ramble2 wrote:lesgrant wrote:What it all comes down to is the fact that most owners would rather pocket their profits instead of putting them back onto the field. Then they cry poverty (even though not a single owner is willing to open up their books for an independent audit) and vilify Steinbrenner for spending what they don’t want to spend. And of course fans parrot their owners and the media.
The only way that your team will be able to compete with the Yankees is if your fans stay at home and boycott your franchise until they sign some top tier talent. The Mets’ fans did just that and it resulted in the signing of Piazza (and others), eventually leading to a NL championship. Even though they lost to the Yanks in the WS, their franchise took a huge step forward.
I agree to an extent that some owners don't invest properly in their team. But that only describes a tiny majority of teams. The Yankees are a team that re-invest their money back into payroll and team development. But you are ignoring three facts: 1. Not all teams have equal revenue; 2. Baseball is structured in such a way that local revenue stays with local teams; 3. Local revenue is driven primarily by market size. Oakland's market is a fraction of the Yankees. Even if both teams were run equally efficiently and marketed equally effectively, there will be a huge differential in revenue produced.
I've mentioned this in other posts, but it's worth repeating. If you own a baseball team, it ought to be viewed first as an investment, and only secondly as a source of income. The real (monetary) payoff of owning a baseball team is when you sell it. MLB teams tend to be very good investments. Good owners ought to be willing to put most of their revenue back into the team to increase it's worth. It might even be worth putting in more money than is being generated in revenue, if you can get that money back.
But there is a limit. Very few people, even baseball owners, could afford to pay $20-$30 million more a year than is being generated. The problem is that there is easily this much discrepancy in revenue between teams. Personally, I'd like to see more aggressive sharing of local revenue. Teams with good management and committed owners will be rewarded. The problems of a salary cap are avoided. Large-market teams will still generate higher revenues, but the discrepancy won't be as great. Sharing local revenue is also fair, given that no team can exist without the other teams to play.
Nothing like this is going to happen until Bud is gone. Bud has too many conflicts of interest and not enough trust to make this happen.
I hear your point.
I only object on a couple of details.
First, every market will inevitably be a fraction of the New York market. That will never change. In fact, NYC is an essential market for any sports league because of its size. You need us.
Secondly, most teams that cry poverty are not in what could be considered small markets. The Bay area, for example, is not a small market. It is one of the top ten markets in the country, coming in somewhere around 6 or 7. The notion that you have no ability to compete with the Yankees, because of your pre-ordained market size, is false.
Thirdly, how do you know what your team can afford to spend and what it can’t? You are not privy to the financial ledger for any team in baseball. You only know what your owner tells you to know. You have no way of knowing, truly, what they can afford and what they can’t afford. They like it that way because it provides a built-in excuse and cover for them to pocket their revenues. There is no way for you to substantiate your team’s lack of money, thus its not even a valid position.