Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias? - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Who does more harm?

The Cheapies.
20
53%
The Spendies.
18
47%
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby neoforce » Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:29 pm

Amazinz wrote:
My problem with it is that I think baseball has some dark days looming on the horizon. The interest in baseball seems to be dwindling with each generation here in the U.S. The international market is offsetting it to some degree but not enough in my opinion. This is not entirely the fault of baseball's system. Attention spans seem to be dwindling with each generation as well. I don't think that making the Pirates or Royals good teams matters for the long term health of baseball but I do think that creating the perception of parity would go a long way toward reinvigorating the fan bases of many teams. This would be a good thing for the long term health of the game.


I agree with your general point, that interest in baseball is dwindling. I agree parity would be better for the game, but to me that isn't necessarily something they can control either because of the strength and mindset of the union. Many other factors (like changing attention spans) as you say are also out of control of the game. What really bothers me is that some of the things they do control they ignore.

My favorite pet peeve is the way most games in the off season and all of the world series have to be night games. They are maximizing short term profits at the expense of long term. Since less kids can watch the games, mostly it is the kids of true die hard fans who also become fans. It is becoming less and less likely for the kid who is a casual fan to fall in love with the game.

It is like a farmer selling their seed corn. Yes, they would make more money that season, but then what do they do in the future?
There are a few things with the New York Yankees that never change. That's pride, tradition, and most of all, we have the greatest fans in the world. -Derek Jeter, 9/21/08 -- last words from old Yankee Stadium
neoforce
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Eagle Eye
Posts: 1128
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:22 pm

kab21 wrote:
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
UGH. No caps. No floors. Revenue sharing, if there is no other way to make relatively equivalent market opportunities, is a reasonable way to level the playing field. The best revenue sharing arrangements would bear no relationship to payroll, but would share league generated revenues in ways to offset natural market advantages. Caps and floors simply add unnecessary distortions, resulting in bizarre and arcane player decisions and contract structures.


I'm in favor of soft caps and soft floors not a hard cap like the NFL. If you want to exceed it then you'll contribute more to revenue sharing (like the luxury tax). If you don't want to spend any money then you shouldn't get revenue sharing.

Spending money can be quantified by some combo of MLB salaries, draft bonuses and intl bonuses. There are other ways to spend money and improve your team (improve MiLB facilities and coaching as one example) but those 3 make up most of the costs and ways to improve a team.


But, why base the revenue sharing on payroll? What you want to address is the underlying difference in the market revenue potential of a place like KC compared to NYC, and sharing revenue based on payroll behavior is just an ineffective method. There are reasonable approaches to assessing the market revenue potential in each area, and then the best revenue sharing approach takes league shared revenues (like those from national TV, advanced media, etc.) and splits them to the teams to even out those differences in local market potential. You even out revenues, while not providing any negative labor market effects.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:25 pm

Yoda wrote:This is not realistic but if you contract to 20 teams then the quality of the game will go way up. Also reduce the number of games and charge more per game so they are more meaningful. And no guaranteed contracts. I'll bet people will watch it more.


A lot fewer people will pay attention to it in the 10 markets you just contracted.

More people watched baseball in the last two years than any other time in history. Minor league attendance has boomed. College baseball attendance as boomed. International growth in baseball is booming. What reality are you guys watching??
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:43 pm

J35J wrote:Well, whatever you guys are talking about. The favorite sport between NFL and MLB in the publics eye.


Well, as I've said, popular has many parts. More Americans say that football is their favorite sport. More Americans attend MLB games than NFL games. Americans spend about the same amount of money on MLB as on the NFL. Worldwide, more nations and more people play and watch baseball than American football. In terms of NetRatings, MLB and NFL have been similar in terms of annual traffic and advertising revenues.

To assess a sport's popularity based on one poll of one country's population misses a lot, imo.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby kab21 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
But, why base the revenue sharing on payroll? What you want to address is the underlying difference in the market revenue potential of a place like KC compared to NYC, and sharing revenue based on payroll behavior is just an ineffective method. There are reasonable approaches to assessing the market revenue potential in each area, and then the best revenue sharing approach takes league shared revenues (like those from national TV, advanced media, etc.) and splits them to the teams to even out those differences in local market potential. You even out revenues, while not providing any negative labor market effects.


