Baseball Remains Broken

[SteveLV]

Mets payroll to eclipse $400M.  Owner doesn't care about all the "taxes" that are supposed to control spending.  Mets enjoy a rich owner and a massive TV contract in the largest media market.

NFL is the perfect model of a balanced league with parity.

MLB is the perfect model of an imbalanced league that destroys its fanbase.

Twins stuck in the middle of mediocrity for perpetuity until they actually fix these league-wide financial issues.

And, yes, you can give me your feel-good stories like how competitive the Rays are, but NO ONE can claim this is an even playing field for each team.  NO ONE.

The 2 NY teams, the 2 Texas teams, and the California teams should be booted out into their own league and let the rest play in a fair league with a hard cap, hard ceiling, and parity ala the NFL system.

Sermon over.

[Original_JB]

I know I'll get strung up, but if MLB refuses to get some sort of financial 'equality', maybe they should got to a format like English soccer (Premier/Championship League). Take the 30 AAA teams, add them to MLB, then keep the top (winning %) 24 teams up top, relegating the bottom 36 to the 'lower' league, and moving the top/bottom 3 of each up/down each season. If you look at the payrolls of the ESL, there is huge disparity from the top to the bottom, yet it seems to work. I'm sure there are a lot of owners who'd be fine being a big fish in the small pond (PIT, KC, CIN), and the no-cap teams can run wild to their hearts content. Yes, it would take a massive undertaking, but I think in the long run, it keeps the "game" accessible and relevant to more people cost-wise, yet doesn't constrict the amount of money owners can spend.

[Major League Ready]

Increasing the luxury tax furthered the divide.  It sure didn't seem like Twins fans were concerned about this back when it was being negotiated.  Everyone just wanted baseball and the result is the divide was widened.  I guess the good news is that the players did not get the reduction in revenue sharing the wanted.  From a player's perspective the big money contacts were always going to come from the largest markets so greater divide is good for the biggest name free agents.  What's good for the sport and what's good for ALL fans was not a pressing issue.

[theBOMisthebomb]

Yes, something must be done. San Diego already signed Fernando Flop-tis to a ridiculous contract a few years ago and now sign Xander Bogaerts to an 11 year, $280MM contract. While spending doesn't guarantee anything as far as championships, it sure creates an uneven playing field. Other major sports leagues have provided models for success that could be copied. It is nice that you know your NFL team has at least a puncher's chance going into every season to at least compete to get to the Super Bowl.  

[Vanimal46]

Steve Cohen said the luxury tax rules implemented specifically for him wouldn’t deter him from spending money. We’ll see how sustainable it is spending $2 in taxes for every $1 spent. 

[DJL44]

1 hour ago, theBOMisthebomb said:

Yes, something must be done. San Diego already signed Fernando Flop-tis to a ridiculous contract a few years ago and now sign Xander Bogaerts to an 11 year, $280MM contract. 

San Diego is not a large market team. They just prove that a lot of the spending "disparity" is team owners pocketing profits while refusing to spend money on their roster. Kudos to Cohen for spending money to try to win. Meanwhile, here's a picture of Pittsburgh owner Bob Nutting.

[Major League Ready]

4 hours ago, DJL44 said:

San Diego is not a large market team. They just prove that a lot of the spending "disparity" is team owners pocketing profits while refusing to spend money on their roster. Kudos to Cohen for spending money to try to win. Meanwhile, here's a picture of Pittsburgh owner Bob Nutting.

If you would take the time to look, you would find that payroll rank and revenue rank are very close for virtually every team when measured over a 10+ year timeframe.  IDK what SanDiego's owner is thinking but that is an extreme anomaly.  The fact that the top few teams have 2X the revenue of the bottom teams is by far more responsible for spending disparity.  Blaming profit taking when there is a $350M revenue disparity between top and bottom is analogous to calling a guy making $50K year cheap because he does not drive a vehicle that costs $150K.

What is always lost in this argument is that if all the owners were willing to spend every dime of profit, it would increase the disparity in spending ability even more.

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

What is always lost in this argument is that if all the owners were willing to spend every dime of profit, it would the disparity in spending ability even more.

