The Yankees, the Dodgers, Payroll's Relationship to Winning, and What It Means as Twins Face Ownership Changes

[Mike Sixel]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I'm not suggesting they aren't making money. They're very good at making money clearly. That doesn't mean they're good at running a baseball team. Nor do I feel bad for the owners from smaller markets who make a little bit less money. 

And I'm happy the players are pushing for those things. Paul Skenes getting away from Pittsburgh is good for baseball. Not because Pittsburgh sucks. I actually really like Pittsburgh. But because Pittsburghs owner cares only about making money. I am for the redistribution of wealth from the **** owners to the players. 100%

I'm for forced removal of wealth from the owners if we're being completely honest, but that's sadly not on the table. 

I endorse this post.

[old nurse]

There is a math problem and a perception problem here. The perception problem is that it would only be short term the owner would be contributing their money. The Miami Marlins come to mind as a team that had very good success with short term spending but zero success in sustainability of that success or even getting fans interested. Thinking that a short term invest is going to work has not been shown. 

Being in the top 10 payrolls would have meant an increase in payroll of 90 million. No billionaire has ever sustained those kinds of losses.  The increased fans less the revenue share portion, less the costs associated with having more fans might not even pay for the increased payroll taxes.  Thank the OP for the grim reality that it is useless for the billionaire to spend  only a little more on payroll 

[Major League Ready]

12 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Sounds like it's the pohlads fault for owning the team for 40 years yet still suck at producing revenue. Thank God they're selling. 

There are only like 3 teams that are actually in a really difficult situation (Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cincinnati). Minnesota is nowhere near a small market team but a lot of fans have bought the BS argument anyways. 

You have completely changed the context of the discussion.  The discussion was revenue disparity in the league.  Let's just forget about the Twins.  Do the Dodgers have double the revenue of the other 14 teams in the bottom half of revenue or not?  

[Major League Ready]

11 hours ago, bean5302 said:

and 50% of the revenue of the top teams goes to the bottom half, some of whom have built that welfare check right into their budget (Tampa Bay Rays) Look at the NFL and compare it to MLB in terms of teams which make the playoffs. 

In any case, you just said the top teams get the least amount of WAR from free agency? There are different models to building teams in MLB.

I have no idea what this has to do with my post.   You posted teams who "pushed" their spending to literally half of what the Dodgers and Yankees are spending and suggested there is not a problem.  You want to see what you want to see.  

[Major League Ready]

13 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I'm not suggesting they aren't making money. They're very good at making money clearly. That doesn't mean they're good at running a baseball team. Nor do I feel bad for the owners from smaller markets who make a little bit less money. 

And I'm happy the players are pushing for those things. Paul Skenes getting away from Pittsburgh is good for baseball. Not because Pittsburgh sucks. I actually really like Pittsburgh. But because Pittsburghs owner cares only about making money. I am for the redistribution of wealth from the **** owners to the players. 100%

I'm for forced removal of wealth from the owners if we're being completely honest, but that's sadly not on the table. 

So you are OK with things that are bad for the game as long you think it's hurting the owners?  Do you even understand where the luxury tax money goes?  Half of it goes to the players retirement fund.  The other half is redistributed to teams with lesser revenue.

How could you possibly be against an international draft?

You seem to be much more focused on hating rich people than what could/would improve the league.

[Major League Ready]

8 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

I endorse this post.

Why would you complain about revenue disparity and then endorse a post supporting something that increase the disparity?

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, Major League Ready said:

You have completely changed the context of the discussion.  The discussion was revenue disparity in the league.  Let's just forget about the Twins.  Do the Dodgers have double the revenue of the other 14 teams in the bottom half of revenue or not?  

Yes. And they share literally half of it. 

The parity is there to protect the cheap pohlads. Don't worry about them so much. I assure you they can afford to put food on the table. 

[NYCTK]

32 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Why would you complain about revenue disparity and then endorse a post supporting something that increase the disparity?

Probably endorsing the underlying sentiment that we should eat the rich. 

Why would anyone support the owners over the players? 

[NYCTK]

1 hour ago, old nurse said:

There is a math problem and a perception problem here. The perception problem is that it would only be short term the owner would be contributing their money. The Miami Marlins come to mind as a team that had very good success with short term spending but zero success in sustainability of that success or even getting fans interested. Thinking that a short term invest is going to work has not been shown. 

Being in the top 10 payrolls would have meant an increase in payroll of 90 million. No billionaire has ever sustained those kinds of losses.  The increased fans less the revenue share portion, less the costs associated with having more fans might not even pay for the increased payroll taxes.  Thank the OP for the grim reality that it is useless for the billionaire to spend  only a little more on payroll 

The Miami Marlins have famously blown up their team multiple times showing no desire to actually retain interest. They're the perfect example of how to destroy a brand. 

