noseeum wrote:Pirates4Life wrote:In some ways, you're right. In others, not so much.
Payroll is a choice, but each team has a limit as to what they can spend that's dependent on how much revenue they generate.
If the Yankees generate $350 million in revenue and the Pirates generate $150 million (just throwing the numbers out there), it's unreasonable to expect both teams to spend the same amount on payroll. The Yankees have the payroll they have not because of Steinbrenner's wealth, but because of the amount of revenue they have at their disposal.
But by that logic, you'd be in a downward spiral. When your team stinks, your revenue goes down. If you continually cut spending as revenue drops, you'll be toast. You have to spend money to make money, so to speak. Make the right investments that will pay off.
Look at Ford. They're willing to lose BILLIONS a year to stay in the market. Insanely enough, that probably makes business sense for them in the long run.
Well, you have to make money to spend it. Owners don't dip into their own pockets to support their teams' payrolls.
I'm not saying that no money should be spent at the major league level, just that a lower revenue team HAS to spend more developing young talent so it all comes together for a short run. Then the players sign big contracts elsewhere when they can, or they're dealt for prospects and the cycle starts over. The good franchises consistently produce quality minor league talent so the major league roster stays strong. A large revenue doesn't have to do that, because they can spend enough money to just reload at the major league level.