In my opinion, Everybody needs to think about what you typed here. Insert "Increase" where you meant it to go and then think about it. ?

I believe you are 100% correct. 

Here is another way to look at it. In theory, if the Twins could/should increase spending like those who are begging for this think they should. The same would also have to be true for the Rockies, Brewers, Royals, Orioles ETC.

So... What happens when every team increases spending? Let's say the Pirates are now in on Aaron Judge. 

There are only so many top end free agents to go around. Not every team is going to get one. Now In order to increase that spending you are now paying more for the next level and the level below that ETC. The players union would love this and this is exactly what they were trying to sell us when "tanking" was used every other word during that work stoppage social media marketing blitz. 

OK... so there are less free agents to go around. That's understandable. Well.. then couldn't the Twins and Rockies be more able to keep their top guys by extending them to the deals that will keep them. Well... if that happens... now you have even less top end free agents to choose from because Juan Soto doesn't reach free agency.  

What we are really asking when we ask the Pohlad family to blow the dust off that wallet is for the Twins to spend more and for the Brewers and Orioles to continue not spending more because if the Brewers and Orioles join us. We are still looking at the same level of free agents to choose from. 

We want the advantage for ourselves. 

[Major League Ready]

43 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

In my opinion, Everybody needs to think about what you typed here. Insert "Increase" where you meant it to go and then think about it. ?

I believe you are 100% correct. 

Here is another way to look at it. In theory, if the Twins could/should increase spending like those who are begging for this think they should. The same would also have to be true for the Rockies, Brewers, Royals, Orioles ETC.

So... What happens when every team increases spending? Let's say the Pirates are now in on Aaron Judge. 

There are only so many top end free agents to go around. Not every team is going to get one. Now In order to increase that spending you are now paying more for the next level and the level below that ETC. The players union would love this and this is exactly what they were trying to sell us when "tanking" was used every other word during that work stoppage social media marketing blitz. 

OK... so there are less free agents to go around. That's understandable. Well.. then couldn't the Twins and Rockies be more able to keep their top guys by extending them to the deals that will keep them. Well... if that happens... now you have even less top end free agents to choose from because Juan Soto doesn't reach free agency.  

What we are really asking when we ask the Pohlad family to blow the dust off that wallet is for the Twins to spend more and for the Brewers and Orioles to continue not spending more because if the Brewers and Orioles join us. We are still looking at the same level of free agents to choose from. 

We want the advantage for ourselves. 

That was a typo.  I fixed it in the original post.  Thanks for clarifying.  You hit this one dead center in the bullseye.  The only way to change the disparity is if our owner is the only owner or one of 2-3 willing to operate at break-even or a loss.  Even in that case, the top teams would still have a $300M advantage.  The premise that the problem is owner profits is incredibly misguided.  The parties fighting to increase the spending disparity (luxury tax) and against revenue sharing is the players association.  

[Riverbrian]

1 hour ago, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I’m not liking how wide the gap between the haves and have nots has grown. How many teams realistically can even sign any of these big FA’s?

From a player-perspective, don’t let the top end guys be involved so heavily in the negotiations as they leave out the lower tier guys.  From an owner-perspective, adopt the NFL model.  It’s fair for all markets while still making a ton of money for the owners.

They can sign them. They just can't afford to be wrong when they do. 

Baseball won't be fully healthy until there is hope in Pittsburgh. 

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

That was a typo.  I fixed it in the original post.  Thanks for clarifying.  You hit this one dead center in the bullseye.  The only way to change the disparity is if our owner is the only owner or one of 2-3 willing to operate at break-even or a loss.  Even in that case, the top teams would still have a $300M advantage.  The premise that the problem is owner profits is incredibly misguided.  The parties fighting to increase the spending disparity (luxury tax) and against revenue sharing is the players association.  

A disparity is a disparity. 

