Baseball's Economic Model Discussion

[coli]

At request of many, I have started a new thread (post World Series) on the Economic model of Baseball. Baseball is the only major sport without a salary cap. and many feel that the Yankees bought their 27th World Title this year. I think it goes deeper then the Yankees, as the RedSox, Angels, Cubs, Mets have a HUGE advantage of small market teams.

-Do you want a salary cap/salary floor?

-Do you like the status quo?

-Any other ideas, feel free to interject.

Discuss, Thanks:)


And please, for anyone who says that this argument is getting old, you don't need to interject in this thread. Thanks:)

[SonOfAStu]

How did you feel about this last year? You know when the team that won the WS had a payroll 2.24 times that of the other team. Compared to this year when the team that won the WS had a payroll only 1.78 times that of the other team.

Or is it just a problem when your team is the losing one?

[parrotheads4]

Is this the sore losers thread?

I'm a Mets fan. We all know how that worked out.

[SonOfAStu]

Is this the sore losers thread?



Apparently. I don't remember one of these last year when the Phillies won it.

[coli]

Apparently. I don't remember one of these last year when the Phillies won it.


If you look at my previous posts, I have been talking about a salary cap since I joined here ;)

I was asked to start a thread because they didn't want to derail the Yanks/Phils WS thread. If you want to discuss the economics of baseball here thats cool with me, but if you want to call anyone a whiner or 'why wasn't this thread started last year' then I don't know what to tell you.

I have been talking about a salary cap for years now:)

[Tommy Ceez]

The stupidest thing about this is that unlike the NBA/NFL baseball acquires their minor leaugers through a variety of sources, so if you capped the salary at 100mil the yanks would just sink 400mil into international scouting, facilities, conditioning and technology.

They would still have a huge advantage

[Jobronie]

Apparently. I don't remember one of these last year when the Phillies won it.I'm assuming this is brought about more by the goings on of just the previous off-season, specifically, (ball-parking the numbers) ~$900M of MLB FA contracts, with the Yankees accounting for almost half of that., rather than the just the total payroll of the Yankees (or Phillies, or Red Sox, or Tigers, etc.)

[SonOfAStu]

If you look at my previous posts, I have been talking about a salary cap since I joined here ;)

I was asked to start a thread because they didn't want to derail the Yanks/Phils WS thread. If you want to discuss the economics of baseball here thats cool with me, but if you want to call anyone a whiner or 'why wasn't this thread started last year' then I don't know what to tell you.

I have been talking about a salary cap for years now:)


You've stated a couple of times that you think the Yankees "bought" their title this year. Just curious, do you feel the same way about the Phillies title in '08?

[parrotheads4]

The stupidest thing about this is that unlike the NBA/NFL baseball acquires their minor leaugers through a variety of sources, so if you capped the salary at 100mil the yanks would just sink 400mil into international scouting, facilities, conditioning and technology.

They would still have a huge advantage

This.


And to to owners of small market teams: don't buy the horse if you can't afford to feed it.

[Red Dog]

1. Hard Cap & Floor
2. Local/Regional TV Revenue Sharing

[Tommy_Harn]

I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer.

I'm just a baseball fan. My team puts me through hell almost every year, and I keep coming back for more. They're in big market with a big payroll, yet they still manage to fuck things up in new and creative ways. The team accross town? You can't compete with them, because they have a track record for winning championships and paying ridiculous salaries all over the diamond. If I were a small market team, yeah I'd be pissed, and I'd feel my team and others like it were at an unfair advantage. But it wouldn't keep me from supporting them.

I for one feel that the NFL is far less entertaining than it was 20-25 years ago. Aside from the things I really dislike about the pro game (lenghthy instant replay stoppages, pass interference rules and enforcement, etc.) I just feel that the quality of play has suffered. Not only are there less great teams, but there seem to be much more terrible teams throughout the league. So when I tune in to a typical game, what I see on the field isn't as good as what I used to see. Is it because of the salary cap? I don't know, but I miss the NFL we had when I was 12 years old.

[Quake1028]

I'm assuming this is brought about more by the goings on of just the previous off-season, specifically, (ball-parking the numbers) ~$900M of MLB FA contracts, with the Yankees accounting for almost half of that., rather than the just the total payroll of the Yankees (or Phillies, or Red Sox, or Tigers, etc.)

So you resurface..... ;)

[Red Dog]

I for one feel that the NFL is far less entertaining than it was 20-25 years ago.

That's how I feel about MLB....the eighties were a golden era for me. So many different teams won a division title (and that's with less slots available compared to now), there were some great teams (Detroit '84, Oakland's semi-dynasty), some great upsets (Royals '85, Twins '87, Dodgers '88), a bunch of 7-game World Series, none of the wild card or interleague bullshit (so All-Star games actually felt like an event), complete games and shutouts were common, closers pitched more than an inning to earn a save, etc.

[Jeremy517]

1. Hard Cap & Floor
2. Local/Regional TV Revenue Sharing

3. International players subject to the draft

[Tommy_Harn]

That's how I feel about MLB....the eighties were a golden era for me. So many different teams won a division title (and that's with less slots available compared to now), there were some great teams (Detroit '84, Oakland's semi-dynasty), some great upsets (Royals '85, Twins '87, Dodgers '88), a bunch of 7-game World Series, none of the wild card or interleague bullshit (so All-Star games actually felt like an event), complete games and shutouts were common, closers pitched more than an inning to earn a save, etc.

I agree with some of what you say (especially re: the All-Star Game), but would a revamped salary structure fix any of that? Maybe you'd see more different pennant winners, but I'd argue you'd see less great teams, sloppier play and no increase in upsets. As for the current playoff structure, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Red Dog]

I agree with some of what you say (especially re: the All-Star Game), but would a revamped salary structure fix any of that? Maybe you'd see more different pennant winners, but I'd argue you'd see less great teams, sloppier play and no increase in upsets. As for the current playoff structure, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

No it won't 'fix' those other things but at least it gives hope to a fan of any team that his team can contend once in a while (and stay that way w/o losing the talent that gets you there). As it stands, there's fans of 3 teams in the A.L. East that don't have any hope of that. You basically had a silent cap in the '80s in the form of collusion.

[Red Dog]

3. International players subject to the draft

Good addition. :thumbsup: Forgot about that.

[RoyalTea]

everybody talks about how the yankees signed CC, Tex and AJ in the offseason.

nobody talks about how the 2009 yankees payroll was LESS than the 2008 yankees payroll.

[starman9000]

everybody talks about how the yankees signed CC, Tex and AJ in the offseason.

nobody talks about how the 2009 yankees payroll was LESS than the 2008 yankees payroll.

:lol: You guys bring it up all the time.

That, and the Yankees didn't make the playoffs last year, therefore there clearly isn't any advantage to the current situation.

[raven56706]

Most money never guarantees championships...

[WallyOPD]

Most money never guarantees championships...

I'm pretty sure nobody is making that argument.

[Red Dog]

Most money never guarantees championships...

Of course it doesn't. But it gives you a big margin for error.

[mgbfan]

Most money never guarantees championships...

No, and sitting with pocket aces doesn't gaurentee you'll win a hand of poker. But it sure as fuck helps.

MLB is broken. The playing field isn't equal. Anyone who says that it is equal is kidding himself.

[El Scorcho]

i always enjoy these threads because it's fun to watch yankee fans try to defend themselves with flawed logic

keep up that sense of entitlement, guys!

[El Scorcho]

No, and sitting with pocket aces doesn't gaurentee you'll win a hand of poker. But it sure as fuck helps.



probably the best analogy i've heard, and not just because i'm a poker player either

[Goat3001]

i always enjoy these threads because it's fun to watch yankee fans try to defend themselves with flawed logic

I'm trying to decide what I enjoy more: The above or when Red Sox fans talk endlessly about the need for a salary cap when the Yankees win but put it all aside when the Red Sox win. :shrug:

[Red Dog]

I always enjoy when the Yankees fans retort that the Red Sox fans are hypocrites on the subject. It demonstrates perfectly how the rest of the A.L. East is utterly forgettable thanks to the system.