We're talking two different things. I've said nothing about the distribution of revenue sharing but simply eliminating some of the teams from the equation that aren't investing a minimum amount into their organization. How they distribute revenue sharing is a ridiculously complicated process in itself.
kab21
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 5340
(Past Year: 170)
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:08 pm

kab21 wrote:
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
But, why base the revenue sharing on payroll? What you want to address is the underlying difference in the market revenue potential of a place like KC compared to NYC, and sharing revenue based on payroll behavior is just an ineffective method. There are reasonable approaches to assessing the market revenue potential in each area, and then the best revenue sharing approach takes league shared revenues (like those from national TV, advanced media, etc.) and splits them to the teams to even out those differences in local market potential. You even out revenues, while not providing any negative labor market effects.


We're talking two different things. I've said nothing about the distribution of revenue sharing but simply eliminating some of the teams from the equation that aren't investing a minimum amount into their organization. How they distribute revenue sharing is a ridiculously complicated process in itself.


Well, now you have me really confused. I think you wrote: "If you want to exceed it then you'll contribute more to revenue sharing (like the luxury tax). If you don't want to spend any money then you shouldn't get revenue sharing."

I understood that to be a comment on the distribution of revenue sharing.

My point is really simple. Basing revenue sharing on whether or not a team exceeds a payroll level is misguided. It attacks a symptom rather than the problem. The fundamental problem is the differential in revenue potential across the markets. Revenue sharing based upon market fundamentals rather than payroll behavior is a far superior solution to the problem.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby jake_harv88 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:18 pm

how could this possibly have turned into an 8 page thread? :-?
jake_harv88
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 2021
(Past Year: 24)
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Cafe of Fantasies

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:25 pm

jake_harv88 wrote:how could this possibly have turned into an 8 page thread? :-?


Because my semesters coming to an end, so I have more time to post :)

Don't worry, I have to go visit my mother-in-law in 4 days, and she's got no internet. I'll be reduced to trying to make excuses to head to Starbucks or something.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby kab21 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:39 pm

GotowarMissAgnes wrote:
Well, now you have me really confused. I think you wrote: "If you want to exceed it then you'll contribute more to revenue sharing (like the luxury tax). If you don't want to spend any money then you shouldn't get revenue sharing."

I understood that to be a comment on the distribution of revenue sharing.

My point is really simple. Basing revenue sharing on whether or not a team exceeds a payroll level is misguided. It attacks a symptom rather than the problem. The fundamental problem is the differential in revenue potential across the markets. Revenue sharing based upon market fundamentals rather than payroll behavior is a far superior solution to the problem.


If your market doesn't support a mimimal expenditure then you should be moved or contracted. I'm not suggesting that the minimum to qualify for revenue sharing be 80M (MLB, draft and intl combined). I'm suggesting that it be 40 or 50M (just a quick number, maybe higher/lower) so that a team (let's call them the Marlins) can't cut payroll to 15M in their famous fire sales (strangely this has worked for them). And if they do want to slash payroll that low then they shouldn't get subsidized by the other teams by getting 10 or 20 or 30M (I have no idea how much revenue sharing distributes to each club).

It's a soft cap/floor that if teams choose to exceed/not meet they are free to if they don't mind the consequences. How the revenue sharing is distributed to the majority of teams above the soft floor is a different discussion.
kab21
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 5340
(Past Year: 170)
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Who does more harm: the Steinbrenners or the Lorias?

Postby GotowarMissAgnes » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:59 pm

The fact is that you will never be able to equalize market revenue potential to have enough competitive metro markets unless you are willing to be 4 or 5 teams in the NYC area. Barring that, you need to use general league revenues to even out markets, or else accept that your league is going to be reduced to about half its current size.

But, you are still attacking the symptom, rather than the problem. First, if the Marlin strategy works, why try to discourage it? Hell, I'd much prefer the Oriole ownership gut the team for 2 years so they can take a shot at the World Series than endure the current streak of mediocrity.

But, if you are concerned that team's will not try to compete, then you tie shared revenues to performance. Markets with less revenue potential get subsidized, but the size of the subsidy depends on their history of successfully using those funds to compete.
"I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to chase it."
GotowarMissAgnes
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy Expert
Posts: 5516
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Happy Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zepfan and 13 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Tuesday, Oct. 21
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Francisco at Kansas City
(8:07 pm)

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