[Parfigliano]

10 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

Increasing the luxury tax furthered the divide.  It sure didn't seem like Twins fans were concerned about this back when it was being negotiated.  Everyone just wanted baseball and the result is the divide was widened.  I guess the good news is that the players did not get the reduction in revenue sharing the wanted.  From a player's perspective the big money contacts were always going to come from the largest markets so greater divide is good for the biggest name free agents.  What's good for the sport and what's good for ALL fans was not a pressing issue.

Never has been.

[ChermesZ]

15 minutes ago, Parfigliano said:

Never has been.

And at one point, they were more popular than football.  They have actually been resistant to change the most.

[Riverbrian]

47 minutes ago, bap3141 said:

Has all hope already been lost in Oakland?  Man... how they have fallen. 

There was the one month in 2014 when they had some hope. 

[Vanimal46]

4 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

In my opinion, Everybody needs to think about what you typed here. Insert "Increase" where you meant it to go and then think about it. ?

I believe you are 100% correct. 

Here is another way to look at it. In theory, if the Twins could/should increase spending like those who are begging for this think they should. The same would also have to be true for the Rockies, Brewers, Royals, Orioles ETC.

So... What happens when every team increases spending? Let's say the Pirates are now in on Aaron Judge. 

There are only so many top end free agents to go around. Not every team is going to get one. Now In order to increase that spending you are now paying more for the next level and the level below that ETC. The players union would love this and this is exactly what they were trying to sell us when "tanking" was used every other word during that work stoppage social media marketing blitz. 

OK... so there are less free agents to go around. That's understandable. Well.. then couldn't the Twins and Rockies be more able to keep their top guys by extending them to the deals that will keep them. Well... if that happens... now you have even less top end free agents to choose from because Juan Soto doesn't reach free agency.  

What we are really asking when we ask the Pohlad family to blow the dust off that wallet is for the Twins to spend more and for the Brewers and Orioles to continue not spending more because if the Brewers and Orioles join us. We are still looking at the same level of free agents to choose from. 

We want the advantage for ourselves. 

During my time at TD I’ve seen this topic surface over and over again. And this is the best explanation I’ve read in a long time. Kudos to you. 

[Vanimal46]

For the record I do think it’s frustrating that there are 10 teams who can theoretically overpay every free agent they want. The Dodgers prove time and time again that they can write off a bad $30 million investment like David Price and nothing changes. 

I don’t think there’s truly a system that would create an even playing field. In the NBA with a cap and even revenue sharing, star free agent players still choose to play in big cities like LA, NY, Boston, Bay Area (golden state) etc. The only chance the Timberwolves have at being a contender is lucking out with a #1 overall pick or 3, and mortgaging the future trading 5 1st round picks for Rudy Gobert. 

There’s a little more parity in the NFL, but that comes with sheer numbers needed to fill a team, injuries, etc. Players are getting more of a voice in the league and a few have forced their way out of a team to a better situation. 

Frankly, in MLB the fans that should be furious are teams that could be in the top 10 of spending and instead going cheap. The Cubs are crying poor right now and it makes no sense. You’re an iconic franchise and the Ricketts are acting like they’re a mid market team. Boston Red Sox if you haven’t noticed are becoming increasingly cheap too. 

[DJL44]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

If you would take the time to look, you would find that payroll rank and revenue rank are very close for virtually every team when measured over a 10+ year timeframe. 

Which is exactly how MLB wants it. MLB makes the most money when the largest market teams are the winningest teams. It would be terrible for MLB financially if the Yankees were irrelevant and the Brewers were a dynasty.

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Which is exactly how MLB wants it. MLB makes the most money when the largest market teams are the winningest teams. It would be terrible for MLB financially if the Yankees were irrelevant and the Brewers were a dynasty.

No doubt that's part of the reason why the disparity is tolerated but it was the players pushing for a higher Luxury tax threshold.  They even wanted a reduction in revenue sharing so let's acknowledge the facts instead of putting this on the league / owners by default.

[Riverbrian]

8 hours ago, DJL44 said:

Which is exactly how MLB wants it. MLB makes the most money when the largest market teams are the winningest teams. It would be terrible for MLB financially if the Yankees were irrelevant and the Brewers were a dynasty.

I think national programming would prefer to just keep their broadcast equipment in New York and Los Angeles because there are more viewers in those markets and the game is regional.  