[Goat3001]

I always enjoy when the Yankees fans retort that the Red Sox fans are hypocrites on the subject. It demonstrates perfectly how the rest of the A.L. East is utterly forgettable thanks to the system.

I have no issue with discussing the topic with Sox fans. It's just reaks of their inferiority complex when they're willing to look the other way when their team wins.

But yes, you're right. The system has made the rest of the AL East forgetable. Life is just harder for the O's, Rays and Jays. Sucks and the system makes it hard for them to make a run. It's not impossible and I think if Baltimore or Toronto manages to put it all together one year they can build on that and up their own payroll to start to compete with the big 2.

[RoyalTea]

i always enjoy these threads because it's fun to watch yankee fans try to defend themselves with flawed logic

keep up that sense of entitlement, guys!
and I always enjoy these threads because they wouldn't exist if the Phillies had won the WS this year.

[kenbuzz]

This.
Hey guys, I'm really old and behind the times but I've seen this type of response in many threads. Please school me on what "This." means in context.

[WallyOPD]

and I always enjoy these threads because they wouldn't exist if the Phillies had won the WS this year.

It may or it may not, it's tough to say. Even if that's true, it's not very surprising. The system is broken either way, it just gets more attention when the most extreme result of the broken system occurs.

Hey guys, I'm really old and behind the times but I've seen this type of response in many threads. Please school me on what "This." means in context.

It means he agrees with the post he quoted.

[kenbuzz]

That's how I feel about MLB....the eighties were a golden era for me. So many different teams won a division title (and that's with less slots available compared to now), there were some great teams (Detroit '84, Oakland's semi-dynasty), some great upsets (Royals '85, Twins '87, Dodgers '88), a bunch of 7-game World Series, none of the wild card or interleague bullshit (so All-Star games actually felt like an event), complete games and shutouts were common, closers pitched more than an inning to earn a save, etc.Concur.

Heck, even going back to the 70's when I was a youngster and cared about baseball is like a trip down memory lane. Rosters were stable. Teams couldn't hoard all the best players simply by buying them up - they had to develop talent from their farm system and work strategic trades with other teams. No pimping of free agents to the highest bidder. You had competitive balance.

Example, even though the Reds were building The Big Red Machine that would dominate MLB over a 5-year span from 1972-76, the NL West still managed to see 5 different teams win the division crown from 1969-80. Even if you throw out the 5 Big Red Machine seasons and look only at 69-71 and 77-80 (7 season), you still had five different teams win the division: Atlanta (69), Cincinnati (70, 79), San Francisco (71), Los Angeles (77-78) and Houston (80). Only the Padres fell short of the post-season during that decade, and none of these champions finished less than 18 games over .500.

Would I prefer to see that type of economic model again in baseball? Resoundingly YES.

[Red Dog]

Of course you liked the 70s. :lol:

Note: I have zero problem with free agency and player movement. I just want to see teams have to work within similar parameters. You can have competitve balance and free agency.

[SonOfAStu]

I always enjoy when elitist fucks say they always enjoy something that someone else must be wrong about because they have the only possible correct opinion.

Yeah, baseball is broken. I've heard it's in terrible shape and in danger of shutting down all together!! OH NOS!!!1!1!!!

[El Scorcho]

I'm trying to decide what I enjoy more: The above or when Red Sox fans talk endlessly about the need for a salary cap when the Yankees win but put it all aside when the Red Sox win. :shrug:

I can't speak for other Sox fans but I've been wishing for a salary cap for years now.

(note: I'm also a Giants and Mariners fan -- all 3 of which benefit from bloated payrolls)

[El Scorcho]

and I always enjoy these threads because they wouldn't exist if the Phillies had won the WS this year.

this thread would have still existed -- have you not paid attention to all the trolling I've done? :)

[kenbuzz]

Of course you liked the 70s. :lol:

Note: I have zero problem with free agency and player movement. I just want to see teams have to work within similar parameters. You can have competitve balance and free agency.I agree, competitive balance is the key. That's either done by going back to a system similar to before free agency, or if free agency is here to stay (which it probably is) by implementing minimums/maximums on net roster salaries. Call it a floor and cap if you will, but if it restores balance I'd back it.

[Quake1028]

i always enjoy these threads because it's fun to watch yankee fans try to defend themselves with flawed logic

keep up that sense of entitlement, guys!

And I always enjoy these threads when fans of the other huge spending teams pretends it's just a Yankees thing.

[coli]

And I always enjoy these threads when fans of the other huge spending teams pretends it's just a Yankees thing.

I will say this that the Yanks have the most advantage in MLB, but I agree that the big market teams have a huge advantage too.

I am a Phillies fan and a Salary Cap would definitely hurt my teams chances of getting to the WS again, as I think they would be close to what a cap would be: around 130 million.

I think everyone just needs to look at the off season and I think it is ridiculous that every winter the SAME 5-6 teams bid on the big ticket free agents: Yanks, Cubs, Mets, RedSox, Angels, Dodgers, etc. And the same small market teams end up trading their stud players because of fear of losing them to free agency: Twins, Marlins, Pirates, Royals, etc.

That is why I am a for a Hard Cap, you need to limit the Yanks and other big market teams from hoarding the market, but you need that Hard Floor too because there are shitty owners who don't spend jack like the Pirates and just to pocket the money every year.

I am willing to sacrifice more success for my Phils with a salary cap implemented to make the game more fair for the other 29 teams.

Let me hear one Yankees or RedSox or Mets or Angels or Dodgers or Cubs fan here admit that;)

[VinVega]

I think you know I'm a Yanks fan.

MLB needs a salary cap and a salary floor, so teams don't just take profit and screw their fans.

That being said, the biggest obstacle to that happening is the MLB player's union.

[WallyOPD]

And I always enjoy these threads when fans of the other huge spending teams pretends it's just a Yankees thing.

This is a common argument but I've never seen any threads actually play out like that. The Yankees draw the bulk of the attention because they're the biggest spender but I've never seen Red Sox fans claiming that they're not taking advantage of the system in the same way.

I always enjoy when elitist fucks say they always enjoy something that someone else must be wrong about because they have the only possible correct opinion.

Yeah, baseball is broken. I've heard it's in terrible shape and in danger of shutting down all together!! OH NOS!!!1!1!!!

Posts like these certainly serve to elevate the discussion.

[El Scorcho]

And I always enjoy these threads when fans of the other huge spending teams pretends it's just a Yankees thing.

Teams that spent $53M on the top 3 available free agents last offseason

NY Yankees

Teams that didn't spend $53M on the top 3 available free agents last offseason

everyone else

[wm lopez]

Is this the sore losers thread?

I'm a Mets fan. We all know how that worked out.
Excellent point. Here in Chicago the Cubs payroll will be $130million in 2010 and they just added the highest paid batting couch.

[El Scorcho]

Excellent point. Here in Chicago the Cubs payroll will be $130million in 2010 and they just added the highest paid batting couch.


and you'll still suck because your team hands out $$ to guys that don't deserve it

Fukudome - $12M
A. Ramirez - $16.6M
Lee - $13M

etc.

Your team is doing what the yankees did for a few years -- overpaying for mediocre or above average talent

the yankees finally figured it out and are now paying for top notch talent

[cardsfan111]

Excellent point. Here in Chicago the Cubs payroll will be $130million in 2010 and they just added the highest paid batting couch.

And until the Cubs quit spending so much money on furniture, they'll never make a World Series again.

[raven56706]

can i ask a question though... are the yankees to be punished for teams pocketing the money?

[coli]

can i ask a question though... are the yankees to be punished for teams pocketing the money?


