What do you guys think?
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 |
27 comments
Comments
My opinion
by Kanst42 on Sep 25, 2007 11:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Check the numbers
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
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
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
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:
by elrey34 on Sep 26, 2007 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 to everything
by bleedjaxblue on Sep 26, 2007 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maximizing wins
by mckeeno on Sep 26, 2007 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are we not...
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 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...
by rhd on Sep 26, 2007 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NFL
by cooper7d7 on Sep 26, 2007 8:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
kind of - but the cycle is faster
by spidurfan on Sep 26, 2007 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's changing
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
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
You commented that the
by Rajah358 on Sep 26, 2007 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even college draftees
by jpahk on Sep 26, 2007 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
jpahk said it nicely...
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
Big Difference
by mckeeno on Sep 26, 2007 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with MLB's competitive structure is...
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
by FlipYrWhig on Sep 26, 2007 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Small-Market"
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
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%.
by mroak89 on Sep 27, 2007 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 












