Found this article in the Cincinnati Enquirer yesterday. Very interesting read about payrolls in the MLB. I'm a capitalist in the real world, but in sports it's different to me. The article is pretty much common knowledge, but just wondering what others thought about it.


http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...or+Reds+to+win


Thoughts?
[Reply]

I feel that all small market teams are farm teams for the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.

Look at the Yankees this year. They signed the top 3 free agents.
[Reply]

You got to spend money to make money. Thats one thing small market teams choose not to do (most likely) or cannot afford to do (less likely). The Reds love trading away all their talent or letting them become free agents so they can get picked up by bigger franchises. Like their football team, they are a good place to start a career or squeeze a final few years out, because the owners aren't going to shell out the big bucks for the right free agents. If you think baseball is bad, wait and see if the NFL goes uncapped. This might be the small market teams last shot at the playoffs if the NFL goes uncapped. :-)
[Reply]

1 - The Phillies payroll is not even in the same league as the Yankees. (nobody is really, but there is an $90 million dollar difference there - almost double).


2 - What about the Rays last year? They made it all the way to the series on a tiny budget - 2nd smallest in the league in 2008.
[Reply]

Big money players = big egos. Thats the first obstacle to overcome. There isn't much parody in baseball, it seems the same teams are in contention every year. Yes, small market teams sneak into the playoffs and can make runs, but where do those players go after the season? Ask the first Marlins team how their free agents worked out after that season. :-)
[Reply]

KC Royals vs NY Yankees = baseball fail. Shorten the season and cap it IMO or it continues to fail. Maybe they could have another strike and we could totally start over.
[Reply]

And the free agency concept will never go away. Good for the players, bad for the teams and fans. That's why the big spenders win.
[Reply]

One problem is with team ownership. Most owners are not willing to lose money. They treat it strictly as a business. The other thing is how the teams are organized. The Yankees went out and created their own television network. Nothing is stopping the other teams from doing the same thing other than taking a chance. The YES Network is part of the reason the Yankees have the income to pay for the free agents.
[Reply]

Most owners aren't ready to take a big gamble and lose millions of dollars each year. They'd rather spend $65-$80 million on payroll and make a small profit on ticket sales. Playing it safe and earning easy money, or gambling big money in order to earn just a little bit more (if any) money.
[Reply]

Is it fair for teams like the Yankees to be able to afford nearly any high-ticket player they covet? Probably not. Is it fair for teams like the Yankees to subsidize other teams by sending them hefty checks each year, only to have those owners say "Screw the fans, I'm gonna pocket this money and the hell with improving my team."? Most definitely not. For all of you who think the Yankees are "bad for baseball", I ask you to stop for a moment to consider how the Yankees are good for baseball. A championship in almost anywhere else benefits that city, but a championship in New York benefits MLB. You may not like that, but it's the fact.
[Reply]

Being a Mets fan...all I can say is money won't buy you success!!
[Reply]

Never said that the Yanks were bad for baseball. For ratings, entertainment, and money, the Yankees are the best thing to happen to the MLB. Just saying that the MLB has some serious flaws. In the business world, I'm more than ok with it; in the sports world, I have a few issues. And I'm not just talking about the Yankees. LA and Chicago also have teams in the MLB too.
[Reply]

There's plenty of hope for small market teams. The Rays, Marlins, and Rockies have shown they can hang with bigger market teams. It takes better planning, better drafting, better scouting, and smarter spending. Teams like the Reds, Royals, and Pirates have only themselves to blame for sucking as long as they have. All three have produced a ton of talent but failed to go anywhere with it. And small market teams get revenue sharing from large market teams. Having a huge payroll doesn't equal success, if that were true the Yanks would have never stopped winning.
[Reply]

I don't think there is any long-term hope. The Expos were the best team in baseball developing their talent...but once their talent was developed and ready to compete for a title, they became free agents and the Expos couldn't afford them.

Do the Marlins, Rays, Rockies, etc. success prove you can develop a winning baseball team? Yes. But in the long run they cannot remain competitive because they can't compete salary-wise. The Phillies have a top 10 payroll (not sure where exactly), but I will not begin to suggest the system, as is, is fair to smaller market teams.

Some sort of salary cap is needed IMHO.
[Reply]

:-):-):-):-)
:-)
[Reply]

Oh....and with a salary cap, there needs to be a salary minimum too. Teams at the bottom shouldn't just be able to suck along while getting their shared revenues (TV, etc.)
[Reply]

I agree, but I don't want to see another players strike. Can't win for losing.:-)
[Reply]

I'm a long time Red Sox fan and they do benefit from the current system. However for the good of baseball, I think there should be a HARD salary cap on all of MLB, along with a HARD CAP on what teams can spend to support their minor league systems. Without that, big market teams will just switch where they are spending their money from the major league level to the minors thus perpetuating the problem. I also agree that a major league minimum salary needs to be in effect so that teams don't just reap the excess profits while vastly underspending the cap. The NFL does it right, Selig should take a page from their playbook.
[Reply]

Salary cap would be bad for baseball, I cringe every time I hear it. A few injuries throughout the course of the season and just like football it's maybe next year fans. Except baseball is 162 games as opposed to 16 for football. Small market teams are already getting millions of dollars in revenue sharing, the system isn't perfect but it works. And if you look at the WS winners for the last 16 seasons you've got ten different winners. The only sport with a higher count is the NFL with twelve.

Not like this is ever going to happen though. The MLB players union won't have it, small market owners don't want (why lose all that money they are getting from revenue sharing, they aren't going to make that up in fan attendance), and large market teams don't mind paying the luxury tax. So keep dreaming.

If there is anything I want to see reformed it's the way players from foreign countries are signed.
[Reply]

Why is this the argument that comes up everytime someone mentions a salary cap for MLB? The NFL has a salary cap and still has a revenue sharing program. So it's not like you can't have one without the other. Hell it would make more sense to go with an NFL like program because then small market teams have a chance at winning the WS and filling seats and they still get their checks from profit sharing.

Other than the union there is absolutely no legitimate reason why MLB wouldn't be better off with a salary cap. And we all know how good unions are for the US. Hell look at how good Ford and the rest of American car makers are doing.

There is a reason why baseball is no longer the biggest sport in America. It's slow, and it's not competitive on a large country wide standpoint. The only chance baseball has at securing a future is to inact some kind of salary cap and start letting small market teams be more competitive. :-)
[Reply]