player salaries.
Man we really struggle on every point, don't we? The Lions run in 1999 was a string of success; I think they made the play-offs 6 out of 9 years. They had Barry Sanders and they actually got to keep Barry Sanders. The bengals play-off season was not a sneak-up on the league; it was in a 4 year run of non-losing seasons. The Lions and bengals didn't make the play-offs because they snuck up on people in a short-season; they were GOOD those seasons, because they got to compete on the same economic level as everyone else.
It is not every day someone on this site makes me look up a word. Very nice. And this coming from a guy who puts "redneck" in his handle.
It isn't like the NFL brings in 6 billion a year and MLB brings in 1 billion.
Where can one find the official totals of who pays and who receives, so that I might eagerly anticipate this seemingly laughable scenario from a team that had received more than $20 million annually this decade?
Especially these days, in the current economy.
On paper, Tom Hicks is one of the wealthiest men in the state of Texas. In reality, he can't pay his bills (or won't, which in the end is essentially the same thing). Think about it.
I don't know about the current system, but it used to be based off of revenue vs. payroll or some jazz. It was not based on market size. The first few years, the Phillies were actually getting revenue sharing while one of the smaller teams (I believe Tampa or Oakland) was paying.
I would feel better about that comment if 7 out of the 8 teams in the biggest markets have the biggest payrolls and are in the play-offs right now, and 2 of the 3 smallest market teams (KC and Pittsburgh) are each in a losing run (by years) that I do not believe the NFL experiences. Thank god for the brilliance of the people in Milwaukee, the 3rd smallest market team who somehow have done well, on occasion (just not too often).
I'm a fairly sophisticated redneck by most standards. But of course, the University of Mississippi is "The Harvard of the South".
Didn't Maury Brown recently write something about how MLB recently made the revenue sharing information private?
As for the Lions, they had a nice run but they were never a great team during Sander's tenure and luck did play a role in them making it to the playoffs as often as they did. When 6 teams out of 14 are going to the playoffs luck is going to play a huge role.
You don't see it as a problem for competitive balance at all? Take off your pinstriped-colored glasses for a second and think about the league as a whole for a second. If fans in many cities perceive either (a) the system is unfair with big market teams hogging all the good players; or (b) small market owners are too cheap to spend money on good players - don't both of these views hurt baseball spreading its popularity beyond a few selected large markets?
If (a) is really the problem, do something about it. If (b) is the problem, do something about it. I don't know which is the problem, but I do think baseball has a problem.
Such a long string of failure coupled with generous welfare subsidies from the league should have given both of these teams a string of top draft selections as well as the money to sign any player in the draft. All they need is a little baseball acumen. Is the league supposed to provide that free of cost as well?
Because a 1 year observation is good. KC and Pittsburgh are just inept. What great players have they lost that they should have kept in the past decade?
NFL losing runs: Lions, Raiders, Niners, Bengals, Browns, Bills. These teams have stunk horribly for at least 5 years. Yes, two have gotten lucky and made the playoffs once each, but other than that, they're always drafting in the top 10.
The Indians were paying for several years at the beginning due to all the sellouts.
Also true. Let's remember the Pirates willingly passed on BJ Upton and Matt Wieters for no other reason than their cheapness.
A more accurate way of measuring the problem would be to take each year's payrolls, divide them into top 1/3, middle, bottom 1/3 (or use quartiles if you like) and then count how many teams from each group make the playoffs. Add those totals for the last 10-12 years. I'll bet you average 5-6 playoff teams for the top 1/3, 1-2 teams from the middle, and 0-1 for the bottom 1/3. In effect, 20 teams contend for 2 spots while the top 10 teams compete for 6 playoff spots.
The question is, what "something" should we do? Even if we agree that this is a problem, as you note, we can't even agree on what the problem is. So how can we possibly suggest a sane solution?
Beckham for Rookie of the Year, dammit!
4 year run of non-losing seasons? you mean 3 years of 8-8 ball with an 11-5 thrown in there. Yep it makes me feel good knowing that my teams best success in a parity league is to throw up one winning season in 27 years. Kansas City has had 4 winning seasons in the same time span. Heck Pittsburgh has had three playoff appearances in that time spand.
Well that's pretty defeatist. You underestimate the creativity of the Primate!
Here is where we can start discussing the vastly greater impact that the choice of a coach has in the NFL as compared to baseball. Does it matter who the manager of the Royals is? No. Does it even matter who the manager of a marginal playoff team like the Astros is? Maybe a little.
But if an NFL team hires the wrong coach, and gives him a couple years to get his system into place, and then eventually finds out that (although he's intelligent and hardworking) he's out of his depth and should go back to being an assistant, that's three or four years wasted. All the teams on your list are teams that hired the wrong coach at least two times in a row.
And all the bad teams in baseball have usually hired stupid GMs.
I'd argue that even the rich teams have an interest in the competitiveness of the poor teams.
Based on the evidence on these threads I think that so long as they could plausibly deny that they knew they were going to win they would still attend. I mean the Yankees are a sure thing right now and fans aren't complaining.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you for noting the real problem with bringing up the NFL as a straw man for competitive balance: 16-game seasons allow more variability than 162-game seasons. Even if a single football game is more representative of a team's ability than a single baseball game, I doubt it's ten times more representative.
actually don't disagree here, I'm not sure it's a big problem nor if it's really possible for MLB to fix it in the current economic climate.
Yeah but Tony Sanchez is going to make everyone forget all about Ryan Doumit.
And when were Pittsburgh's and KC's last play-off appearances, or .500 seasons?