Thats why you have a salary floor, which is rarely talked about with a cap. For every Yankees team out there that outspends every team, there is a Pirates ownership who doesn't spend anything on their team. The Cap/Floor will eliminate both extremes in the sport.

It works well in Hockey and Football. Guys like Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones can only go so far with their wallet and can't 'Pull a Yankees' and just buy a Championship. But the floor works because in the NHL you have alot of small market teams in Canada who won't trade good players away because they have to meet the salary floor.

[VinVega]

How about forcing all new players into the amateur draft? That might level the playing field some because teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and the other top teams spend a ton on Latin American academies where they sign players at the age of 16 and control them without them ever being available to the bad MLB teams that need the young talent.

[starman9000]

I think they are afraid that would hurt the talent pool overall. MLB would almost have to set up their own academies to replace the team ones.

[Lunatikk]

I fail to see how a salary floor would help. Teams that don't want to spend will only spend the bare minimum, and the floor won't be high enough that they would get good players. They'd probably just overpay for the same crap players they have now.

[WallyOPD]

I fail to see how a salary floor would help. Teams that don't want to spend will only spend the bare minimum, and the floor won't be high enough that they would get good players. They'd probably just overpay for the same crap players they have now.

Seems a little presumptuous to assume that the salary floor would be too low for them to get good players. Also, with the salary cap in place that means the Yankees/Red Sox/Dodgers et al couldn't afford to stockpile all of the top talent and some other teams would have to end up with some of the players.

There would probably always be teams that rode the salary floor pretty closely, but when the gap in talent between the best and worst teams is smaller there would be a lot more pressure and incentive to spend a little more on talent to be more competitive.

[coli]

I fail to see how a salary floor would help. Teams that don't want to spend will only spend the bare minimum, and the floor won't be high enough that they would get good players. They'd probably just overpay for the same crap players they have now.


I understand what you are saying, but you have to look at the NHL and NFL who have that exact system. You rarely see in those 2 sports any 'Pittsburgh Pirates-like or Florida Marlins-like' teams that just have firesales every few years to get rid of players up for free agency.

There is no way to combat the inequities of a market like NY compared to a market like Kansas City, but a salary cap/floor keeps the extremes from both ends of ruining the league.

If there were no cap in the NFL, you would see Jerry Jones going out and getting Tom Brady, Adrian Peterson, and Larry Fitzgerald every few years to reload his team. It would make the NFL look like a joke, but for some reason when the Yankees do it, "They are smart businessman."

If there were no salary floor, you would see some bad owner in the NFL unloaded All-Pro players every few years.

The bottom line is you never see either of this happen because of the cap/floor. Of course nothing is perfect, but it is as good as an equal system as you can get.

[coli]

I looked up how the NFL Figures out the Cap/Floor. You take 58% of the total revenues, and divide that by 30 teams. The Salary Floor is 80% of the cap.

(I am using 2008 MLB Numbers)

Salary Cap: 129,533,333

Salary Floor: 103,626,666

Now of course the NFL has total revenue sharing among the 30 teams, so the only way the small market teams could have enough cash to meet the salary floor would be to have total revenue sharing.

[sleepyhead55]

Yeah, there really should be a salary floor because if not the teams will just pocket the extra revenue sharing money and spend a little just to prove that they're spending. I root for the Pirates and they do this a lot and end up blaming the market inequities (especially under the Littlefield era).

On the point of subjecting every international player to be draft eligible, that isn't as cut in stone as many think. Most of the highly signed Latin American kids don't actually participate in many live games. They go through workouts; so you really don't know what you're getting in terms of a player--it's all potential and projection. At least with the high school and college players(and the players from the far east--Japan, Korea etc) you have the opportunity to see them in live games against top competition. There's also the age thing with the high profile LA signees. This year one of the top LA signees for the Washington Nationals-Esimlyn Gonzales was found to be three years older than his stated birthdate. And I think there have only been a few sucessful players that have been signed for top dollars in the Latin American signing period. The better strategy would be to sign ten players for $50,000-$75,000 range instead of sinking 1+ million dollars on one player.

[Jeremy517]

so you really don't know what you're getting in terms of a player--it's all potential and projection.

That is all it is for high schoolers and many college players too. Look how many first-rounders never make it to the majors. Every single player in the draft is being drafted based on performance that has absolutely no guarantee of performance in the majors.

It doesn't really matter what they're being evaluated on, though; they should still be put in the draft.

[wm lopez]

and you'll still suck because your team hands out $$ to guys that don't deserve it

Fukudome - $12M
A. Ramirez - $16.6M
Lee - $13M

etc.

Your team is doing what the yankees did for a few years -- overpaying for mediocre or above average talent

the yankees finally figured it out and are now paying for top notch talent
And you would think the new owner would fire the guy who made all these moves. But noooooo!

[coli]

No message

[Qui Gon Jim]

Teams like Boston and New York have a huge advantage with revenue. They have networks they own, and they have huge local revenue from their stadiums. New York in particular has a humoungous advantage with the ability to sell boxes to corporations with huge presence in New York (which is every corporation, LOL).

Many of the smaller-market teams do not have these streams of revenue. How Boston and New York use this revenue is not against the rules, and they have done the smart thing, reinvesting and putting great teams on the field. A lot of those smaller market teams are not necessarily pocketing the money, but owning a team is a business, not a hobby.

There needs to be total revenue sharing as well as a salary cap and floor as well as reform to the drafting system in order to truly restore equity.

[raven56706]

Teams like Boston and New York have a huge advantage with revenue. They have networks they own, and they have huge local revenue from their stadiums. New York in particular has a humoungous advantage with the ability to sell boxes to corporations with huge presence in New York (which is every corporation, LOL).

Many of the smaller-market teams do not have these streams of revenue. How Boston and New York use this revenue is not against the rules, and they have done the smart thing, reinvesting and putting great teams on the field. A lot of those smaller market teams are not necessarily pocketing the money, but owning a team is a business, not a hobby.

There needs to be total revenue sharing as well as a salary cap and floor as well as reform to the drafting system in order to truly restore equity.

its funny because owning a team is a business.. u have to reinvest in your product... why should 1 team be penalized for that... Boston and New York reinvest because they can... sorry but if Pittsburgh isnt pocketing the money, then that city isnt good for baseball... time to move... teams shouldnt have to share their money because other teams dont reinvest or because their in a shitty city...

[RayChuang]

Teams like Boston and New York have a huge advantage with revenue. They have networks they own, and they have huge local revenue from their stadiums.

The Yankees have a bigger advantage over the Red Sox because the YES Network has far more reach than NESN. As such, the Yankees already earn several hundred million dollars in revenue per year just from the YES Network alone, which gives them a huge financial advantage over everyone else in MLB.

[coli]

its funny because owning a team is a business.. u have to reinvest in your product... why should 1 team be penalized for that... Boston and New York reinvest because they can... sorry but if Pittsburgh isnt pocketing the money, then that city isnt good for baseball... time to move... teams shouldnt have to share their money because other teams dont reinvest or because their in a shitty city...

In that respect, I agree with you, but you would have to contract the league to about 15 markets that can really compete. You would only be able to have teams in large markets that can support a huge fanbase and have a TV contract that will compensate them like the Yankees and RedSox.

Now you and I both know that Baseball, Football, Basketball and Hockey are not contracting half of their leagues, so the only solution when you have large and small markets is a salary cap/floor.

[BKenn01]

Of course it doesn't. But it gives you a big margin for error.


Exactly, it keeps the Yankees always in the mix.

My biggest concern right now is the NFL. If they dont keep their model then it will destroy the league.

Baseball needs to put the same model the NFL has in place.

and you'll still suck because your team hands out $$ to guys that don't deserve it

Fukudome - $12M
A. Ramirez - $16.6M
Lee - $13M

etc.

Your team is doing what the yankees did for a few years -- overpaying for mediocre or above average talent

the yankees finally figured it out and are now paying for top notch talent

Hope Jerry Jones never has a deep discussion with George........

