Interesting Article About Baseball 'Parity'
gemint
Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Baseball Parity
Keep in mind this article is from a Pittsburgh columnist where the Pirates have issues greater than just the $ they spend. However, it is interesting and reinforced what I already knew about baseball. Is it really good for baseball long term to ensure the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers make the post season nearly every year?
Keep in mind this article is from a Pittsburgh columnist where the Pirates have issues greater than just the $ they spend. However, it is interesting and reinforced what I already knew about baseball. Is it really good for baseball long term to ensure the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and Dodgers make the post season nearly every year?
0
Comments
Steve
<< <i>The Mets make it every year? What planet are you living on?
Steve >>
I live on the 'Pirates' planet where if a team makes it to the playoffs two or three times a decade, it seems like every year.
I get the point of the article, but it just doesn't sit well with me. Even if you had a salary cap of $80 million, the teams that spend $80 million every year are still going to be a whole lot better than teams like the Pirates that only want to spend $20 to $30 million a year.
If 100 mil almost guarantees a PO spot maybe teams that spend 40 mil should increase payroll?
Steve
<< <i>I don't want to come right out and say that I believe there is parody in MLB >>
Nice one
<< <i>believe it or not, teams don't need to make the playoffs to make money. So where's the incentive to spend more? >>
Maybe there is none, but if a few owners are only in it to make a little money and they don't care about making playoffs, the rest of us shouldn't have to be subjected to people complaining about the other owners who do want to make money and make the playoffs. The fans of the thrifty teams just have to accept the fact that the owners only care about profit and winning is just a pipe-dream they will keep selling their fanbase as long as they can.
<< <i>I don't want to come right out and say that I believe there is parody in MLB, but this article does a poor job of convincing me that there is a problem with teams spending $100 million on their payroll. As a matter of fact, the one question it brought up for me is that with all this information about how paying for players equals a higher likelihood of making the playoffs, why aren't more of these cheap teams not putting their money into assets that have proven to work for the other teams?
I get the point of the article, but it just doesn't sit well with me. Even if you had a salary cap of $80 million, the teams that spend $80 million every year are still going to be a whole lot better than teams like the Pirates that only want to spend $20 to $30 million a year. >>
I think that's where a minimum cap would come into play. If you want to own an MLB team, don't expect to field a $30M team and pocket the profits. I think that's what the NFL does. Also, some teams' owners may be cheap, but regardless of who owns the team some markets can't afford to field a $70M+ team. They can't compete with teams that get millions more in local TV revenue. By the way, I think the current revenue sharing system is a joke. It doesn't force teams to spend the money on player salaries.
<< <i>
<< <i>believe it or not, teams don't need to make the playoffs to make money. So where's the incentive to spend more? >>
Maybe there is none, but if a few owners are only in it to make a little money and they don't care about making playoffs, the rest of us shouldn't have to be subjected to people complaining about the other owners who do want to make money and make the playoffs. The fans of the thrifty teams just have to accept the fact that the owners only care about profit and winning is just a pipe-dream they will keep selling their fanbase as long as they can. >>
So those teams should be contracted? Is that really good for baseball? Let's 86 the Pirates, Royals, A's, Marlins and DRays amongst others. Why not just contract to two four team divisions and make baseball a regional sport again. Or maybe they could squeeze out 12 teams but have 6 of them in the NY market.
Some people might like that as all would be competitive but would it be best for baseball?
Some people actually think teams are raking in the money but why then did the Pirates barely avoid bankruptcy in 2004? They tried to spend their way (badly) to a winner in 2001 when PNC opened. It didn't work and it almost put them under.
Tom Hicks is basically bankrupt and the Rangers are going to have issues unless MLB steps in.
Not all teams have owners with the same income, it would be great if every own in MLB had the same cash flow and they all made the same revenue from their TV deals but it isn't reality. Also the economy has killed some owners more than others (Tom Hicks for example).
In short these teams REALLY don't have the 100mil to compete, really really really. If they did spend like the Yankees they would go bankrupt along with their owners in a very short time period.
One new reality is how teams are valuing almost over valuing their young players now. Billy Beane doesn't look so smart now that he can't trade washed up vets for 3 to 4 high ceiling young players anymore.
For fans of other teams to state that any team that doesn't spend that amount doesnt care or shouldn't be allowed to be in the league is a smug arrogant piece of crap.