Let's do this. Take the 8 big market teams as defined by Nate Silver (I am using 8 because that is the number of play-off teams and the number of teams in the article at the top). Take the 8 smallest market teams. Now for the last 8 years, take the top 8 free agent signings, by dollars. Do you think there was a net outflow of guys from the bottom 8 to the top 8? Call me when the mets cannot afford to keep their great young CF when he hits the FA market, so they have to trade him for prospects, and he signs with the Royals in the off-season. Call me when the Yankees can't sign the FA pitcher who goes 11-2 down the stretch, and he signs with the Brewers. Buzz me when the White Sox find their ex-cy young pitcher too expensive, and send him to the Padres. Ring me when the yankees just cannot stomach taking a risk on a pitcher with arm trouble history who has a great year in his last year under contract, and he signs with Toronto. Call me when the Angels just can't pay for a great guy who has been with them for his career, fearing age will catch up to his CF play, so he signs with the twins.
Is that what you think? Really?
They lost two of the first games of the season to Baltimore. They had a 2-5 homestand in May. They lost 2/3 to Washington this year at the Stadium.
I can only really make a comparison to the White Sox, but I know if Konerko ($12 million), Contreras ($10) and Dotel ($6) were all producing at replacement level, the Sox would likely be a lot closer to the Royals in the standings than the Tigers.
They also can't draft for ####. To highlight, everyone one of those teams save the Bengals has had a total bust 1st round QB in the last 5 years, and for the most part every 1st round pick those teams have had are busts.
Actually, they have more.
You know who that sounds like? The Pirates and Royals...
I'm pretty sure Larry Luccino's head would assplode.
The Steinbrenners probably have the least non-baseball wealth of any ownership. The shipbuilder went bankrupt decades ago.
Can't be. Those NFL teams have a salary cap and a great national tv deal. There's gotta be a difference...
The Royals traded Beltran five years ago. They've paid either Mike Sweeney or Jose Guillen an eight figure salary every year since then. If one ignores the possibility/probability that Beltran would want to leave Kansas City for a more competent franchise, that money would have obviously been better spent on him.
Analyzing this issue would be simpler if MLB allowed the selling of players as the financial and player evaluation elements of decision-making would be more clearly delineated. For example, Leeds Untied sold Fabian Delph for 6 milion pounds yesterday and may sell Jermaine Beckford for seven figures later this week. If replacements aren't brought in or the club doesn't buy back its training ground, Leeds fans can safely assume (not that all will, sadly) both deals are motivated by Ken Bates' greed and demonstrate his total lack of interest in re-building the club.
As a Royals fan, it's difficult to make a clear distinction where greed ends and incompetence begins.
I'll make a guess and say "before the guaranteed free money of revenue sharing decoupled winning from their profits".
Yes it does. Poor management usurps a lot in sports.
well I went with Cincy Bengals since 1990 since that was the last time they had an above .500 season prior to the one where they made the playoffs. In that time frame the Royals have had 4 seasons over .500 and including 1990 the Pirates have had three playoff appearances.
.500 record should be the first thing you look for when you look for competitiveness, teams that at least have winning seasons give hope for next year.
Let's do this. Take the 8 big market teams as defined by Nate Silver (I am using 8 because that is the number of play-off teams and the number of teams in the article at the top). Take the 8 smallest market teams. Now for the last 8 years, take the top 8 free agent signings, by dollars. Do you think there was a net outflow of guys from the bottom 8 to the top 8? Call me when the mets cannot afford to keep their great young CF when he hits the FA market, so they have to trade him for prospects, and he signs with the Royals in the off-season. Call me when the Yankees can't sign the FA pitcher who goes 11-2 down the stretch, and he signs with the Brewers. Buzz me when the White Sox find their ex-cy young pitcher too expensive, and send him to the Padres. Ring me when the yankees just cannot stomach taking a risk on a pitcher with arm trouble history who has a great year in his last year under contract, and he signs with Toronto. Call me when the Angels just can't pay for a great guy who has been with them for his career, fearing age will catch up to his CF play, so he signs with the twins.
ok, call me when a football team has to release a starting player because of salary cap restrictions. Not even trade him, but outright release a starting player, who is under an agreed contract but because of financial two stepping the team has to release him. You are telling me it's better for MLB to emulate the NFL and have my team having to outright release say Yadier Molina who signed a 4year contract last season, who still wants to play here but because we went out and got Matt Holliday we have to make room by dumping a fan favorite. I just don't see the appeal of any system which wants to force teams and players to do stuff they don't want to do.
you are assuming the Twins and other teams couldn't afford these players because of their market, when it seems that most of the reason they can't afford them is they don't want to cut into their profits.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the Yankees as well as the Indians to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Ten years ago, the Padres' payroll was twice that of the White Sox.
The Padres didn't trade Jake Peavy because they can't compete in the current system. They traded him because their owner is in the middle of a bitter divorce, and is trying to make himself a lot more liquid. Don't make this into something it's not.
Sorry but you can't give LaMarr Hoyt back.
huh?? have you been channeling that alqunin(or whoever) poster.
my point is that if a player signs a contract with a team and the team wants to keep him, but are forced to release him because of some complicated system of salary cap, then it's not a system I would like as a fan of a local team. Football gets away with it because they can usually dump an offensive lineman that doesn't have as much appeal to the base, but still it's a crappy system, and a crappy way to treat players and fans.
Michael Vick, but that's an outlier. Marvin Harrison. LeRoy Hill was franchised then released because of salary (although he was eventually re-signed). Derrick Dockery started 16 games for the Bills and then was cut for cap reasons, ditto Brandon Moore and Laveranues Coles with the Jets. I could go on...
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main