As for billionaires willing to deficit spend, have you ever heard of Silicon Valley? Plus Steve Cohen and Peter Seidler famously lost a lot of money in their cashflow, and neither actually lost any money ironically. So... 

 

[NYCTK]

10 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Sharing 48% of 150 or 200M is still a massive advantage.  I don't understand what your point is?  It's clearly a different issue for baseball and the disparity is obviously stark. 

https://crossscreen.media/state-of-the-screens/local-tv-and-the-changing-economics-of-baseball/

My point here was if you're going to share an info graphic, I would prefer it be accurate. If I shared a graph that underestimated team payroll by 50% I hope you'd call me out!

 

[NYCTK]

57 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

So you are OK with things that are bad for the game as long you think it's hurting the owners?  Do you even understand where the luxury tax money goes?  Half of it goes to the players retirement fund.  The other half is redistributed to teams with lesser revenue.

How could you possibly be against an international draft?

You seem to be much more focused on hating rich people than what could/would improve the league.

Quite the assumption that hurting players to the benefit of the billionaire owners would be good for the league. 

I'm against the draft, period. Why would I want it expanded? 

You seem to be under the impression that what's good for the evil billionaires is good for society. Anyways I assume everyone here is in favor of massively increasing taxes, in a context where this actually matters and not as welfare to billionaires? 

[Trov]

17 hours ago, bean5302 said:

There is no significant lack of parity. Even small market teams have shown a willingness to expand payroll into the top 1/2 of MLB when their window is open. Just because the Pohlad's have ignored that doesn't mean it's not right in everybody's face.

The Royals pushed opening day payroll to $140MM (top 1/2) in 2017.
The Orioles pushed opening day payroll to $164MM in 2017 $143MM in 2018, both (top 1/2).
The Diamondbacks opened 2024 at $157MM (top 1/2)
Even iron lock wallet Cleveland expanded to $134MM in 2018 (ranked #16)
used Stevetheump cause it's easy. https://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm

Once teams start building and their core appears competitive, teams go out and spend on free agents and then pick up big name targets at the deadline which push their payrolls up into the top half. Having a team which just starts building turn in a surprise season to make and advance in the playoffs isn't super common despite the Royals' surprise success this year. The build process identifies key missing pieces to turn the Pohlad definition of competitive (a .500+ ballclub) into World Series hopeful team, and even small market "competitive" teams are willing to trade and spend to fill the gaps.

While the Pohlad family likes to run a .500 team with an ultimate goal of winning the division, almost all other teams in baseball are aiming for a World Series. 

First, the Twins have been near the MLB average in payroll for awhile, so to say the team never pushed into top half is just not accurate.  Second, parity is a problem as a whole.  Yes, you get teams that pop up for a year to two because all their players start to peak or have career years all at once, then the team will go out and fill in holes in FA or trades as you indicated.  But then after that quick peak they dump off players to get back to their lower salary.  They generally then are bad for years waiting for that next window.  

The big spenders LA and NY generally will be competitive every year, because even when they are paying bad players they can go out and bring in players either via FA or trade and signs for top guys that other teams cannot afford. If they deal with injuries, they can go out and keep making trades.  

The CBA has been trying to address some of these things over the years, but with money from TV dropping the smaller and mid-market teams will be even more strapped for cash. The bigger markets will continue to be able to take the top talent.  Does it mean they will keep winning WS, no because playoffs in baseball are generally a crap shoot and the "best" team hardly wins it all, it is the hottest teams.  However, they will continue to make playoffs year after year, where the smaller teams have to rotate who has the window. 

[nicksaviking]

**********Moderator Note*************

Stay on topic.

[Major League Ready]

Listed below are # of 90/95 wins seasons and win percentage since 2000.  Cleveland/Oakland/Tampa have somewhat overcome the revenue disparity.  The Cubs/Giants/Phillies/Angels have underperformed a bit given their revenue.

		90	95
		Wins	Wins	Win %
1	Yankees	17	13	0.579
2	Dodgers	14	7	0.567
3	Cardinals	13	8	0.552
4	Red Sox	13	8	0.543
5	Braves	12	6	0.546
6	Cleveland	11	5	0.516
7	Oakland	10	6	0.518
8	Tampa	9	5	0.518
9	Astros	8	2	0.514
10	Giants	7	4	0.520
11	Angels	7	5	0.515
12	Phillies	6	2	0.512
13	TWINS	6	3	0.502
14	Mariners	6	2	0.499
15	Brewers	6	3	0.493
16	Rangers	6	3	0.491
17	Cubs	5	1	0.499
18	Dbacks	5	1	0.484
19	Nationals	5	2	0.484
20	White Sox	4	2	0.552
21	Mets	4	2	0.501
22	Tigers	4	2	0.464
23	Orioles	4	2	0.453
24	Blue Jays	3	0	0.501
25	Reds	3	1	0.471
26	Rockies	3	1	0.462
27	Padres	2	0	0.478
28	Pirates	2	0	0.447
29	Marlins	1	0	0.468
30	Royals	1	1	0.436