With 162 games on the schedule. The game is always competing against itself. Oregon isn't going to watch the Yankees and Red Sox on Fox when the Mariners game is on. It's a regional game so I wouldn't confuse what Fox and ESPN need in order to charge a little more for advertising and think that the Owners want those pennies in the dollar world they are playing in.    

There are more people in the United States than there are in New York City. National interest improves if Idaho and Mississippi give a ****. If the Owners want the wealth concentrated in NY and LA while neglecting the rest of the country... that would make them idiots, they are not idiots.

Besides why would the Pirates, Royals, Twins slit their own throat and vote to give everything to NY and LA. 

[dxpavelka]

On 12/11/2022 at 7:06 AM, SteveLV said:

Mets payroll to eclipse $400M.  Owner doesn't care about all the "taxes" that are supposed to control spending.  Mets enjoy a rich owner and a massive TV contract in the largest media market.

NFL is the perfect model of a balanced league with parity.

MLB is the perfect model of an imbalanced league that destroys its fanbase.

Twins stuck in the middle of mediocrity for perpetuity until they actually fix these league-wide financial issues.

And, yes, you can give me your feel-good stories like how competitive the Rays are, but NO ONE can claim this is an even playing field for each team.  NO ONE.

The 2 NY teams, the 2 Texas teams, and the California teams should be booted out into their own league and let the rest play in a fair league with a hard cap, hard ceiling, and parity ala the NFL system.

Sermon over.

Totally agree but how would you like to be the Vikings.  You play in a leageu with the perfect model of a balanced league with parity.  And yet you're stuck in the middle of mediocrity for perpetuity until you actually fix your QB situation.  At least the Twins MIGHT sign Correa.  Or trade for Omar Narvaez.

[Riverbrian]

8 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

No doubt that's part of the reason why the disparity is tolerated but it was the players pushing for a higher Luxury tax threshold.  They even wanted a reduction in revenue sharing so let's acknowledge the facts instead of putting this on the league / owners by default.

In my opinion, there are no heroes in this.

The owners are doing alright. There would be no shortage of potential buyers if one of the woe-is-me franchises went up for sale.

This is two big boys fighting over the division of our money. As fans, we have all the control because we provide what they are fighting over. Yet with all that control, we are powerless because we are kept splintered as we are influenced. We blame the owners, We blame the players. We never look in the mirror. 

We are to blame. We allow this. The fighting would stop quick if we'd stop quick.  

[mikelink45]

In the last 10 years the Royals twice, Rays and Guardians once were in the World Series.  There is the chance which is what keeps us hoping and watching, but the watered down playoffs is so we can imagine all these teams have a chance.  But in that 10 years the Dodgers have been in three world series - the Yankees zero.  

I would like a salary cap but you can forget that.  If I was in Oakland or Pittsburgh I would forget baseball exists. 

But the issue for the rest of the league is building teams instead of stars.  Create all around talent - spread the dollars so that the floor is raised.  That is all that they can do.  Spending big for one free agent does not raise the team level.

Yes it is broken, but imagine the span in the 1950s when the Yankees were in 9 WS and there was no free agency.  The answers to fixing this sport are complex, but needed. 

[Major League Ready]

57 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

In my opinion, there are no heroes in this.

The owners are doing alright. There would be no shortage of potential buyers if one of the woe-is-me franchises went up for sale.

This is two big boys fighting over the division of our money. As fans, we have all the control because we provide what they are fighting over. Yet with all that control, we are powerless because we are kept splintered as we are influenced. We blame the owners, We blame the players. We never look in the mirror. 

We are to blame. We allow this. The fighting would stop quick if we'd stop quick.  

I don't disagree with your sentiment but it's easy to generalize and lose sight of specifics relative to how the disparity grew.  The fact that the owners are doing well is always the retort.  Is that relevant in the context of negotiating terms that widen the gap. It was very clear during the last CBA that it was the players holding out for a substantial increase in the luxury tax.   They even started with pushing for a reduction in revenue sharing.  So, when we talk about greed, they had no regard for fans or parity while framing their position as being about parity.  We should all be insulted they thought we are that dumb. 

