What do you guys think?

by my dixie wrecked on Sep 25, 2007 11:39 PM EDT Comment 27 comments

I always hear about how the mid-market teams can compete in MLB by signing and developing their own players. The teams that everyone points to as the models for this are the Indians, Twins and A's.
Now, I agree that player development can make the team more competitive. However, what does that really get you? None of the three teams I've mentioned have been in a World Series since 1997 when Cleveland lost. And the last of these three teams to win a World Series was when the Twins won it all in 1991. The highest payroll in 1997 was $59m and the highest payroll in 1991 was $33.6m. Clearly, those were different times. Sure, you can catch lightning in a bottle, like the Cardinals did last year, and win, but you certainly can't count on that. And they all seem to go through the same cycle: build team- struggle- 2-3 year window to reach playoffs- lose players- rebuild- repeat. Imagine what some of these teams could do if they were simply able to keep their own players! It would have changed the outcome of most of the World Series we've seen in the past decade. The teams that are able to spend big money are in the hunt every single year. The only excitement is seeing which of the mid-level teams(if any) were able to catch that lightning. Tragically, I still love it but, MLB is broken.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My opinion

Is that these teams CAN spend the money, they just choose not to. For example the Twins, yes their market is small, but they recieve probably 30-40 million a year in revenue sharing, on top of that their owner is one of the richest people in America, I see no reason that between revenue sharing, ticket revenue, and the owners money they couldnt have a payroll of 80 million or so. The reasons some teams have small payrolls is that their owners are content to sit back and use the team as a money making venture instead of trying to put the best product on the field

by Kanst42 on Sep 25, 2007 11:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Check the numbers

According to ESPN's salary page:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/salaries?team=min

The Twins payroll is $71.4M. Is that $8.6M going to make a huge difference?

by cooper7d7 on Sep 26, 2007 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What I don't understand

is why people think wealthy individuals like to lose money more than your average joe.

Yes, all MLB owners are multi-millionaires, but they didn't get there by being dumb with money. Operating a a business based on consumer demand is much more difficult in a city like Pittsburgh or Kansas City than New York.

by deezle on Sep 26, 2007 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

The playoffs are such a crapshoot that I don't think it's very fair to point out the lack of WS appearances as a reason why a salary cap should be implemented. I mean, does a seven game series where one team wins 4-3 really mean that the winning team was the superior team?

To me, making the playoffs is the most important measure of success in a given season. After that, further success is unpredictable...

by Dfarth on Sep 25, 2007 11:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1, sort of

certainly i agree that regular-season performance is the best indicator of overall team strength. but i wouldn't go so far as to say that it's the most important measure of success. i mean, the playoffs are do-or-die, and i love that. good teams going all out to beat each other in a short series. and i think it's vitally important who wins--certainly you can't tell the fans whose teams have brought home the banners that the playoffs are meaningless. i just don't think the playoffs tell you who the best team was.

baseball is a business, and teams are (or should be) trying to maximize their profits. some teams are smarter than others about figuring out where revenue comes from, and what kinds of spending will lead to increased revenue. so yes, every team chooses how much to spend, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how much they make. (although it is true that winning is more lucrative in bigger markets than smaller ones.)

by jpahk on Sep 26, 2007 1:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I heard a modified saying recently:

The playoffs are a crapshoot, but some teams do play with loaded dice.

by elrey34 on Sep 26, 2007 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 to everything

though i think sports are a SLIGHTLY modified business in that owners neither do nor should always look to maximize profits.

by bleedjaxblue on Sep 26, 2007 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maximizing wins

I wrote a paper on this in college and the trouble with baseball is that maximizing wins is frequently in opposition to maximizing profit.

by mckeeno on Sep 26, 2007 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why are we not...

talking about the Florida Marlins or Anaheim Angels in this? Both were small to mid market dreams who won the series (the Marlins did it twice). Or the Houston Astros who were mid market and came close to making the series in 04.

Or how about we take a look at all of the teams with high payroll who never made it close?

Having the most money definitely helps a little, but what matters is spending what money you have wisely.

by KCSlayer on Sep 26, 2007 2:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

And the Astros DID make the WS in '05.

