As an Astros fan stranded in NYC without the extra cash this year to blow on the MLB plan (thanks, Wall St!!)...I am psyched to watch the Yanks play well...and hopefully the Mets continue to suck ass.
Los Angeles? But seriously... none. Not even Boston or New York. There is the advantage of the seasons not overlapping all that much (and even when it does, little chance of the games being played at the same time in the same city). However, in cities with both MLB and NBA, is basketball ever a bigger draw than baseball? Maybe LA again... but that's about it.
Hypothetically, if every team drafted and developed players at maximum efficiency (they are all equal in this area), the teams that can also spend infinitely more on FAs have a huge advantage. Yes, drafting and developing good young players is crucial but being able to sign established FAs is also part of building a team. A few teams have a HUGE ADVANTAGE in this area so, even if all else was equal (good management, scouting, drafting, development, etc...), the Yankees and Red Sox would still have an unfair advantage that exists solely because there is no salary cap and they have MUCH more money to spend. The NHL is the only one of the four major sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) that has a hard cap and it hasn't been that long that this has been the case. Slowly but surely, parity is starting to show up throughout the league. I hope they don't get rid of it in a few years when the current agreement expires. It takes a while to fully establish the effects since some teams still benefit from the pre-hard cap era. For parity and competitiveness, hard cap > soft cap > no cap. For empires like the Yankees and their fans, no cap > soft cap > hard cap. If you argue otherwise, you are very likely a fan of a team like the Yankees or Red Sox. Sure, being able to spend more doesn't guarantee anything (see the Rays of 08 vs the Yankees of 08) but it definitely allows those teams to acquire more talent "from outside" which, in turn, INCREASES THEIR CHANCES OF WINNING SIGNIFICANTLY. If they draft and develop well (the "inside" part of the equation), on top of being able to spend freely in the FA market, then this advantage is magnified. Basically, all teams have the opportunity with good scouting and management to produce talent "from the inside" at close to the same level (assuming they can all afford to sign their draft picks) but only a few teams have the advantage of being able to dominate talent acquisition "from the outside", i.e., the FA market. No matter how you twist it, this leads to relative dominance over time by those few rich teams. Revenue sharing didn't fix anything, either (there are plenty of articles out their that discuss this topic). In theory, it was supposed to help the smaller market teams get more competitive but that hasn't been the effect so far. The owners of those small market teams haven't been investing all that revenue sharing income toward player development and acquisition. And even if they did, they still wouldn't be close to being on the same playing field as the Yankees or Red Sox in terms of available resources, i.e., $$.
Revenue sharing is something that could work in theory - the problem is the threshold is too high. I believe the Yankees are the only team that pays the tax. And the mid-level teams like the Astros don't receive any of if (or maybe only a small amount). That means the Yankees help the Royals be more competitive, but they are so far gone that it doesn't level any playing field. Meanwhile, the teams like the Astros or Cardinals are still at a significant disadvantage to the Red Sox, Mets and Yankees. If the luxury tax level were something like $100 million - where 7 or 8 teams would be paying taxes, you'd lower the top end of the payroll spectrum, and more teams would receive more money to help them raise their payrolls. You'd still have the Yankees problem (though a tiered tax that goes up in % at higher payrolls would help there), but all the other teams would be on a far more even playing field.
Easy for you to say. Since its not your money and all. Technically, since the MLB rakes in so much money, the players should be paid MORE. Look at it this way, teams that can pay their players "20 milllion dollars a year" have fans who will support them. Isn't this how any business works?
Im from nyc and baseball is bigger than football in nyc. I believe its bigger in boston. I think its bigger in st louis. Bottom line is that the best and most rich teams are in towns where baseball is more popular. If the fans cared the teams would be better. The Yankees make money because they have a lot of fans. Its the biggest draw in the biggest city. Casual fans just see the yankees making headlines and their teams not, so they hate the yankees just because theyre the yankees...
As a whole, Giants+Jets fans (who serve more than just the NYC area) add up to a whole lot of interest... which rivals if not exceeds Yankees-Mets (especially when both teams are good). This has continued to grow over the last 10 years as the NFL's surge in popularity has eclipsed MLB 20-fold. It also helps when you have a Super Bowl winner. The Boston area actually probably had more passion surrounding the Red Sox BEFORE they won their championship in 2004. Now that they ended the drought, they're essentially just another historic team (like the Phillies, Yankees, Cardinals). And the Patriots can challenge them for supremacy just about any given week during the time period when football and baseball overlap. St. Louis may be the exception... as they're a smaller city with limited disposable income, and a relatively new (to the area) NFL team. That being said, I was in the city when the Rams won it all... and that solidified the city's attachment to that team. The bottom line is that the NFL's surge in popularity has been enough to challenge, even overtake, the oldest of baseball markets. It really isn't a big deal since the seasons don't overlap as much... but it is worth noting.
st louis is a rich team? i'd say they're in the middle of the pack. am i reading this right, you're saying the teams that have the most money and are best are towns that fans care the most? ie: show up to the park? you understand ticket sales arent what bankroll teams right? it can help...but overall its a small dent. do boston and new york sell out their games? yes...but it doesnt contribute much to their payroll.
St. Louis has an amazingly large fan base in the midwest going way back to the early 1950's, mostly thanks to the 50,000 watt radio blowtorch, KMOX. Most nights if you set your dial to 1120AM, you can pick it up pretty clearly around Houston, and it's been that way forever. KMOX was the radio equivilent of WGN and WTBS back in the day - it was sort of a superstation of radio that gave the Cards tons of fans in the same way that the Cubs and Braves got fans from their national exposure on the TV 'Superstations'. They aren't on KMOX anymore, but the 'damage' has been done. They have a much bigger fan base/financial base than you would think at first glance.
i know they have a great fan base...but that doesnt make them a big market team. they dont have yankee/bo sox payroll. thats basically my point above, cleveland for instance, sold out jacobs field for years, but it barely increased their payroll. fan bases arent what is the driving force of successful teams. its how much money do the owners put into the team.
Do you think the Yankees and the Pirates make the same amount of money? The reason the Yankees owners put so much more into the team is because they make so much more. Larger, more rabid fan base = larger revenue stream = more money in the operating budget. It isn't like the Yankees owners are spending $100 million more than any other team and losing that $100 million per year out of their own pockets because the owners are such great fans. I just read somewhere that in 2001 the Cardinals made $50 million more in local revenue (as measured for revenue sharing) than the Phillies, despite playing in a city 1/2 the size. That doesn't occur just by chance. And that year, the Phillies won 86 vs. the Cardinal's 93, so it isn't like one was a great success while the other floundered. Looking at the numbers, no team earns within $50 million of what the Yankees make (again for revenue sharing). That is why spend so much more than everybody else.
Im not saying that they are in the top echelon, but considering their local market they are a very profitable team. When the fans care and the teams have a longer history in the city they tend to be more relevant overall ie media attention and playoff contention. When the fans care they are more in tune to a teams transactions and are more likely to voice their displeasures with mgmt when they dont want to make moves to improve the team. Have you heard the expression that Red Sox and Yankees have fans that tend to be more into the games than other markets? I have heard many players and media folks talk about it. The YES network exists because it gets ratings. Tex didnt come to the yankees because they made the largest offer, he came to the yankees because he thinks that they have the best chance to win. Bottom line if the fans care enough, the aquisition and success comes as a result of that.
I agree with all this...and yet we see new teams in the WS, aside from Boston, over and over again over the last 10 years or so. We've seen the Rays, Rockies and Astros in the last 3 WS...those were first time appearances for those franchises. The Angels went to their first ever in 2002. The D-Backs went to their first ever in 2001. We've seen the White Sox get to the WS for the first time since 1959...Detroit's first since 1984...Boston's first since 1986...St. Louis' first since 1985. In the last 7 series, only 2 teams have appeared twice...the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals. It seems that, in the end, the results on the field would indicate that there is more parity in baseball (with no cap) than the NBA (which has a cap). At the beginning of the season in the NBA, you can pretty much tell me who will be playing in each conference final. There's no way you were gonna tell me the Rays or the Rockies would be making the last 2 WS before those seasons started. You can't win the AL East if you're not Boston or New York, right?? Apparently that's not right. And the ultimate bottom line is baseball's revenues were comparable to NFL revenues in 2007...that's flat out sick. No one expected any league to make up that gap that quickly. It's very difficult to force change on a league enjoying that kind of financial success.
I don't follow baseball much (ocassional Astros game), but I heard somewhere that their salary is now at over $400 million... is this true? Does baseball not have a salary cap? Ridiculous, if so.
No that is not true. ESPN is sensationalizing because it doesn't make as much of an impact when they say "Even with all the signings they made they are still coming in at under last year's payroll number and are trying to move Matsui or Nady to save more payroll." Instead they tell you what the players are in line to make over the next decade in one lump sum to irritate you. It works brilliantly.
doubtful....if he was seriously considering washington, he clearly didnt care about winning....the yankees came up and scooped him up at the end.
i'm this close to not caring about baseball anymore. i understand madmax' post and agree with a lot of it, but this offseason has really tarnished the game for me. if the yankees win it all next year, i'll probably be done until there is a salary cap in place.