[Major League Ready]

34 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

In the last 10 years the Royals twice, Rays and Guardians once were in the World Series.  There is the chance which is what keeps us hoping and watching, but the watered down playoffs is so we can imagine all these teams have a chance.  But in that 10 years the Dodgers have been in three world series - the Yankees zero.  

I would like a salary cap but you can forget that.  If I was in Oakland or Pittsburgh I would forget baseball exists. 

But the issue for the rest of the league is building teams instead of stars.  Create all around talent - spread the dollars so that the floor is raised.  That is all that they can do.  Spending big for one free agent does not raise the team level.

Yes it is broken, but imagine the span in the 1950s when the Yankees were in 9 WS and there was no free agency.  The answers to fixing this sport are complex, but needed. 

Since the turn of the century, the top 3 teams in revenue (Yankees / Dodgers / Red Sox) have won 90 or more games a combined 39 times.  The Reds / Brewers / Rockies / Orioles / Pirates / Marlins / Padres / Royals have combined for 16 seasons with 90 or more wins.   An average of two 90 win seasons in the past 23 seasons. The A's / Rays and Guardians have been by far the best among the revenue challenged teams with a combined 28 seasons with 90 or more wins. Their largest free agent contracts in the history of these franchises are $30M / $40M and $60M. 

These teams have excelled by trading off their expensive (established) players for prospects and players just starting their ML careers.  A cap would have required them to abandon the strategies that have made them successful.  When our Minnesota teams were out of contention we did not want mediocre vets taking playing time from players that could possibly be part of the future.  Fans love the idea of making owners spend but I bet we would feel a lot differently if we had to give a couple of mediocre veteran players playing time in front of players who could be part of the solution.

[DJL44]

11 hours ago, Major League Ready said:

No doubt that's part of the reason why the disparity is tolerated but it was the players pushing for a higher Luxury tax threshold.  They even wanted a reduction in revenue sharing so let's acknowledge the facts instead of putting this on the league / owners by default.

This is because they know a stricter luxury tax and higher revenue sharing leads to less money for the players. The cheapskate teams won't spend with all the revenue sharing in the world and the teams that want to spend are restricted.

Edit: The cheapest teams might actually spend more with less revenue sharing. Then they would have to turn to local revenue sources to make money. That means putting a decent baseball team on the field.

[DJL44]

2 hours ago, Riverbrian said:

There are more people in the United States than there are in New York City. National interest improves if Idaho and Mississippi give a ****. If the Owners want the wealth concentrated in NY and LA while neglecting the rest of the country... that would make them idiots, they are not idiots.

Besides why would the Pirates, Royals, Twins slit their own throat and vote to give everything to NY and LA. 

There is a lot more money in NY than there is in Idaho.

Revenue sharing means the Pirates are guaranteed a handsome profit simply by existing. They get more revenue sharing money when the large market teams do well.

Each new ballpark that is built has a smaller capacity than the one it replaced because selling bleacher seats is not how they make money. TV shows like SNL or the Tonight Show don't make money off their studio audience.

[Major League Ready]

18 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

This is because they know a stricter luxury tax and higher revenue sharing leads to less money for the players. The cheapskate teams won't spend with all the revenue sharing in the world and the teams that want to spend are restricted.

Edit: The cheapest teams might actually spend more with less revenue sharing. Then they would have to turn to local revenue sources to make money. That means putting a decent baseball team on the field.

Perhaps but is it possible the owners of the league are interested in growing or even maintaining interest in the game in all markets.  The motivation is still financial gain but what do I care if Billionaire owners or players making $100s of millions get more money?  I am interested in reducing or at least maintaining the current disparity in revenue for our mid-market team.

Will the small markets spend the money.  IDK for sure but the Twins spent more when their revenue went up.  Actually, again, why should we care if Pittsburgh spends the money.   A smaller increase in the luxury tax still reduced the disparity for our team as does an increase in revenue sharing.   The player's interests clearly did not align with the fans of mid-market teams during the last CBA.   Do we just want to hate rich people so much that we don't want them to succeed even when their interests align with our interest in greater parity?

[Major League Ready]

23 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

There is a lot more money in NY than there is in Idaho.

Revenue sharing means the Pirates are guaranteed a handsome profit simply by existing. They get more revenue sharing money when the large market teams do well.

Each new ballpark that is built has a smaller capacity than the one it replaced because selling bleacher seats is not how they make money. TV shows like SNL or the Tonight Show don't make money off their studio audience.

IMO, and some baseball writers touched on this last CBA, this was misrepresented.  Yes, some teams made profits while rebuilding.  However, there are many clear examples that illustrate the best way for a small or even mid-market team to rebuild is to trade away all of their established / expensive players for prospects and then give young players playing time that would have gone to these players. 

Houston was down to a $40M payroll.  Cleveland traded away Clevinger and Kluber who did nothing after they traded them and got Own Miller / Ahmed Rosario / Andres Gimenez / Myles Straw / Ahmed Rosario / Cal Quantrill and Emmanuel Clause.  Now that they have established those players they added Josh Bell.  They spent their money on a very productive extension with Jose Rameriz who produces equal or great WAR to Correa for 60% of the cost.  Using players that produced more than 1.5 WAR 49% of their WAR came from players acquired as prospects.

Tampa and Oakland have followed similar strategies.  They simply can't play in the high-end free agent game because that type of free agent does not produce enough WAR per dollar spent for them to be successful.  Would they spend the money if revenue sharing went up an extra $30M?  IDK.  My guess is they would funnel it into extensions like Ramirez / Franco when they have those opportunities which is not going to be every year.  I would also guess Tampa and Oakland would spend it if they had it.  There are a couple teams like Pittsburgh and Cleveland who are just reluctant to spend.  The point being tearing it down to the studs and playing prospects has proven to be the best way to rebuild a team.  It also happens to be profitable but that seems to be getting more focus than how small market teams have been successful.  

[Riverbrian]

2 hours ago, DJL44 said:

There is a lot more money in NY than there is in Idaho.

Revenue sharing means the Pirates are guaranteed a handsome profit simply by existing. They get more revenue sharing money when the large market teams do well.

Each new ballpark that is built has a smaller capacity than the one it replaced because selling bleacher seats is not how they make money. TV shows like SNL or the Tonight Show don't make money off their studio audience.

There is indeed a lot more money in NY than Idaho.

There is a lot more money in the rest of the country than there is NY.

If NY and LA are being over fed... are you going to get anything more out of NY and LA when it's stuffed to the gills? Where is your growth opportunity? 

The answer is everywhere that is not NY and LA. Baseball needs hope in Pittsburgh, in Kansas City, In Milwaukee, In Cleveland, In Minnesota.

Supply side economics... feed the big boys and let little bits of money trickle down to the little boys.

Feed the horses and the flies will eat to... is another way to put it.    

    

[Muppet]

I could care less about the disparity between rich teams and not-so-rich teams. I could probably be persuaded to care but it is not my main annoyance with baseball. The bigger problem to me is almost completely inaccessible to common people like myself. As a human of the modern era, I don't subscribe to any cable TV channel, so therefore, I am not allowed to watch any baseball games unless I hike up to a bar, or go spend a few hundred dollars on a couple of seats and a few beers at Target Field. My kids will never (or very rarely) see the Twins on TV. They don't even get the thrill of tuning into any random game on TV to watch random teams that happen to be on TV play other random teams, thus getting a glimpse at superstars from distant lands. 

Now baseball is essentially identical to Dungeons and Dragons. My computer shows me that Byron Buxton is up. He has a charisma of 8, a constitution of 1, speed of 10, intelligence of 8. The pitcher throws the ball. Roll the 20 sided die. 1-5 strike. 6-10 ball, 11-15 out, 16-20 in play no out. Oh good. I rolled a 17. Roll the 20 sided die again.  1-4 single. 5-10 double, etc.... 

They could literally have a computer simulation play all the games for me and I wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. If it weren't for the nerds, baseball would soon go the way of polo.