[ctyankee]

Baseball needs to put the same model the NFL has in place.


Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen. The union would never go for it and the owners have never shown the guts to fight for this. Baseball has the strongest union and this would take baseball to sit out for well over a year before they cave.

Part of the problem is that big market teams don't want to see a level playing field. And if the top 10 market teams decided to go with their own league then the small market teams are dead and buried rather than being the de facto farm clubs for the larger market teams they currently are.

[Qui Gon Jim]

its funny because owning a team is a business.. u have to reinvest in your product... why should 1 team be penalized for that... Boston and New York reinvest because they can... sorry but if Pittsburgh isnt pocketing the money, then that city isnt good for baseball... time to move... teams shouldnt have to share their money because other teams dont reinvest or because their in a shitty city...
I totally agree. My point was that there are some that think the rich owners should just keep sinking their own personal fortunes into the teams to make them successful, which would make it a hobby and not a business.

[SonOfAStu]

In that respect, I agree with you, but you would have to contract the league to about 15 markets that can really compete.

That's not true at all. You'd only have to contract about 4 teams. Remember, there are still roster limits. The Yankees/Red Sox can't just take all the good players. Will they still have "the best"? Maybe. But the remaining teams would be MUCH better collecting the talent from the contracted teams. It would rid baseball of the countless numbers of pitchers currently in the big leagues who barely belong on a minor league team.

IMO, expansion is much more to blame for the perceived inequality in MLB than the overspending of the large market teams.

[ctyankee]

its funny because owning a team is a business.. u have to reinvest in your product... why should 1 team be penalized for that... Boston and New York reinvest because they can... sorry but if Pittsburgh isnt pocketing the money, then that city isnt good for baseball... time to move... teams shouldnt have to share their money because other teams dont reinvest or because their in a shitty city...

Baseball is a business with anti-trust exemptions. Hardly free market capitalism. There hasn't been a moved franchise in America since the Senators moved to Texas in 1972. And now, Washington has a team back. With the politics involved, moving a franchise is not a reality.

[raven56706]

ctyankee...you might be right then this shit is a stand still

you cant do one or the other... sharing money is stupid and pointless... and might i add that the Twins, not sure if they are considered a small market, but they are getting a new stadium... how did they get funds for that????

[coli]

ctyankee...you might be right then this shit is a stand still

you cant do one or the other... sharing money is stupid and pointless... and might i add that the Twins, not sure if they are considered a small market, but they are getting a new stadium... how did they get funds for that????


Paid for by the city (taxpayers end up footing the bill). This is common place by most teams now, they threaten to move if the city doesn't build them a new stadium, the city caves, and most of the time end up footing the bill.

Every since The Cleveland Browns(Owned by Art Modell) moved to Baltimore, most cities have anted up in fear of losing their team. Just look at all the new stadiums popping up in baseball and football in the last 15 years, most paid for by the taxpayers. Pretty sickeing if you ask me, but the teams have the ultimate power because there is always another city out there that will build them a new stadium.

[BKenn01]

Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen. The union would never go for it and the owners have never shown the guts to fight for this. Baseball has the strongest union and this would take baseball to sit out for well over a year before they cave.

Part of the problem is that big market teams don't want to see a level playing field. And if the top 10 market teams decided to go with their own league then the small market teams are dead and buried rather than being the de facto farm clubs for the larger market teams they currently are.

Just so the NFL owners fight for it, I will be happy. Baseball left me long ago.......

[wirefan]

Thats why you have a salary floor, which is rarely talked about with a cap. For every Yankees team out there that outspends every team, there is a Pirates ownership who doesn't spend anything on their team. The Cap/Floor will eliminate both extremes in the sport.

It works well in Hockey and Football. Guys like Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones can only go so far with their wallet and can't 'Pull a Yankees' and just buy a Championship. But the floor works because in the NHL you have alot of small market teams in Canada who won't trade good players away because they have to meet the salary floor.

Please stop drawing comparisons to other sports, especially football which has an entirely different economic model based primarily on large national TV contracts which far outweighs local revenue. And even "small market" teams have to sell out 8 games/yr not 81. This is such a flawed metaphor, I can't believe people continue to throw this out there as if they just copy the model and put it into an entirely different economic situation it would work.

Football also has this magic thing where players can be cut on a whim, often with minimal (or manageable) impact to the cap (sure bonuses and guaranteed money comes into play a bit). Over the cap?...just cut a player you overpaid for - you can't do this in baseball without eating the contract.

[jPoD_TGN]

There is nothing wrong with what the Yankees did, other than driving up the free agent market. They didn't 'buy' a championship. Everyone has the ability to do what they did.

The issue with baseball is the need for an international draft, a slotting system for the MLB draft that removed the advantage big market teams have right now, increased revenue sharing, and some sort of penalty that forces cheap ass owners like David Glass and Carl Pohlad to pour more money into their teams.

[wirefan]

People do realize 31% of locally generated revenue (like via local TV) is already shared? It's not just the payroll/luxury tax that helps out small markets. I see a lot of emotional arguments here and a lot of comparisons to football (different revenues streams, different attendance models, different roster sizes, different contract rules, different rules of the game which impact parity as well), but do people even know the current revenue sharing model in baseball?

It seems that many people here think football's "parity" is somehow driven by revenue sharing/cap and not some other key factors (while revenue sharing/cap certainly does influence things, I think there are more significant factors in play)

- 16 games vs 162games.... a 10-6 team is in the playoffs (generally), a 9-7 or 8-8 team may miss the playoff - this is a 1 or 2 game swing which could be just a fortunate bounce of a football, a missed FG, a bad penalty call or a kickoff return. Over a 162 game schedule the variability (or luck) that can impact a team's playoff chances are greatly reduced. Or to put it another was - a 2 or 3 game improvement in football can be huge, in baseball it's a footnote.
- Schedules are tailored to the finish from last year. It's a lot easier to turn things around as a 4th place team does not play the same schedule as a 1st place team in the same division.
- The game itself... one or 2 weak links on a football team can bring a team down, in baseball this can be hidden. Injuries are more common (I think, no hard data on this) - this makes the 35-45th players on the bench more important in football then the 20-25th players on the baseball roster. Although this is also where the cap comes into play as you can't have your 2nd and 3rd string guys being allstars making tens of millions in football.
- # of playoff spots (12 vs 8)


The other lesser known fact is that much of baseball's central money (national TV, merchandising contracts, national radio) is now disproportionately shared such that low revenue teams get a bigger slice of this pie then high revenue teams (I believe since the 06 agreement, though it may have been started before this)

It's hard to say what the magic # should be on local revenue sharing - 30%? 50%? 100%? I don't see how it could be 100% - if I'm a small market team why even bother trying to get a local contract, if I get to share everyone else's hard work? For some of the pure business/bottom dollar owners out there, it would become a simple ROI calculation - is the extra advertising, promotions, giveaways, salary taken on to put a better team on the field worth the 1/30th of the extra revenue generated? If not, why would you do it?

Suppose for example you are trying to drive attendance from 20,000 to 26000 per game. That's a lot of extra money: 6000 x 81games x $30/ticket (arbitrary #) = ~14mil extra revenue. That'd be worth extra advertising, maybe taking on another mid level contract(or two), more promos/giveaways, etc...

Now let's assume you get to keep 1/30th of that thanks to full revenue sharing - doing the work to get that extra attendance now nets an additional ~$500K in revenue instead of ~$14mil. Is it now worth signing a mid level free agent or two to help improve your team and hoping it pays off via higher attendance (or to get a better TV contract which you now only get 1/30th of)? In many cases the answer is now "no".

I'm OK with a salary floor and cap (maybe a 2:1 ratio.... like $150mil/75mil) but I don't think revenue sharing needs to be changed - even with salary floors it is just too much of a incentive for small market or lazy owners to do nothing. With current revenue sharing levels, local revenue generation and a share of the global MLB money if you can't field a team with a 75mil payroll, that market is not healthy/worthy of a franchise.

