have you tried ESPN's gamecast live? i use it on sunday's to follow Titans games when they're not televised.
"Why are the economics of baseball screwed up? The Yankees. Why do medium-to-small market teams not have a chance at the World Series? The Yankees Why did we almost have a work stoppage? The Yankees. " And the fact that the richest men in the world that own the Twins and Astros don't spend anything. I don't care if the Yankees don't lose money, and those 2 teams would if they spent more. The Yankees have always tried to put the best product on the field no matter the cost...none of those teams have and none of those teams will, even if they get a large amount of money from the Yankees through revenue sharing.
The fact that the Yankees don't lose money, and those 2 teams would if they spent more is exactly the point. $teinbrenner has the luxury of never even having to think about whether he'll lose money while he assembles the best team that money can buy, because he'll always turn a profit. It's easy to say "no matter the cost" when it won't really ever cost them anything in terms of financial loss...
The fact is that they can operate at a loss for many years, put a competitive team on the field, and still make money by selling the franchise for an increased (by winning) value, and that is just if the revenues don't increase by having a competitve team. Of course 2 of the lowest payroll teams are in the playoffs, and many experts are picking one of them to go to the world series, but nevermind all that and the loss last year, the Yankees are guaranteed a championship due to their payroll.
There's a hell of a lot more precedence for low payroll teams sucking ass while high payroll teams do well than there is to disprove it. Basically what you posted are the only good reasons. "Look at the A's. Look at the Twins. Hey, the Yankees didn't win it last year! Oh yeah, the Diamondbacks, another high payroll team, won." The A's are one of the best run organizations in the league. Sure, it is possible for a lower payroll team to compete, but it doesn't happen very often because it requires JUST the right people. I think most people would agree that everything would be better if most teams were on a more even plane to start the season.
who's talking about last year? not me. sorry, I'm looking towards the future. this years Yankee team is better than last, with the addition of GIambi, White, and Mondesi. Last year is done and forgotten, sorry if you still are stuck in 2001. See you in the World Series.
Raven, The first half of my post, which you quoted, is about teams without tv revenues fielding competitive teams without being financial suicide for the owners.
So are you saying that low payroll teams without TV revenues can field a competitive team, so that it is not necessary for a change, or are you saying that they can't, and we should change the system. I responded because I got the impression you thought that the A's and the Twins were reasons why the financial system doesn't need to be changed. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
I was saying that teams without tv revenues do not have to be low payroll teams. The A's and Twins were not relevent to this point, just some low payroll teams that are competitive. Obviously it helps to have a high payroll, but sometimes you get owners like McLane or Sterling in the NBA.
Ah, I think I see your point. You are saying they do not have to be low payroll teams because the value of the ball club appreciates and they can recoup their losses when they sell the team?
But what if an owner doesn't want to sell his team? He is still expected to lose millions of dollars every year just to keep his team competitive? I don't think other businesses are expected to operate that way if their revenue can't match their costs. They cut things until they match up, because no business operates under the assumption that they will sell their business someday and recoup any losses. I don't think expectations of baseball team owners should be any different.
Most businesses are not like sports. When was the last time they ran benchmarking tests for AMD and Intel chips on FOX? In a normal business, the goal is to make money. If the owners are only in the game to make money, then they should have no compunction about selling their team. If they are not inn it only to make money, then they should want to field a competitve team, costs be damned. Either way, there is no harm in operating at a loss for them because if worse comes to worst, the losses can be more than recouped by selling the team.
Must it all be so black and white? Is it not possible for there to be an owner who actually enjoys running a baseball team and doesn't want to sell the team, but also doesn't enjoy losing millions of dollars every season? Doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.
Yeah, and who the hell is lining up to buy the Royals? The Twins? The Devil Rays? Bueller?? Ferris... Bueller?
I guarantee they would not have trouble selling those teams, especially the twins. You just move them to Washington and you can make money and you already have a playoff team. If I had the money, I would definitely buy any of them.
How are you going to guarantee that? The Royals are in the tank and they can be had for about 1/8 of what the Red Sox sold for. Break out your check book buddy. After you move the Twins to DC where are you going to move the Royals and Devil Rays? The kind of rotating ownership you're advocating not only wouldn't work, it would cause MLB to be a joke among the major sports leagues which it's already becoming.
