Parity? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Parity?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Parity?

Postby Apollo » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:58 am

KCollins1304 wrote:The teams with payrolls below $60M are causing many more problems for MLB than the ones spending $100M.


How do you figure that? The Marlins spending $20 million effectively ruins one team's season -- theirs. The Yankees and Red Sox spending $350 million combined ruins the season for four teams: the Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, and any team that might have won the Wild Card. Really, as long as the Yankees and Sox continue to run their teams somewhat competently, no other team in their division has a chance of winning. Ever. Now that is bad for baseball.

Granted, the Marlins are an exception, and they're stupid. So are the Twins. But every team below $60 million? If the Indians and Royals and A's spent $60 million they'd lose money hand over foot. I think teams going bankrupt would cause the real problems for MLB.

The main problem facing MLB, obviously, is unequal revenue streams. Absent any decent control over that, obscene spending by certain teams has priced others out of contention.
Apollo
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 515
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: IL

Re: Parity?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:02 pm

Apollo wrote:But Detroit spends a bajillion dollars on Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Pudge Rodriguez, Edgar Renteria and Miguel Cabrera, and there's a good chance that all of the Indians' superior management will mean nothing. If the Indians were dumb enough to give $10.5 million to Pudge, or $9 million to Edgar Renteria, or $8 million to Kenny Rogers, they'd be crippled for years by those deals.

This is being too dismissive to the front office work that the Tigers have done. The Tigers have had a rebuilding process going for the past 5 years; the signings they made were just to try to put themselves over the top in talent.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Parity?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:05 pm

Apollo wrote:If the Indians and Royals and A's spent $60 million they'd lose money hand over foot. I think teams going bankrupt would cause the real problems for MLB.

The main problem facing MLB, obviously, is unequal revenue streams. Absent any decent control over that, obscene spending by certain teams has priced others out of contention.

One way to even out the revenue streams is to get rid of all of the ones on the bottom. And that wouldn't cause problems for MLB; it would just upset the MLBPA.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Parity?

Postby KCollins1304 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:18 pm

Apollo wrote:
KCollins1304 wrote:The teams with payrolls below $60M are causing many more problems for MLB than the ones spending $100M.


How do you figure that? The Marlins spending $20 million effectively ruins one team's season -- theirs. The Yankees and Red Sox spending $350 million combined ruins the season for four teams: the Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, and any team that might have won the Wild Card. Really, as long as the Yankees and Sox continue to run their teams somewhat competently, no other team in their division has a chance of winning. Ever. Now that is bad for baseball.

Granted, the Marlins are an exception, and they're stupid. So are the Twins. But every team below $60 million? If the Indians and Royals and A's spent $60 million they'd lose money hand over foot. I think teams going bankrupt would cause the real problems for MLB.

The main problem facing MLB, obviously, is unequal revenue streams. Absent any decent control over that, obscene spending by certain teams has priced others out of contention.


They are all capable of spending $60M, and I hope your Indians don't go bankrupt this year.

2008 Payroll
Indians - $ 78,970,067
Royals - $58,245,500 (2007: $67,166,500)
Athletics - $ 47,967,126 (2007: $ 79,366,940)

These are the teams under $60M this year: Marlins(22), Nationals(54), Pirates(49), Rays(44), Rockies(54), Royals(58)

IMO, those teams are low because their owners are cheap and their front offices are run by clowns. I couldn't find exactly how much those teams got in revenue sharing, but it is a fair amount. The Rays have long been pocketing the money, but now that they are emerging I think they will get off this list as well as the Rockies as more of their players hit arbitration and the Nationals are rebounding. The Royals have started to show some promise, and their payroll will be increasing. The Marlins and the Pirates are the biggest problems in baseball.
Image
KCollins1304
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5089
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: Parity?

Postby Apollo » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:19 pm

Matthias wrote:This is being too dismissive to the front office work that the Tigers have done. The Tigers have had a rebuilding process going for the past 5 years; the signings they made were just to try to put themselves over the top in talent.


I'll grant that the Tigers have done some nice rebuilding work, but the Indians don't have a single high-priced free agent and still beat the Tigers out last year. Clearly the Indians did more with far less. If you take out Cabrera and Sheffield and Ordonez and Pudge and Rogers and Renteria, the Tigers would be a mediocre team. The Tigers' expected success this year stems directly from the money they have spent, and I don't think there's any way to argue that.

Matthias wrote:One way to even out the revenue streams is to get rid of all of the ones on the bottom. And that wouldn't cause problems for MLB; it would just upset the MLBPA.


I think upsetting the MLBPA by putting half their players out of work would cause a big problem for MLB. They would also lose a third of their fans, so those lucrative TV deals would go way down. That's a problem. And the owners forced to give up their teams would put up a stink, of course. Another problem.

Heck, in general, any time you eliminate a large chunk of the money coming into your business model, it's probably a bad idea.
Apollo
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 515
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: IL

Re: Parity?

Postby Matthias » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:20 pm

Yah, except that the Marlins aren't adding money into anyone else in MLB's business model: they're just taking the handouts.

Also, owners of cheap teams wouldn't be upset to be bought out: Carl Pohlad volunteered to contract the Twins for $150MM. I'm sure if the price was right, the owners of the Marlins would, too.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Parity?

Postby Bogey9906 » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:24 pm

Bloody Sox wrote:
great gretzky wrote:To be fair ... The NFL doesn't "stack" the schedule anymore. That used to be the case, but now each team has only two games that are variable each year, 14 of the 16 games are determined years in advance now. Those remaining two games are teams that were similar in your performance the previous year, so that element doesn't hold true for me, especially in light of the unbalanced MLB schedule.

Actually - this is completely false. In advance, you can only tell me that a team will be playing its division opponents twice (6 games) and one entire division from the other conference (4 games) - the other 6 games are based solely on your position in the standings. If you suck, you play other crappy teams, which makes it easier to compete the next year. If baseball did this, it would be the equivalent of having 60 games on the schedule decided based on your record the previous year, where bad teams would play other bad teams more often (and vice-versa). Actually sounds like a decent idea... :-?

Actually, your comment is completely false and gretzky's comment is correct. Teams also play one entire division from their own conference, so 14 of 16 games are predetermined. The other two games are against the equivalent team in last year's standings from the other two divisions in the same conference.

Lesson: trust The Great One, not Curt Schilling. :-D
Bogey9906
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 218
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: SoCal

Re: Parity?

Postby JasonSeahorn » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:37 pm

Bogey9906 wrote:
Bloody Sox wrote:
great gretzky wrote:To be fair ... The NFL doesn't "stack" the schedule anymore. That used to be the case, but now each team has only two games that are variable each year, 14 of the 16 games are determined years in advance now. Those remaining two games are teams that were similar in your performance the previous year, so that element doesn't hold true for me, especially in light of the unbalanced MLB schedule.

Actually - this is completely false. In advance, you can only tell me that a team will be playing its division opponents twice (6 games) and one entire division from the other conference (4 games) - the other 6 games are based solely on your position in the standings. If you suck, you play other crappy teams, which makes it easier to compete the next year. If baseball did this, it would be the equivalent of having 60 games on the schedule decided based on your record the previous year, where bad teams would play other bad teams more often (and vice-versa). Actually sounds like a decent idea... :-?

Actually, your comment is completely false and gretzky's comment is correct. Teams also play one entire division from their own conference, so 14 of 16 games are predetermined. The other two games are against the equivalent team in last year's standings from the other two divisions in the same conference.

Lesson: trust The Great One, not Curt Schilling. :-D


Bogey9906 is correct, each NFL team plays 6 divisional games, 4 games from one AFC division, 4 games from an NFC division, and then 2 "Strength of schedule" games.

The AFC East plays against the AFC and NFC West next year. That means the Patriots have teams like the Chiefs, 49ers, Cardinals, Rams, and Raiders on their schedule.
JasonSeahorn Beginner
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 197
Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Re: Parity?

Postby Apollo » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:41 pm

KCollins1304 wrote:They are all capable of spending $60M, and I hope your Indians don't go bankrupt this year.

2008 Payroll
Indians - $ 78,970,067
Royals - $58,245,500 (2007: $67,166,500)
Athletics - $ 47,967,126 (2007: $ 79,366,940)

These are the teams under $60M this year: Marlins(22), Nationals(54), Pirates(49), Rays(44), Rockies(54), Royals(58)

IMO, those teams are low because their owners are cheap and their front offices are run by clowns. I couldn't find exactly how much those teams got in revenue sharing, but it is a fair amount. The Rays have long been pocketing the money, but now that they are emerging I think they will get off this list as well as the Rockies as more of their players hit arbitration and the Nationals are rebounding. The Royals have started to show some promise, and their payroll will be increasing. The Marlins and the Pirates are the biggest problems in baseball.


On the one hand, that's what I get for posting before looking at the numbers. Oops. On the other hand, ESPN has the Indians' salary at $61 million. Where do your numbers come from?

In any event, my point still stands. The Marlins and the Pirates aren't ruining anybody's seasons except their own. The Yankees and Red Sox are ruining quite a few teams. And even if the cheapos really are pocketing revenue-sharing money, it obviously isn't hurting the Yankees' bottom line.

Plus, the Marlins' model won them a World Series! If you don't have the Yankees' money, blowing your team up and starting from scratch with tons of prospects really is the best way to have a chance to win. Granted, the Marlins are taking it to an extreme, and there ought to be a salary floor, but who are we to argue with a team that won the World Series? We should all be so lucky.
Apollo
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor


Posts: 515
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: IL

Re: Parity?

Postby BritSox » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:47 pm

A Red Sox fan realises that the Indians have been to the postseason the exact same number of times the Sox have in the Wild Card era. You have the same number of pennants, and more division titles. You can moan about the money Detroit has spent, but it's not like Detroit is a perennial powerhouse, now is it? In fact, until 2006 that Franchise was a byword for suck.

Cleveland has a much better situation than many other smaller market teams. There is no New York or LA team in their division, and the Chicago team is very much the poor relation of the two. No division has smaller combined revenues than the AL Central, I believe. Washington is firmly in the bottom quartile in terms of payroll, but drew more in their inaugural season than the Tigers have, ever. Heck, one could argue that the Indians' situation is far better than that of the BlueJays or Orioles, who have far higher payrolls. The Indians, at least, have comparably small markets like Minny and KC in their division. Note also that they've been able to extend Pronk and V-Mart beyond their usual years of team control.

If you look at the NL West, the Dodgers and Giants both far outstrip the Padres, Rox and D-Backs in revenues, but if you look at playoff appearances and pennants over the last decade:

Dodgers: 1 division, one WC, no pennants
Giants: two divisions, one WC, one pennant
Padres: three divisions, no WC, no pennants
D-Backs: four divisions, no WC, one pennant
Rox: no divisions, no wildcards, one pennant.

That looks a lot like parity to me. The Rox have the additional handicap of their freakish home park.

Yes, small market teams have smaller competition windows and require longer rebuilds than equally well-run franchises with bigger revenue streams. But that doesn't mean they can't compete.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Aug. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

NY Yankees at Boston
(4:05 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Houston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(7:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(8:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(8:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(9:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact