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?

 

[oblong]

In the premiere league are the clubs also partners?  Or are they distinct?  What I mean is... it's really not in any team's interest for another club to not do well financially.  They're business partners.  The competition between MLB clubs is artificial.  It's not business competition the way it is between McDonald's and Burger King.  It's more like two corporate owned McDonald's competing with each other on who can sell the most french fries or milkshakes.. then they "win".  

 

[RedRamage]

48 minutes ago, buddha said:

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

 

I'm assuming your "why?" is in regards to my final statement:
Now, imho that range, even at the best of times when it was around 30%, is WAAAAYYYY too big of a gap.

What I'm saying here is that I don't think it's good for the league in general if there's big of a discrepancy between the high and low team payroll. I don't think good long term for fans when a number of teams are so very, very far below the others in payroll. It would be more interesting for the league, imho, if the teams were at least closer in terms of competitiveness. (And no, higher payroll does not automatically mean more even talent and more competitiveness, but it does go a long way towards that.)

Please two things here:
1. I am NOT saying that baseball players are getting too much money and owners should pay them less.
2. I am NOT saying that the big spenders are the only problem.

[chasfh]

17 minutes ago, oblong said:

In the premiere league are the clubs also partners?  Or are they distinct?  What I mean is... it's really not in any team's interest for another club to not do well financially.  They're business partners.  The competition between MLB clubs is artificial.  It's not business competition the way it is between McDonald's and Burger King.  It's more like two corporate owned McDonald's competing with each other on who can sell the most french fries or milkshakes.. then they "win".  

 

The Premier League—most pro soccer leagues, in fact, with at least one glaring American exception—is a purely capitalist enterprise. There is no revenue share for the purpose of keeping clubs afloat for the league, which makes sense, since the league has a different makeup of clubs every season.

But none of the lower leagues help keep their clubs afloat, either. Leagues don’t stress out when one of the clubs playing within is having existential financial troubles, since any failing sides are replaced with another side waiting in the wings. As such, as a purely capitalist venture, football clubs can and do “wind up”—meaning shut down and go out of business. Ten different clubs have wound up just in the last 35 years, and Reading FC is on the verge of doing so right now. 

[RedRamage]

Quote

but what about the mets?  they dont win ****.

True, but saying that one team spends a lot without winning isn't evidence that having the extensive funds to purchase talent doesn't give an advantage. 

Quote

everyone cries about small markets but what about the padres?  they spend money.

In the last six years, yes they have. Between 2001-2019 they've always been in the bottom half, and usually in the mid or low 20s. Regardless, the point here isn't that small markets can't spend more... they can and should be spending more! Rather the small market teams can't equal the amount the major market teams spend consistently. And what handouts are being given to them with the luxury tax aren't controlled in anyway to force them to use that to better their team.

Quote

what about the brewers?  cleveland?  detroit?

Are you saying these are small market teams that also spend? Honestly not sure if I'm understanding that right. If I am I'll run the numbers over the last 25 years for them as well. (For the record I don't consider Detroit really a small market.)

Quote

invest in your product if you want to win, either through paying higher end talent higher end salaries, or investing in its development.  simple.

My argument is that it's not that simple. I would agree that that is PART of the problem, yes, definitely. But only part. If you and I have a competition to see who can sell more magazine subscriptions but I'm allowed to talk to 10,000 people and you're only allowed to talk to 1,000 people, I'm probably going to sell more subscriptions, even if your sales pitch is better.

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

True, but saying that one team spends a lot without winning isn't evidence that having the extensive funds to purchase talent doesn't give an advantage. 

In the last six years, yes they have. Between 2001-2019 they've always been in the bottom half, and usually in the mid or low 20s. Regardless, the point here isn't that small markets can't spend more... they can and should be spending more! Rather the small market teams can't equal the amount the major market teams spend consistently. And what handouts are being given to them with the luxury tax aren't controlled in anyway to force them to use that to better their team.

Are you saying these are small market teams that also spend? Honestly not sure if I'm understanding that right. If I am I'll run the numbers over the last 25 years for them as well. (For the record I don't consider Detroit really a small market.)

My argument is that it's not that simple. I would agree that that is PART of the problem, yes, definitely. But only part. If you and I have a competition to see who can sell more magazine subscriptions but I'm allowed to talk to 10,000 people and you're only allowed to talk to 1,000 people, I'm probably going to sell more subscriptions, even if your sales pitch is better.

i dont really agree with any of this.

1) i disagree with the basic theory behind it, which appears to be that every team needs to be on an "equal playing field" or a "more equal playing field."  i believe you should be rewarded for success and punished for failure, not the american sports way, which is to reward failure (the ability to get the best young talent at an extremely cheap price) and punish success (the more you spend on labor, the more you have to pay a penalty).  so we will never agree because i value this more than you.

2) historically, teams that dont spend can also win.  the royals won.  the rays were in the world series.  the brewers and cleveland won divisions.  lower payroll teams can and DO compete.  and win!  the current system allows them to do so.  it does a really good job of it, quite frankly.

i dont care that small payroll teams dont win every year, or every other year, or even once every five years, but they DO WIN.  And they are in the playoffs every season, winning divisions over much higher payroll teams.

the yankees didnt win every year in the 80s, 90s, and 00s when they had the highest payroll and the dodgers likely wont win every single year either.  and even if they did, i'd be fine with it, just like i'm fine woth baseball in the 1950s when the yankees DID almost win every year.

3) higher payroll teams can make up for mistakes easier.  sure.  they can sign big, fancy free agents like juan soto, alex bregman, aaron judge, gerrit cole, or xander bogaerts that supposedly guaranteed championships but turned out not to. 

4) competing and not winning is ok.  sport is fun because it's sport.  and baseball is better when it has a villain to root against.  

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont really agree with any of this.

1) i disagree with the basic theory behind it, which appears to be that every team needs to be on an "equal playing field" or a "more equal playing field."  i believe you should be rewarded for success and punished for failure, not the american sports way, which is to reward failure (the ability to get the best young talent at an extremely cheap price) and punish success (the more you spend on labor, the more you have to pay a penalty).  so we will never agree because i value this more than you.

2) historically, teams that dont spend can also win.  the royals won.  the rays were in the world series.  the brewers and cleveland won divisions.  lower payroll teams can and DO compete.  and win!  the current system allows them to do so.  it does a really good job of it, quite frankly.

i dont care that small payroll teams dont win every year, or every other year, or even once every five years, but they DO WIN.  And they are in the playoffs every season, winning divisions over much higher payroll teams.

the yankees didnt win every year in the 80s, 90s, and 00s when they had the highest payroll and the dodgers likely wont win every single year either.  and even if they did, i'd be fine with it, just like i'm fine woth baseball in the 1950s when the yankees DID almost win every year.

3) higher payroll teams can make up for mistakes easier.  sure.  they can sign big, fancy free agents like juan soto, alex bregman, aaron judge, gerrit cole, or xander bogaerts that supposedly guaranteed championships but turned out not to. 

4) competing and not winning is ok.  sport is fun because it's sport.  and baseball is better when it has a villain to root against.  

One problem is that eveyone is so obsessed with winning championships that anything less than that is considered failure.  So, every year 29 teams fail and the average team wins a championship only once every 30 years.  

I alao agree that villains (teams that spend a lot of money and win more than other teams) are good for sports.  Every team having the same probability of winning each year would be boring.