And look at the D-Backs this year. Dont know what their payroll is but they've built much of their club thru their minors so I cant imagine it's any higher than somewhere in the middle of the pack. How they'll do in the playoffs is anyone's guess, but I think they have at least as good a shot as anyone to win the NL.

by rhd on Sep 26, 2007 6:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

using the ESPN chart, the average MLB payroll this year is about $83 Mil. The D-Backs' payroll is listed at about $52 Mil, so they're signficantly under the average. Of the 8 teams that appear to be playoff bound, 5 are in the top 8 team payrolls and 3 are significantly below average (Cleveland and San Diego are the others). That seems about par for the course for the last few years or so. So, altho having a big payroll can help, you can be competitive even w a relatively small payroll if you spend your money wisely. Hopefully, my O's eventually will learn how to do this.

by rhd on Sep 26, 2007 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFL

Does the NFL, with its salary cap and limited free agency, see the same "cycle: build team- struggle- 2-3 year window to reach playoffs- lose players- rebuild- repeat"?

by cooper7d7 on Sep 26, 2007 8:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

kind of - but the cycle is faster

In the NFL it's more like good draft + good schedule = playoffs, then next year tough schedule and lower draft picks = miss playoffs. Very few teams (Eagles/Pats/Steelers) have been able to sustain good play for more than a few years in the last decade.

by spidurfan on Sep 26, 2007 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's changing

Lots more teams have seen consistent success as they get used to FA/salary cap. Eagles/Pats pioneered it, Steelers found out the secret recipe fast, and the Colts, Ravens, Chargers, and Cardinals have all found ways to be consistent in their ways in recent years.

Basically because the draft produces such quick results, the turnover in NFL is that if you consistently draft well and have replacements for your current stars already on your team by the time their contract ends, you will be successful (with a hiccup here and there) for a currently indeterminate amount of time, as the Pats/Eagles seem to be continuing their run dating back to '99 or so.

by mroak89 on Sep 26, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Consistent

"Cardinals have found ways to be consistent in their ways..."

And in MLB, so have the Pirates, and the Reds, and the Nats...

by drwmsu1 on Sep 26, 2007 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, it was a joke =-)

by mroak89 on Sep 27, 2007 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You commented that the

NFL draft yields results faster. Would you say that is because they draft college players. Would that be something MLB should look into instead of drafting high school kids and having them take 4 or 5 years to reach the majors if they make it at all?

by Rajah358 on Sep 26, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

even college draftees

take 3-4 years to reach MLB. baseball is a game of skill first, and athleticism second, and it takes a long time to hone those skills. the NFL is closer to the other way around (although some positions, notably QB, are more about skill, and there it's pretty clear it takes even blue-chip prospects 2-3 years to become competent NFL QB's).

by jpahk on Sep 26, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

but many elite high school talents like Delmon Young ect. would be leaving college around now and would be already major league ready. Obviously its not the answer I was just throwing it out there.

by Rajah358 on Sep 26, 2007 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

jpahk said it nicely...

NFL is far more about sheer athleticism. Statistically, the hardest thing to do in all of sports is to put a rounded bat on a round ball. Get contact 3/10 times, and you're in the HOF. NFL, if you're really big and really fast, you can have a role. Obviously, it's more complex than that, but that's a pretty basic principle.

Even the NBA is more skill based. It's hard to play a zone or shoot a ball etc. Anyone tall and fast can run a route or catch a ball or chase down a QB. Anyone really fat and really fast and really strong can prevent another person from moving too far forward. These are all physical traits. Hitting a ball or pitching a curve requires much more... I don't know, "finesse?" Obviously, the NFL requires a lot of technical skill as well. That's why physically freakish talents don't make it (Gerard Warren, Courtney Brown, Charles Rogers, Aaron Brooks, etc) like they're supposed to, and that's also what separates the pro-bowlers from the "mere" starters/backups.

You do see similar return times in some real "technical" positions. For example, rarely do you see a starting rookie safety. They tend to need at least a year to learn, since safeties are the ones who adjust defenses. Ditto with middle linebackers. Especially true of QBs. Also true of centers and left tackles. These are positions that are basically generals on the field, and organize the rest of their teammates... they tend to be the ones who need the most learning time, and who more often than not cannot simply get by on freakish athletic talent. Zach Thomas ain't fast, but he's still a beast in MLB because he's so damn good technically and a smarter MLB you will not find. Robert Gallery, after being touted as the best tackle out of college in years, has so far yet to learn the intricacies of T, and is nothing more than a "solid-to-good" tackle. A classic example is Tom Brady, who is not an all-time great physical specimen athletically (for the NFL), but will go down as one of (if not the) greatest QB in NFL history because the only guy who knows QB as well as he does is Peyton Manning.