[1985Fan]

One important note about revenue sharing in MLB is the size of the overall pie, not just percentages. As an example, I read that MLB national TV deals with ESPN, Fox, TBS, Apple TV+, and Peacock average annual total is $2 billion. Compared to NBA recent TV deal that is $76 billion over 11 years, or almost $7 billion annually. Thats a lot more revenue to share. NFL TV deal is also huge in comparison to baseball. 

Baseball lack of a large national TV deal, as compared to NBA and NFL forces the teams to rely too heavily on local revenue to sustain salaries. Thats where the huge disparity lies. Combine that problem with payroll limits in NFL and NBA and the long term sustainability of baseball, as payroll rules are currently configured, is in serious doubt. NFL and NBA have focused on parity, and they have achieved it. Baseball has been behind the times on parity and a reckoning is coming. 
The NHL is way behind the other leagues in revenue, but they put in place extremely restrictive salary cap to level the playing field. This would seem to be the model for MLB. I don’t think the players union, the commissioner, or the owners are smart enough or willing to address the problem. 

[NYCTK]

37 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

Listed below are # of 90/95 wins seasons and win percentage since 2000.  Cleveland/Oakland/Tampa have somewhat overcome the revenue disparity.  The Cubs/Giants/Phillies/Angels have underperformed a bit given their revenue.

		90	95
		Wins	Wins	Win %
1	Yankees	17	13	0.579
2	Dodgers	14	7	0.567
3	Cardinals	13	8	0.552
4	Red Sox	13	8	0.543
5	Braves	12	6	0.546
6	Cleveland	11	5	0.516
7	Oakland	10	6	0.518
8	Tampa	9	5	0.518
9	Astros	8	2	0.514
10	Giants	7	4	0.520
11	Angels	7	5	0.515
12	Phillies	6	2	0.512
13	TWINS	6	3	0.502
14	Mariners	6	2	0.499
15	Brewers	6	3	0.493
16	Rangers	6	3	0.491
17	Cubs	5	1	0.499
18	Dbacks	5	1	0.484
19	Nationals	5	2	0.484
20	White Sox	4	2	0.552
21	Mets	4	2	0.501
22	Tigers	4	2	0.464
23	Orioles	4	2	0.453
24	Blue Jays	3	0	0.501
25	Reds	3	1	0.471
26	Rockies	3	1	0.462
27	Padres	2	0	0.478
28	Pirates	2	0	0.447
29	Marlins	1	0	0.468
30	Royals	1	1	0.436

This doesn't seem to show what you think it does. In fact, plotting 95+ win seasons against metro population, there appears to be no correlation at all. 

So...why are we here complaining about the how unfair the current system is?  

[Mike Sixel]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Probably endorsing the underlying sentiment that we should eat the rich. 

Why would anyone support the owners over the players? 

This

[Major League Ready]

22 minutes ago, NYCTK said:

This doesn't seem to show what you think it does. In fact, plotting 95+ win seasons against metro population, there appears to be no correlation at all. 

So...why are we here complaining about the how unfair the current system is?  

We interpret the results differently.  I see the bottom 10 are low revenue teams.  The top 5 are high revenue teams.  A handful of teams with above average revenue have not performed above average.  That's not exactly surprising of suggestive.  3 teams have beaten the odds, and we should note the way they built those winnings teams contradicts what most posters here advocate.  

[Major League Ready]

2 hours ago, NYCTK said:

Probably endorsing the underlying sentiment that we should eat the rich. 

Why would anyone support the owners over the players? 

How about supporting what's good for the game and good for fans in all markets.  Do you really not understand that a higher luxury tax threshold widens the disparity or do you just not care what's good for fans and the game as long as it's bad for owners in your mind.  BTW ... The owners still are very much in control of their profits.  It just makes them even more likely to forego signing the players we complain they don't sign.

[NYCTK]

3 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

We interpret the results differently.  I see the bottom 10 are low revenue teams.  The top 5 are high revenue teams.  A handful of teams with above average revenue have not performed above average.  That's not exactly surprising of suggestive.  3 teams have beaten the odds, and we should note the way they built those winnings teams contradicts what most posters here advocate.  

Define "low revenue". Because to me that just sounds like **** organization. Why are we suddenly concerned about saving **** organizations that have made no effort to improve their brand? 

That's why I am viewing it through the lens of their market size, because that's something that's not up for the owners to change. So you're looking at the bottom 10? No, they aren't small market. It features some, but also features New York and Detroit. 