[coli]

Please stop drawing comparisons to other sports, especially football which has an entirely different economic model based primarily on large national TV contracts which far outweighs local revenue. And even "small market" teams have to sell out 8 games/yr not 81. This is such a flawed metaphor, I can't believe people continue to throw this out there as if they just copy the model and put it into an entirely different economic situation it would work.

Football also has this magic thing where players can be cut on a whim, often with minimal (or manageable) impact to the cap (sure bonuses and guaranteed money comes into play a bit). Over the cap?...just cut a player you overpaid for - you can't do this in baseball without eating the contract.

I agree that Football and Baseball are two seperate entities, but did you notice I mentioned Hockey???

Hockey plays an 82 game season, has guaranteed contracts, and has a salary cap and salary floor. It also has huge markets like the Rangers, Flyers, and RedWings, who are the Yankees, RedSox, and Cubs of the NHL in terms of being able to go out and buy any free agent they want. The NHL also has a bunch of small market Canadian teams, who couldn't compete before they had the salary cap/salary floor in 2005.

I know that the Baseball Union is strong, and Bud Selig is an idiot, so I am realistic that Baseball isn't going to come to an agreement that makes sense in the near future. But this discussion is about what can make Baseball better, and if you look at Hockey, which relies on regional TV contracts and gate revenue rather then national TV revenue, the sport doesn't suffer from small market teams not having a chance anymore.

Pittsburgh Penguins = Won the Stanley Cup last year
Pittsburgh Pirates = Haven't had a winning season since 1992.

[Goat3001]

I agree that Football and Baseball are two seperate entities, but did you notice I mentioned Hockey???

Well you're not the only person to mention football as the model that baseball needs to copy. Other people have been very adament about football having the perfect model that they don't stop to consider that parity in football isn't just because of the salary cap. Maybe the hockey system would work in baseball, but I don't know much about the hockey system.

Great post wirefan.


Pittsburgh Penguins = Won the Stanley Cup last year
Pittsburgh Pirates = Haven't had a winning season since 1992.

I wouldn't really consider Pittsburgh a small market. They're crazy about their sports there and if the Pirates were decent the fans would come in droves. But the Pirates owners suck and blatenly try to field bad team after bad team to keep payroll low and pocket revenue.

IMO, the Pirates are a bad example of why baseball needs a salary cap. With just a cap, the Pirates owners would still suck. I think the teams that would really be helped by a cap are the mid market teams that try to field a good team but keep getting beat by the big market teams.

[SonOfAStu]

As a Pirates fan, I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of seeing my team lose and lose and lose, but I'm also not naive enough to think that it's anyone else's fault. The owners could change things there, but they don't need to. They're making money the way they currently do things, and PNC Park is one of, if not the most, gorgeous parks in the league.

I don't want the Yankees money. And I don't want them to have to handicap themselves. I want my team to actually TRY and beat them when they're also trying their hardest. Anything else feels cheap and undeserved.

Of course, that's what our society pines for these days. As evidenced by this disgraceful thread.

[VinVega]

I don't want the Yankees money. And I don't want them to have to handicap themselves. I want my team to actually TRY and beat them when they're also trying their hardest. Anything else feels cheap and undeserved.

Of course, that's what our society pines for these days. As evidenced by this disgraceful thread.
I don't think baseball fans want teams like the Pirates to get a free ride. I think what they want is for each team to give 100% of its resources to putting a competitive product on the field and let the chips fall where they may. They don't want money to be a major factor in how competitive you are. Good baseball decisions by the front office, great coaching and timely performance by the players should be the determining factors in a team's success.

[CRM114]

As a Pirates fan, I couldn't agree more. I'm tired of seeing my team lose and lose and lose, but I'm also not naive enough to think that it's anyone else's fault. The owners could change things there, but they don't need to. They're making money the way they currently do things, and PNC Park is one of, if not the most, gorgeous parks in the league.

I don't want the Yankees money. And I don't want them to have to handicap themselves. I want my team to actually TRY and beat them when they're also trying their hardest. Anything else feels cheap and undeserved.

Of course, that's what our society pines for these days. As evidenced by this disgraceful thread.

People in Pittsburgh don't even acknowledge the Pirates. However, if the ownership spent the money and created a winning team, the fans would be out, the stadium would be full, and they'd be selling a lot more gear. Perhaps that would spawn a more lucrative TV contract.

The Phillies went from a lowish payroll team to one of the highest AFTER they built the new stadium. The ownership in Pittsburgh should be ashamed building that stadium and then not following through for the citizens of the city.

[CRM114]

There is nothing wrong with what the Yankees did, other than driving up the free agent market. They didn't 'buy' a championship. Everyone has the ability to do what they did.


Agreed. Despite the WS victory, I don't really see that large of a talent gap between the Phillies and Yankees despite their large gap in payroll. Of course, the Phils' stars will demand higher salaries as time goes on.

[CRM114]

Referencing an earlier post, I feel the NHL has really lost it's juice since the salary cap was installed. Contraction was the key there just as it is in baseball.

[SonOfAStu]

People in Pittsburgh don't even acknowledge the Pirates.

That's not true at all. The city is full of passionate baseball fans. It's one the oldest fan bases in the sport. The team has been run for too long by incompetent morons who don't care for the fans, but we still exist. We just have nothing to be vocal about for the last couple of decades other than our contempt for the ownership and management.

Other than that, you're right though. They would make much more money off of a happy fan base that is showing up in droves. They just don't want to "chance it" I guess by spending the money to see.

[CRM114]

My in-laws live in Pittsburgh and I have a large extended family there. I know no one that cares about the Pirates AT ALL. Anecdotal, yes. But the attendance figure bear this out. When the NHL buries you in fan support, you are in trouble. :lol:

[SonOfAStu]

I didn't say they're going to the games. But the fans exist. There's just no other way to spin it. You and your anecdotes are wrong.

[sleepyhead55]

The fans of the Pirates do exist, its just difficult to watch a bad product year in and year out. The stadium is great but at least some point the product has to improve. Fans get tired of watching their team get beaten down by the better teams in the league.

The Pirates have only now in the past 2 years started to build their minor league system. They actually pay top dollar in the amateur draft. Prior to that they only paid slot money, therefore they skimped on the major league and minor leagues leading to their annual finish of having one of the worst records in baseball.

[CRM114]

Of course there are fans. But the number of them are insignificant. Hell, there were fans of the Expos too. Doesn't make me wrong. My anecdote isn't wrong, it's mine. I challenge you to walk through The Strip or any mall and find more than two or three Pirates shirts.

[wirefan]

Pittsburgh Penguins = Won the Stanley Cup last year
Pittsburgh Pirates = Haven't had a winning season since 1992.

I don't know the economics of hockey so I won't pretend to draw a comparison, but there are a few non-monetary differences which might also be considered:

- Everyone and their brother makes the playoffs in hockey... if you had 1/2 of baseball making the playoffs every year it might look different. Once you're in the playoffs you have a chance.

- A hot goaltender (especially in the playoffs) can carry a team to a Cup. While you can say the same thing about baseball (a hot pitcher or two can carry a team), keep in mind the first point... which is everyone makes the playoffs.

The flawed assumption (in my view) is the parity in the other leagues is mainly due to a salary cap and folks don't consider the hundreds of other variables in play. To say "it works" in [Sport X] is a rather remarkable analysis and conclusion because I don't know how you can isolate all the other variables in play and narrow it down to a capand/or revenue sharing.