Those types of positions typically begin to really give back to the team and hit their stride 2-3 years after their draft, which would put them at about the same pace for real success as college draftees for the MLB.

by mroak89 on Sep 27, 2007 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

A secondary point...

If a salary cap were implemented - it likely wouldn't be high enough for all teams to keep their best players and build a core - instead it would probably be so low that no one can keep their best players.

by Dfarth on Sep 26, 2007 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Difference

The big difference aside from the cap in the NFL is the lack of guaranteed contracts. In the NFL, you can cut a guy whenever you want and while cutting a player has some cap ramifications, it doesn't have the full effect. Even if the union approved the salary cap, there is no way they would approve non-guaranteed contracts.

by mckeeno on Sep 26, 2007 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with MLB's competitive structure is...

The money. The current system is profitable for both players and management, and to change it, you'd have to find one that was no only better for the sport but also better for both of these groups.

Frankly, I don't think it'll ever happen. Crap like interleague play, and whole "AS Game Matters" thing only reinforce the point that MLB is willing to sell it's long-term wellbeing for short-term profits. Frankly, it's behaving exactly like any short-sighted individual or corporation would.

by mraver on Sep 26, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFL Playoffs

There are also more playoff spots in the NFL, and that has something to do with the appearance of competitive balance in that league. I remember crunching the numbers in the early 2000s or late 1990s and determining that if there had been 6 playoff teams per league in MLB, the Bonds-era San Francisco Giants would have had a nice long run of success, picking up a handful of additional playoff appearances between 1997 and 2004. Not in MLB.

by FlipYrWhig on Sep 26, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Small-Market"

Can someone provide a true definition of a "small-market"? It's hard for me to view a baseball team located in Houston, Miami, or Anaheim/LA as a small-market team simply because they chose to maximize profit for a year or more. These teams have the potential to raise payroll quite a bit while still turning a profit simply because of the market they are in.

Tampa, KC, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Cincy are the true small-markets, IMO, as they are severely limited in their payroll due to their MSA.

Agree or disagree?

by deezle on Sep 26, 2007 8:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I have noticed that many people want to call almost every team outside of New York and Boston a small market team. Too often places like Houston or Anaheim get called "small market" when they really are big market teams that just aren't consistently successful.

This leads to the question of why. I have long been a proponent of revenue sharing in MLB to create some semblance of competitive balance. A team's market size undoubtedly plays some role in a team's ability to compete for free agents on the market and so forth, but market size isn't the only key to success. If it were, the city of Chicago should have an awful lot more titles in the last 100 years than it does. Similarly, the Mets have had plenty of down years and the Angels and Dodgers are not always at the top of their respective divisions either. These are the teams from the three largest metropolitan areas in America, so it can't simply be market-size.

In Cleveland, I often hear that the Indians can't keep their payroll high because they lack fan support. Sure, when the Indians are doing well, the stands stay pretty full. But, the argument goes, that Cleveland is a football town and that, in spite of the Browns pathetic results, sports fans in Cleveland only watch baseball as a distraction until football starts and watch basketball as a distraction after the Browns season has become hopeless. I think there is some merit to this, but I think it's a cop out. There may be other towns that are affected by this to some extent or other as well. Pittsburgh comes to mind, though I think the Pirates' problems are largely of their own creation with horrible front office personnel.

So what else causes success?

I am a huge Yankee hater. My favorite team in baseball, after the Indians get eliminated from competition, is always whoever is playing the Yankees. But you have to admit that aside from just spending money, Steinbrenner is singularly committed to winning. And much more so than most owners. How many of us truly believe that the owner of our favorite MLB team is driven only by wins? I suspect very few of us. Most, I think, are happy if their team is reasonably competitive and profitable. Certainly none of the owners want their team to be a joke, nor do they want to lose money, but I think it is a rare owner that has the killer instinct that Steinbrenner instills in the Yankee organization. Love him or hate him, I think it may be the key to their long term success.

by knightgalt on Sep 27, 2007 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agree 100%.

I would however add the caveat that there are mitigating factors for some teams' relatively small payrolls in a large market. For example, small stadiums/bad TV deals/relatively small salary per capita in their area/stuff like that. Maybe that isn't true, but it would seem to me to be a factor in payroll. So for example, when LAA was just anaheim, they were kind of small market b/c anaheim is a relatively small market. Now that they're LAA, no sane person would confuse them with KC.

by mroak89 on Sep 27, 2007 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs