How would you setup a fair and balanced financial plan for MLB?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

bring back the reserve clause!  screw you, curt flood.  you ruined everything.

✅ - now yer talkin!

[RedRamage]

15 hours ago, buddha said:

there's nothing to fix.  baseball's system aint broken.

Obviously this is subjective based on what you want a league to look like or how it should function.

To me it's broken. It's become a pay to win league. If you have more money coming in you can buy the best players and you're more likely to win. Some of that "more money" is because you're putting a better product out there and so you get more fans. But a large part is also that major cities have more people so even if a smaller percentage in general are fans, you still have much more money coming in.

On the flip side, way too many small market teams aren't even trying, and that's just as bad, if not worse.

For the fun of it I looked at the last 25 years of World Series. I checked the two teams that made it and where their payroll ranked for that year using this site: https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

Over the last 25 years, of the 50 participates, 38 of the teams were in the upper half of payroll for the year they made it to the WS. 15 of those 38 were in the top 5. Only 12 out of 50 of the teams were in the lower half of payroll in the year they appeared. Only 1 time in the last 25 years have we had a WS that featured two teams that were BOTH on the lower half of payroll.

[RedRamage]

Just for the fun of it, while I was looking at those numbers for my previous post, I also looked at the lowest MLB payroll as a percentage of the highest:

I expected to see much more of a downward trend, but it it looks like it's stay semi-consistent. I mean, obviously there's a lot of fluctuation year to year, but for the past 25 years, with a few exceptions, it's always been between 10 and 30%.

Now, imho that range, even at the best of times when it was around 30%, is WAAAAYYYY too big of a gap.

[chasfh]

To be fair, baseball was a pay to win league well before the free agency era. The Yankees and Cardinals paid big money for decades so they could win. Some of the money they spent even went to players.

[buddha]

3 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Obviously this is subjective based on what you want a league to look like or how it should function.

To me it's broken. It's become a pay to win league. If you have more money coming in you can buy the best players and you're more likely to win. Some of that "more money" is because you're putting a better product out there and so you get more fans. But a large part is also that major cities have more people so even if a smaller percentage in general are fans, you still have much more money coming in.

On the flip side, way too many small market teams aren't even trying, and that's just as bad, if not worse.

For the fun of it I looked at the last 25 years of World Series. I checked the two teams that made it and where their payroll ranked for that year using this site: https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

Over the last 25 years, of the 50 participates, 38 of the teams were in the upper half of payroll for the year they made it to the WS. 15 of those 38 were in the top 5. Only 12 out of 50 of the teams were in the lower half of payroll in the year they appeared. Only 1 time in the last 25 years have we had a WS that featured two teams that were BOTH on the lower half of payroll.

none of that is a problem for me.  you have to pay talent, or replenish your talent by turning your expensive assets into less expensive but more valuable assets.  you have almost the entire prime years of a player's development at below market cost, the fact that you have to pay them over market cost for their final years is not always a good thing, but is rather a choice. 

everyone cries about the dodgers, but what about the mets?  they dont win ****.  everyone cries about small markets but what about the padres?  they spend money.  small markets cant compete with small payrolls?  what about the brewers?  cleveland?  detroit?

so what that more teams with higher investment in a certain type of product (older declining players) win more games?  i see no problem with that.  its ALWAYS been that way in baseball.  to me, it should be more like that in other sports too.  invest in your product if you want to win, either through paying higher end talent higher end salaries, or investing in its development.  simple.  salary caps are ways for owners not to spend on their product.

this american sports obsession with "every team having an equal chance to win a championship every year" is uniquely american and, in my opinion, unnecessary to enjoynent of the sport.

[buddha]

3 hours ago, RedRamage said:

Just for the fun of it, while I was looking at those numbers for my previous post, I also looked at the lowest MLB payroll as a percentage of the highest:

I expected to see much more of a downward trend, but it it looks like it's stay semi-consistent. I mean, obviously there's a lot of fluctuation year to year, but for the past 25 years, with a few exceptions, it's always been between 10 and 30%.

Now, imho that range, even at the best of times when it was around 30%, is WAAAAYYYY too big of a gap.

why?  baseball owners are billionaires, why shouldnt they have to pay the product?