Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

[Matthias]

This is sort of a split-off from this post but it could equally be a splinter from any one of hundreds of threads I've seen in the Cafe in the last few years. The topic has been discussed ad nauseum. But thinking about it, I don't see the real harm that cheap clubs create. Sure, it's easy to say, "the owners need to do something with all the revenue-sharing money they're getting" and, "why should you side with billionaire* owners" but, at the end of the day, who is really doing more to disrupt league balance?

The median 2008 MLB payroll is about $80MM and the mean was $89.8MM with a standard deviation of $36.6MM.

The actual results don't always follow payroll, of course. There's stars who are underpaid because they're still pre-free agency and role players who are overpaid because they were stars a few years ago. And obviously the Yankees missed the playoffs while the Marlins were actually pretty competitive and in the race until the last six or so weeks.

But the question still is out there: given more or less even scouting, player development, etc., etc., to use Joel Sherman's words, what is, "more detrimental to baseball": a team that sets its payroll at some number a couple of STD DEV's below the mean or a team that sets its payroll four STD DEV's above it? My base rationality tells me that if you have a super cheapskate owner, the end result is you've effectively subtracted a team out of your league for competition. Maybe other teams in their division have some inflated records that give them an edge in the wild card race, but that's about the extent of the damage to competition. If, however, you have a super-high spending team you would be damaging the competitive nature of the sport by severely limiting the probabilities of success to the league-average teams?

There are additional factors to consider such as a highly successful franchise would generate interest in the league that visits, but I would have to think that the number of times that they would generate more money by their visits would be outweighed by the dampened interest in all the other games where the fans don't attend because they don't see a reasonably likely road to success.

So what say people? Who is, "more detrimental to baseball": cheapies or spendies?

Random nugget to throw out there that may or may not be relevant: compare how wildly popular the NFL has gotten and the steep appreciation of their franchises which could be related to nearly (sorry Lions fans) every franchise starting out the season with the thought that they have the chance to be competitive.

----------------------------------------

* although I think only a few of the owners are actually billionaires; I think Pohlad is the wealthiest owner of a franchise and his net worth just cracks the billionaire mark at $1.8bn.

[J35J]

The Spendies are much more harmful, IMHO, as they effect the whole league. The Cheapies are only "hurting" themselves....though there are Cheapies who make it to the playoffs at a decent clip so its not even like they aren't trying....at least some of them anyway.

[J35J]

This question should absolutely only be answered by those in the middle of the pack, in terms of payroll. I'd guess most fans of the Cheapies will say the Spendies are more to harm and I'm 100% sure that the NYY and BOS fans will say its the Cheapies who are more harmful. I'm curious what everyone inbetween has to say.

[Yoda]

I think both extremes can be detrimental. Cheapskates also hurt the rest of the league because they suck and no one wants to watch them.

[neoforce]

The Spendies are much more harmful, IMHO, as they effect the whole league. The Cheapies are only "hurting" themselves....though there are Cheapies who make it to the playoffs at a decent clip so its not even like they aren't trying....at least some of them anyway.

Joel Sherman's Article that was referenced in the original post made the point that the spendies are NOT causing salary escalation. That without the Yankees, even in this down economy, the salary's would be close to the same.

So how do they effect the whole league? Not to mention how much revenue they bring to the league by having a great product in the market that spends the most money, some of which goes to the other teams?

The cheapies on the other hand depress a market that is already weaker to start with, bringing less into the sport.

I am conflicted. A Yankee fan who enjoys the fact that my team has an advantage vs my feeling that things would be better off with a cap/floor. But since the players union won't allow that to happen, the Yankees are just playing by the rules and investing/spending on their product.

[neoforce]

This question should absolutely only be answered by those in the middle of the pack, in terms of payroll. I'd guess most fans of the Cheapies will say the Spendies are more to harm and I'm 100% sure that the NYY and BOS fans will say its the Cheapies who are more harmful. I'm curious what everyone inbetween has to say.

oops, too late... I'm a fan for the spendies voting for the cheapies as you anticipated. I voted before your suggestion to limit voting to the middle of the pack.

Oh, and I have no doubt who will "win" this poll. The spendies are the easy to hate bad guys who always lose.

[kab21]

I dislike the Loria's of the world more. As a Twins fan the Pohlad's went this route in the mid-late 90's when they bottom 5 (if not the absolute bottom) almost every season. And it sucked. At least they are closer to the middle on spending now (at least before they lost Hunter/Santana in one offseason). I am not a fan of the Steinbrenner's since they can rebuild an entire starting rotation in one offseason (after making a big so-called commitment to their prospects). If they had the similar resources as other teams it would take several years. But I don't believe that baseball as a whole would have as strong of a product to put out there without the Yankees/Sox/others spending the way that they do.

I would much rather have a spending floor that you had to be higher than in order to be eligible for revenue sharing. The whole point of revenue sharing is to allow the small/mid market teams enough money to compete. If they think that they can be competitive without spending that money that is their choice but they shouldn't get that money.

[ayebatter]

Can't stand either side, I think we should make to spendies and cheapies play each other for the whole season.

[MikeeDee]

I wish Selig would have been the third choice.

[jake_harv88]

To give some context, I'm an orioles fan and voted for the spendies. I dont think it really matters what road you take as long as you make a legitimate effort to sport a contending team. I DO have a problem with teams like the pirates that blatantly cut their payroll to cash in on revenue sharing and then pocket that money instead of putting it towards the team. But I have a bigger problem with teams like the Yankees that essentially forget about their farm system and instead try to buy their teams. Teams in smaller market areas will never ever be able to do this, they simply dont make enough money and never will...

Personally I dont think the Red Sox fit the same mold as the Yankees. While the sox have an unusually high payroll they've become more of a talent producing team than a talent buying team. Youk, Lester, Pedroia have all become mainstays of their lineup and were brought up through their system. Even Beckett was traded for with talent from their system (hanley) and not bought like CC or AJ. The red sox have done an absolutely fantastic job of drafting and marketing their team, while the yankees have not IMO...

Again the beauty of baseball is that there are so many ways to win. I think as long as you are actually trying to win and not just trying to make money it doesn't really matter...