[wirefan]

My in-laws live in Pittsburgh and I have a large extended family there. I know no one that cares about the Pirates AT ALL. Anecdotal, yes. But the attendance figure bear this out. When the NHL buries you in fan support, you are in trouble. :lol:

This is ridiculous (and not just the anecdotal part).
Pirates: 19,479/game for a team as you point out that has >15 consecutive losing seasons
Penguins 17,049/game for a team just coming off a championship

How again does attendance "bear this out"? A perennial last place team still outdraws a defending championship team and does it over a greater # of games?

Quite frankly when you consider the Pirates still draw nearly 20K game with the team they put out on the field for as long as they have and some of the ridiculous personnel moves they've made...I come to the exact opposite conclusion they have a core fan base which is phenomenal and if they put even a halfway decent product out on the field they will draw fans with no problem. In 2001 (this is 9 years into their lack of a winning record streak) they drew 30,000 people/game and vastly outdrew the Phillies and LA Angels.

How could you sell >1.6million tickets/year in this economy with the team they have and say with a straight face that they have no fan support or don't care at all?

[starman9000]

Isn't that capacity for the Pens?

(not agreeing with CRM, I just don't think the attendance figures disprove that the Pens are more popular)

It seems like there is just an argument over what a fan is. Whatever you want to call them, at the least there are a lot of potential Pirates fans, they just have no interest in the current organization, which is completely understandable.

[CRM114]

What is ridiculous is comparing a hockey arena to a new ballpark that holds over twice as many people. If the Igloo held 40K people, they'd get higher attendance than the Pirates. Again, anyone that spends any time in Pittsburgh at all would realize that the Pens and Steelers are the teams of choice and not just when they are winning championships.

Also, what is ridiculous is you using 2001 as a measuring stick which happens to be the year PNC Park opened. You know new stadiums attract people, right? And you want to compare that to a dismal Phils team at Veteran's Stadium?

How could you sell >1.6million tickets/year in this economy with the team they have and say with a straight face that they have no fan support at all?

Obviously, "no fan support at all" is a relative statement. To be accurate, they'd have to sell zero tickets. I didn't think I need to explain this.

[RoyalTea]

If the Pirates ever have a good team again, people all over the east coast will be sick of all those lifelong Pirates fans that won't shut up about it.

[VinVega]

If the Pirates ever have a good team again, people all over the east coast will be sick of all those lifelong Pirates fans that won't shut up about it.
:lol::up:

"I've been a Pirates fan since..."

[coli]

Referencing an earlier post, I feel the NHL has really lost it's juice since the salary cap was installed. Contraction was the key there just as it is in baseball.


I agree with you about contraction, but I have to say the NHL is probably in the best shape its been in 15 years. The Playoffs ratings were very good, and the Stanley Cup got its best ratings since the early 70's.

Now we all know Hockey will always be the #4 of the big sports, but I think the cap/floor has really helped the game, because it was trending towards Baseball before the lockout.

None of the small market Canadian Teams were even in the hunt for any free agents back then, and this year to see a team like the Calgary Flames sign the big free agent, defensement Jay Boumeester, tells me that the floor/cap is working. When was the last time a small market team in baseball signed the big free agent? No, its the Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Angels or Dodgers EVERY winter.

Is Hockey perfect? No, but it has done what Baseball should do, limits the big market teams from hoarding on the free agent market year, and gives a chance for small market teams to compete every year.

[raven56706]

finally we are getting somewhere

[coli]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-11-rogers-on-baseball-nov11,0,5053484.column

Hopefully this link works, but it is a good article about the future of Baseball economics.

Cliff Notes version for anyone not interested: The owners are not going to push for a salary cap after the 2011 CBA is up, mostly because of the damage done to baseball after the cancellation of the 1994 WS. Many small market owners are hinting about it, but it probably isn't going to happen.

[Red Dog]

I agree with you about contraction, but I have to say the NHL is probably in the best shape its been in 15 years. The Playoffs ratings were very good, and the Stanley Cup got its best ratings since the early 70's.


Exactly - I'd say hockey has more popularity now than I can ever remember. Sure, contraction out of a number of the southern markets could only help, but it's on much firmer ground financially (after shutting down the sport and instituting a cap) and as a product than it was 10-20 years ago.

Is Hockey perfect? No, but it has done what Baseball should do, limits the big market teams from hoarding on the free agent market year, and gives a chance for small market teams to compete every year.

I agree completely.

[Red Dog]

I didn't say they're going to the games. But the fans exist. There's just no other way to spin it. You and your anecdotes are wrong.

Yep. I'm a O's fan but I don't go to any games. There's no point because I know they have no chance except for maybe a one year fluky thing like the Rays fan. Baltimore showed that it could fill a 48,000 stadium on a nightly basis in the 90s. Back then they spent as much as the Yankees because they had comparable revenue streams. It showed on the field. Now with YES, the Yankees dwarf the O's in revenue. They'd probably still dwarf them if the O's drew 40,000 a game.

In contrast, the Redskins completely suck, but there I know that there at least some hope (they have made the playoffs a couple times in recent years despite terrible ownership), so I have season tickets. There is always some degree of hope for fans of a NFL team in the NFL structure.

[coli]

In contrast, the Redskins completely suck, but there I know that there at least some hope (they have made the playoffs a couple times in recent years despite terrible ownership), so I have season tickets. There is always some degree of hope for fans of a NFL team in the NFL structure.


This is a key point about what is wrong with MLB. In the NFL, if your teams sucks, it is usually because you have bad ownership, a bad GM, or a bad coach. Very rarely does a team stink because it cannot keep its core players and end up having a firesale. I honestly can't think of the last team that just gutted their team after having a winning season.

In MLB, you see the small market teams constantly trading or letting their free agents walk when they come up for their payday. I am a Phillies fan, so our market can keep our core players, but it would be disheartening to be a fan of the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, A's, etc, and know that if your farm system produces alot of great players, chances are they won't be for the long haul.

[fumanstan]

None of the small market Canadian Teams were even in the hunt for any free agents back then, and this year to see a team like the Calgary Flames sign the big free agent, defensement Jay Boumeester, tells me that the floor/cap is working. When was the last time a small market team in baseball signed the big free agent? No, its the Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Angels or Dodgers EVERY winter.

The Dodgers always get mentioned but I don't recall the last time they signed a star free agent (Manny doesn't really count) :( Andruw Jones? Jason Schmidt? JD Drew? Maybe Furcal when he left the Braves, but man... for a "high payroll" team there sure aren't a lot coming this way :mad:

[cardsfan111]

The Dodgers always get mentioned but I don't recall the last time they signed a star free agent (Manny doesn't really count) :( Andruw Jones? Jason Schmidt? JD Drew? Maybe Furcal when he left the Braves, but man... for a "high payroll" team there sure aren't a lot coming this way :mad:

The guys above certainly didn't pan out, but they were the big names out there when they were signed.

[fumanstan]

The guys above certainly didn't pan out, but they were the big names out there when they were signed.

Sorta/kinda. Jones was coming off a terrible last year in Atlanta, Schmidt was coming off 2 mediocre years in SF after 3 or 4 stellar years, and JD Drew was still injury prone JD Drew. Names for sure, but none of those were really considered a big deal at the time for Dodger fans and I don't think the Dodgers have ended up with one of the top tier free agents in recent memory (The CC, Tex, ARod, Beltran types). That and well, McCourt has been known to not want to spend that much more money then the current payroll of ~100 million.

Not that i'm complaining since it's enough to stay on top of the division. Just saying :p

[Drexl]

This is a key point about what is wrong with MLB. In the NFL, if your teams sucks, it is usually because you have bad ownership, a bad GM, or a bad coach. Very rarely does a team stink because it cannot keep its core players and end up having a firesale. I honestly can't think of the last team that just gutted their team after having a winning season.

In MLB, you see the small market teams constantly trading or letting their free agents walk when they come up for their payday. I am a Phillies fan, so our market can keep our core players, but it would be disheartening to be a fan of the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, A's, etc, and know that if your farm system produces alot of great players, chances are they won't be for the long haul.

This is what may be the biggest problem. Even if the stats say that competitive balance is fine, it's a shame that those teams can't keep their players if they turn out to be good. I wonder if the Pirates or Royals will ever have another Hall of Famer who stays long enough to go in wearing that cap. The Marlins may never get even one (unless Gary Sheffield eventually gets in, and he was only with Florida for 5 years.)

[wm lopez]

And until the Cubs quit spending so much money on furniture, they'll never make a World Series again.
This new Cub owner is no George Stienbrenner.
Seems pretty much like a Tribune type owner.

[coli]

The Dodgers always get mentioned but I don't recall the last time they signed a star free agent (Manny doesn't really count) :( Andruw Jones? Jason Schmidt? JD Drew? Maybe Furcal when he left the Braves, but man... for a "high payroll" team there sure aren't a lot coming this way :mad:

Now I agree that the Dodgers are not the Yankees when it comes to spending, I guess I still put the Dodgers in the high market clubs for the Manny re-signing last year compared to Sabbathia.

The Brewers got CC at the trade deadline, and then couldn't resign him as he bolted to the Yanks. The Dodgers got Manny at the trade deadline, and were able to resign him. So the Dodgers can atleast keep their expensive players that many small market teams can't.

[CRM114]

Yep. I'm a O's fan but I don't go to any games. There's no point because I know they have no chance except for maybe a one year fluky thing like the Rays fan. Baltimore showed that it could fill a 48,000 stadium on a nightly basis in the 90s. Back then they spent as much as the Yankees because they had comparable revenue streams. It showed on the field. Now with YES, the Yankees dwarf the O's in revenue. They'd probably still dwarf them if the O's drew 40,000 a game.

Angelos spent the money in the 90's. Then he stopped. Then people stopped going to the games.

You don't need YES to compete. You need to put excitement on the field. You don't need a salary cap to do that.

[CRM114]

This is a key point about what is wrong with MLB. In the NFL, if your teams sucks, it is usually because you have bad ownership, a bad GM, or a bad coach. Very rarely does a team stink because it cannot keep its core players and end up having a firesale. I honestly can't think of the last team that just gutted their team after having a winning season.

In MLB, you see the small market teams constantly trading or letting their free agents walk when they come up for their payday. I am a Phillies fan, so our market can keep our core players, but it would be disheartening to be a fan of the Marlins, Pirates, Royals, A's, etc, and know that if your farm system produces alot of great players, chances are they won't be for the long haul.

Given the rules surrounding free agency, teams can keep their homegrown talent for a pretty long time before having to give them up.

[Red Dog]

Angelos spent the money in the 90's. Then he stopped. Then people stopped going to the games.

You don't need YES to compete. You need to put excitement on the field. You don't need a salary cap to do that.

You need it to compete the in A.L. East. If the O's played in any other division, I would agree with you. If Angelos spends what he spent in the 90s, he'd still be spending 50% of what the Yanks spend.

As I said, in the 90s, they had comparable revenue streams because the Yanks didn't have the kind of tv revenue they have now.

[CRM114]

That still doesn't prevent Angelos from bringing in talent and attempting to field a team. He sucked the juice right out of Camden Yards.

[wildcatlh]

Given the rules surrounding free agency, teams can keep their homegrown talent for a pretty long time before having to give them up.

6 seasons, which means the players are leaving before or right at their prime. I wouldn't say that's a "pretty long time". Plus, when the best players can get a pretty damn high arbitration award (see Howard, Ryan), sometimes the arbitration awards are unaffordable.

The "best" option for small market teams is to lock players up as early as possible for as long as possible (as the Rays did with Evan Longoria). But for a small market team, that has risks. The Yankees can afford to have awful contracts on the books (Carl Pavano). For a small market team, it's absolutely devastating.

[Red Dog]

That still doesn't prevent Angelos from bringing in talent and attempting to field a team. He sucked the juice right out of Camden Yards.

I fully agree that Angelos' management of the team was terrible over nearly a 10-year period. He now finally has competent people in there, but you gotta have that tv revenue to compete in the A.L. East. Baltimore has a small tv footprint (even smaller now that they share with the Nats), so they can never come close to what the Yanks bring in. You need to have revenue to bring in talent. That's the key and the difference btwn the Yanks and O's - Stein doesn't have to pull money out of his own pocket to bring in talent because of the revenue. Angelos would have to in any real attempt to compete on a yearly basis.

[Red Dog]

The "best" option for small market teams is to lock players up as early as possible for as long as possible (as the Rays did with Evan Longoria). But for a small market team, that has risks. The Yankees can afford to have awful contracts on the books (Carl Pavano). For a small market team, it's absolutely devastating.

Big risks. Like I said - the Yanks revenue gives them the ability to make mistakes, a number of them. For a team like the Rays or O's, they have to get everything perfect and hope it all fires at the same time. Even then, they need the Yanks or Sox, if not both, to fuck up, and even if that happens, it's probably only a one-year fluke.

[WallyOPD]

Sorta/kinda. Jones was coming off a terrible last year in Atlanta, Schmidt was coming off 2 mediocre years in SF after 3 or 4 stellar years, and JD Drew was still injury prone JD Drew. Names for sure, but none of those were really considered a big deal at the time for Dodger fans and I don't think the Dodgers have ended up with one of the top tier free agents in recent memory (The CC, Tex, ARod, Beltran types). That and well, McCourt has been known to not want to spend that much more money then the current payroll of ~100 million.

Not that i'm complaining since it's enough to stay on top of the division. Just saying :p

It's not just the top-tier free agents. The Dodgers can afford to throw $15 million a season at a guy (Schmidt) who you admit wasn't even considered a big deal for Dodger fans. They paid Juan Pierre $10 million a year the past 2 seasons to be an occasional starter and pinch hitter. Even with salaries like that on the books they could still go out and pay Manny $20+ million.

[Goat3001]

Yep. I'm a O's fan but I don't go to any games. There's no point because I know they have no chance except for maybe a one year fluky thing like the Rays fan. Baltimore showed that it could fill a 48,000 stadium on a nightly basis in the 90s. Back then they spent as much as the Yankees because they had comparable revenue streams. It showed on the field. Now with YES, the Yankees dwarf the O's in revenue. They'd probably still dwarf them if the O's drew 40,000 a game.

I wouldn't call the Rays a fluke. They have a very good team and were in the wild card hunt until late in the season. If it wasn't for a quick trigger on a Kazmir deal and a Carlos Pena season ending injury, the Rays would have fought for the wild card down the stretch.

I think the difference between the Rays and O's is fanbase. Tampa just doesn't care about baseball. The Rays went to the World Series in 2008 and in 2009 the fans still didn't come.

Baltimore, IMO, is a much better fanbase. If they can put it together one year, the fans will bring money, the spending will begin and while the O's still won't be able to spend as much as the Yankees or Sox, they can spend enough to keep their core players and plug holes with free agents and be perennial contenders.

And honestly, I think this team is poised to climb the ladder very soon. I think they have one of the best young offenses in baseball. I hear good things about the pitchers coming up from the minors. A few changes might be needed... maybe a new manager that can keep the young kids competeing throughout the season (the O's seem to just give up after the ASB). I think they're ready to put it all together and when they do, Baltimore fans will show up and support the team and hopefully the owners will pump that money back into the team.

[fumanstan]

It's not just the top-tier free agents. The Dodgers can afford to throw $15 million a season at a guy (Schmidt) who you admit wasn't even considered a big deal for Dodger fans. They paid Juan Pierre $10 million a year the past 2 seasons to be an occasional starter and pinch hitter. Even with salaries like that on the books they could still go out and pay Manny $20+ million.

Oh definitely, I know the Dodgers have been able to spend money... they've just been steadfast at the $100 million range and no more and the team it's just lucky there are young guys like Ethier and Kemp to overcome stupid moves for mediocre players like you mentioned.

