The Table Setter, Jan. 17, 2024: Jordan Montgomery, Blake Snell, and Cody Bellinger are in the Wrong Generation

[Riverbrian]

23 hours ago, roger said:

Suggest you do some fact checking, TopGunn.  The Minneapolis/St. Paul population you quote is for the MSP Metropolitan area.  Minneapolis, like Cincinnati has a population of 300,000 something.  To compare apples to apples, the greater Cincinnati area has a population of a bit over 2,000,000.

So yes, the Minneapolis metro population is larger than Cincy.  But Cincinnati has several other large cities within an easy drive, whereas Minneapolis does not.  Dayton (500,000+ metro population) and Columbus, which is also over 2,000,000, are both within an hour and a half drive.  Add Lexington, Ky (700,000 metro area population) which is an hour away and you have a significantly larger population who can easily go to Reds games than Minneapolis.

Agree 100% with your comments that the baseball revenue model ain't working and needs to be fixed.  As for the odds of that happening, expect that is unlikely.

EDIT:  Just did a stat check.  Within 125 miles, Minneapolis has a population of 5.2M, Cincinnati has over 12.0M.  More than double the Twins Cities.

Great post Roger!

You are spot on and if you are able to convince someone with your words (harder than it should be)... unfortunately there are 100 others that didn't hear or care to listen to what you just said. They will continue to look at DMA rankings, claim Minneapolis is 15th! and use that information to support a false narrative attacking the club for not spending 200 million a year on players. Cleaning up this false narrative is like trying to get all of the ice off of Lake Bemidji in January.   

REGIONAL sports network... REGIONAL! Beyond the city limits, Beyond the Designated Market Area. REGIONAL! 

There is a reason that Baltimore fought tooth and nail to keep the Expos out of Washington DC. There is a reason that the MLB baseball agreed that the Nationals would be broadcast on the same network that the Orioles broadcast on with the Orioles getting 77%. That way the Orioles still get revenue from DC and Northern Virginia. There is a reason that Seattle absolutely does not want a major league team in Portland. There is a reason that Atlanta will be against Nashville getting a franchise. There is a reason that San Francisco didn't want Oakland in San Jose. There is a reason that games for the Cubs, White Sox, Brewers, Cardinals, Royals and Twins are blacked out in IOWA.

REGIONAL sports networks are REGIONAL...  they are not just broadcasting to the 300,000 people in Cincinnati. 

A REGIONAL sports network... is going to extend beyond the Cincinnati borders, beyond the designated market area of Cincinnati. Cincinnati also gets Columbus, Louisville and Lexington. The Twins get Sioux Falls, Fargo, Rochester and Duluth. 

Anyway... I'm just adding to what was an excellent post by you.   

 

[Major League Ready]

19 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

And they stopped trying to win as soon as MLB took away their restrictions and made them a revenue sharing recipient again.

Details On The Athletics' Revenue-Sharing Status - MLB Trade Rumors

I presume your conclusion is they are only concerned about the bottom line.  If they were able to win without revenue sharing, why wouldn't they just pocket the extra money and keep on winning?  I don't doubt that every franchise is focus on profitability just as players are focused on maximizing their salary.  Winning generates more revenue so why would they not continue to operate as they had in order to maximize profitability?

I think it's more likely they were at the end of one of the many cycles this team has gone through which has also been the norm for all of the other teams in the bottom half of revenue.  The difference being a lot of the teams in the bottom half have very few winning years ever.   I put together the chart below after the 2022 season.  This shows overall win percentage and number of 90 win seasons for the bottom 10 teams compared to Oakland.  

[DJL44]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

I presume your conclusion is they are only concerned about the bottom line.  If they were able to win without revenue sharing, why wouldn't they just pocket the extra money and keep on winning?  I don't doubt that every franchise is focus on profitability just as players are focused on maximizing their salary.  Winning generates more revenue so why would they not continue to operate as they had in order to maximize profitability?

Trying to win costs money but it also brings in attendance. When the A's weren't able to receive revenue sharing they had no choice but to try to win to bring in attendance. When MLB gave them revenue sharing money they lost the incentive to win and instead focused on reducing payroll to get a guaranteed profit. When a team receives revenue sharing money any additional revenue through ticket sales and in-person attendance reduces the amount received. This is a financial disincentive to generate revenue locally.

It's a direct case study on economic incentives. It proves that MLB's revenue sharing formula needs to change to incentivize teams to increase local attendance. If not, teams like the Pirates and A's will be content to be the Washington Generals of MLB existing so the Dodgers and Yankees have someone to beat.

[TopGunn#22]

JD-Twins, Riverbrian and Roger, great insights and dialog.  I appreciate that each of you took the time to make your points and the even handed way that you made them.  I am a little bit smarter about this than I was yesterday.  It especially helps having JD comment as a resident of "The Natti."