[Red Dog]

Baltimore, IMO, is a much better fanbase. If they can put it together one year, the fans will bring money, the spending will begin and while the O's still won't be able to spend as much as the Yankees or Sox, they can spend enough to keep their core players and plug holes with free agents and be perennial contenders.


I'll believe it when I see it. I have no doubt that if the O's get in a playoff hunt (which really would require a subpar year from the Yanks or Sox), the fans will turn out down the stretch and into the beginning of the following year. Sustainment is the key.

I have serious doubts that we'll ever see another Oriole Hall-of-Famer unless serious changes happen to the sport - Cal will be the last one (they couldn't retain Moose in his prime with a pretty competitive offer compared to the Yanks and that was back when there was less spending variance). My feeling is that by 2020, every new inductee will come from 10-12 teams.

[Goat3001]

I'll believe it when I see it. I have no doubt that if the O's get in a playoff hunt (which really would require a subpar year from the Yanks or Sox), the fans will turn out down the stretch and into the beginning of the following year. Sustainment is the key.

I have serious doubts that we'll ever see another Oriole Hall-of-Famer unless serious changes happen to the sport - Cal will be the last one (they couldn't retain Moose in his prime with a pretty competitive offer compared to the Yanks and that was back when there was less spending variance). My feeling is that by 2020, every new inductee will come from 10-12 teams.

I think Baltimore is the exact market that can sustain their fans after a good year. I don't think Baltimore is like Tampa where they all show up to a World Series game but bail very quickly next year. At the end of August the Rays were 3 or 4 games out of the wild card race.. but the fans weren't coming. I don't think that would happen in Baltimore.

As for your second point: I would like to disagree, but right now I can't. If the system doesn't change, I think there are teams out there that can have a great season, raise payroll and sustain a sense of competitiveness for many years and that'll allow them to keep their HOF players... but only time will tell.

[Red Dog]

I think Baltimore is the exact market that can sustain their fans after a good year. I don't think Baltimore is like Tampa where they all show up to a World Series game but bail very quickly next year. At the end of August the Rays were 3 or 4 games out of the wild card race.. but the fans weren't coming. I don't think that would happen in Baltimore.


Re: attendance.

There's several items to note since the O's banged out huge attendance figures in the 90s. Camden Yards was new and a novelty - a place to be seen. Also, the Ravens were just beginning in '96 and didn't really gained a foothold until they moved into their new stadium. Now the Ravens rule the roost - it's a football town, as it was from the 50s through the late 70s before Irsay ruined it. Also, Baltimore isn't the wealthiest of places so the sporting dollar can be tight. How much that effects things, I don't know, but it isn't quite the same environment you found in the 90s.

I'm not saying what you say can't happen, but I wouldn't assume that what happened in the 90s would repeat itself. Without a revamping of the system, the Orioles would have to be a gate-driven club (needing to reach 80% capacity on a nightly basis) to be able to sustain something longer term. Even then, they would still be dwarfed in their ability to spend by the Yanks.

[coli]

Given the rules surrounding free agency, teams can keep their homegrown talent for a pretty long time before having to give them up.

As someone stated earlier, you have a player for 6 years until he becomes a free agent. Now most players aren't studs their rookie year, as they usually hit their peak around their 3rd or 4th year.

For a small market team, if they see that guy is a stud they can 3 things:

1. Let him go to arbritration every year, and just retain his rights until he becomes a free agent.

2. Trade him in his 5th year or at the deadline in his 6th year (after 6 years he is a free agent), and get 2-3 prospects for him.

3. Extend his contract in his 6th season to a long term deal whatever market value is at the time.

Most small market teams chose option #2 if they think they will walk after their 6th season. They want to get something back that is of good value knowing they can't match the contracts that will be thrown at this all-star by the Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Mets, etc.

Look at Johan Santana, he was option #2 by the Twins traded to the Mets. Can you imagine Santana with the Twins this season pitching against Sabatthia in Game #1 of the Division Series?

That is a perfect example as to what is wrong with Baseball, because if Santana came through the Yankees farm system, he would have been locked up to a long term deal.

[sleepyhead55]

As someone stated earlier, you have a player for 6 years until he becomes a free agent. Now most players aren't studs their rookie year, as they usually hit their peak around their 3rd or 4th year.

For a small market team, if they see that guy is a stud they can 3 things:

1. Let him go to arbritration every year, and just retain his rights until he becomes a free agent.

2. Trade him in his 5th year or at the deadline in his 6th year (after 6 years he is a free agent), and get 2-3 prospects for him.

3. Extend his contract in his 6th season to a long term deal whatever market value is at the time.

Most small market teams chose option #2 if they think they will walk after their 6th season. They want to get something back that is of good value knowing they can't match the contracts that will be thrown at this all-star by the Yanks, Sox, Cubs, Mets, etc.

Look at Johan Santana, he was option #2 by the Twins traded to the Mets. Can you imagine Santana with the Twins this season pitching against Sabatthia in Game #1 of the Division Series?

That is a perfect example as to what is wrong with Baseball, because if Santana came through the Yankees farm system, he would have been locked up to a long term deal.

I agree with this post for the most part although I would add that option 2 isn't as bad as you claim. The A's actually made a pretty good bounty when they traded Mark Mulder to the Cards for Dan Haren and others. I would say that the big market teams can absorb the "contract mistakes" a lot easier than others. It seems strange though that middle market teams are trying to dump good players in this current economic enviroment. The Tigers are looking to shed payroll and are looking to trade Edwin Jackson or Curtis Granderson.

[Red Dog]

#2 isn't bad, but it just puts a team back into a position where it's hope and a crap shoot that your better prospects all blossom into serious talent at the same time down the road.

[CRM114]

#2 isn't bad, but it just puts a team back into a position where it's hope and a crap shoot that your better prospects all blossom into serious talent at the same time down the road.

Or be like the Phillies where all the talent blossomed at the same time a new stadium was built. :D

[Red Dog]

Speaking of new stadia, it's never a long-term solution to turning a franchise around. It's basically a novelty, particularly in small markets. It basically fattens the wallet of the owner (at the expense of a state/city) for a few years.

This is something I fear with Kansas City. They play in a beautiful facility (one of the real hidden gems of MLB), but it's near 40 years old. How soon until that owner bitches that it's outdated and Missouri (or Kansas) needs build him a new stadium to 'compete?'

[wildcatlh]

Speaking of new stadia, it's never a long-term solution to turning a franchise around. It's basically a novelty, particularly in small markets. It basically fattens the wallet of the owner (at the expense of a state/city) for a few years.

This is something I fear with Kansas City. They play in a beautiful facility (one of the real hidden gems of MLB), but it's near 40 years old. How soon until that owner bitches that it's outdated and Missouri (or Kansas) needs build him a new stadium to 'compete?'

I'm waiting to laugh when Jeff Loria continues the same Marlins payroll policies even after the new stadium opens in 2012.

[Senor Javi]

The solution to this problem, like the solution to every problem, is communism.

[coli]

Or be like the Phillies where all the talent blossomed at the same time a new stadium was built. :D

CRM114, I don't know if you listen to Mike Missanelli on 950, now 97.5FM, but he had a roundtable with Ricky Bo, Larry Bowa, and Jayson Stark today.

The key guy they talked about was Cliff Lee and him being a free agent next year. Stark was pretty sure the Phils are going to let him walk because he is going to want Sabbathia money, and atleast 5-6 years guaranteed. He said they won't sign a pitcher to more then 3 years especially someone in their 30's.

The bottom line with our Phils is that after 2011, alot of these guys are going to want the big payday. Howard, Hammels, Victorino, Werth, Madson, Lidge and even Rollins. The only guy that is locked up after 2011 is Utley.

Can the Phils afford all of these guys to huge contracts and a Cliff Lee at 20 million dollars a year? I bet the Yankees would, I highly doubt the Phils will be able to keep this team intact after 2011.