And this terrible analysis ignores the success of Cleveland, Milwaukee and St. Louis. 

[NYCTK]

5 minutes ago, Major League Ready said:

How about supporting what's good for the game and good for fans in all markets.  Do you really not understand that a higher luxury tax threshold widens the disparity or do you just not care what's good for fans and the game as long as it's bad for owners in your mind.  BTW ... The owners still are very much in control of their profits.  It just makes them even more likely to forego signing the players we complain they don't sign.

I don't think forcing a great player to remain in a terrible organization is best for the game. As much as you may hate it, it's actually quite good for the sport that Ohtani left a terrible organization and now we have a Judge vs Ohtani battle in a NY vs LA World Series. The late 90s Yankees were awful and I hated them...and they were incredibly good for the sport of baseball. 

I am actually fine increasing Luxury Taxes. Teams aren't actually eligible for this revenue sharing unless they're making efforts to increase their own team, and like you pointed out, like half it funds MLBPA efforts. If I'm not mistaken, the Twins will receive none of that money because they're so poorly run as a business. And that's good. 

But miss me with pro owner BS like a salary cap or limiting player rights in any way. 

[old nurse]

4 hours ago, NYCTK said:

The Miami Marlins have famously blown up their team multiple times showing no desire to actually retain interest. They're the perfect example of how to destroy a brand. 

As for billionaires willing to deficit spend, have you ever heard of Silicon Valley? Plus Steve Cohen and Peter Seidler famously lost a lot of money in their cashflow, and neither actually lost any money ironically. So... 

 

One time losses, not yearly losses on a baseball team. It would also not be as great of loss as what it would take to make the Twins a top 10 payroll team 

[NYCTK]

1 minute ago, old nurse said:

One time losses, not yearly losses on a baseball team. It would also not be as great of loss as what it would take to make the Twins a top 10 payroll team 

We don't know that. Let's say they did increase payroll by $50 million last offseason instead of slashing it by $40 million. It's impossible to guess how that team would look. They might have been in the ALCS. They could potentially be playing on Friday. They could have drawn 35K every night and made up for the payroll in revenue. It's impossible to say. 

But thankfully the Pohalds were able to right size their business so they could maintain healthy profits, winning be damned. Glory be! 

 

[NYCTK]

20 hours ago, NYCTK said:

After some research...I don't buy these numbers. 

MLB shares 48% of local revenues, and then the national revenue as well. National broadcast revenue is about $60 million per team annually right now, so I have a hard time believing the share from local broadcast deals and other local revenue as designated from the 2022 CBA is only $35 million. 

I've seen a figure closer to $200 million in revenue sharing from other sources, which seems a lot closer to reality. Which, if accurate, would be something like 55%. 

 

Coming back to this chart, it's probably right, but ignores that MLB is sharing the 48% outside of the white Central Revenue. So, its entirely worthless in terms of comparison to the NBA and NFL. It points out that those leagues ARE more central, with better national contracts, but doesn't mean anything in terms of haves and have nots. 

[The Great Hambino]

16 hours ago, nicksaviking said:

Or a long tenured non major market owner to rally the same-positioned owners (who are the vast majority) to tell the big market owners that parity is happening whether they like it or not. If only there was such an ownership group…..,,,

One thing I hope that comes out of failure of RSNs in most markets is those markets developing a centralized DTC system that not only shares revenue but also forms a voting bloc to bring the teams with a viable RSN to the table in terms of revenue sharing.  The Yankees/Dodgers/et. al. would have to play nice and work with the have-nots so they can present an equitable plan to the players.

 

[USAFChief]

3 hours ago, NYCTK said:

I don't think forcing a great player to remain in a terrible organization is best for the game. As much as you may hate it, it's actually quite good for the sport that Ohtani left a terrible organization and now we have a Judge vs Ohtani battle in a NY vs LA World Series. The late 90s Yankees were awful and I hated them...and they were incredibly good for the sport of baseball. 

I am actually fine increasing Luxury Taxes. Teams aren't actually eligible for this revenue sharing unless they're making efforts to increase their own team, and like you pointed out, like half it funds MLBPA efforts. If I'm not mistaken, the Twins will receive none of that money because they're so poorly run as a business. And that's good. 

But miss me with pro owner BS like a salary cap or limiting player rights in any way. 

A few teams always ending up with the best players is GOOD for baseball?

Holy cow that's a bad take. Incredibly bad. 

[TheLeviathan]

6 hours ago, NYCTK said:

My point here was if you're going to share an info graphic, I would prefer it be accurate. If I shared a graph that underestimated team payroll by 50% I hope you'd call me out!

 

Well, it's pretty accurate as you acknowledge later.  And of course it reflects a better media situation for those other leagues...that's sorta the point?

I'm all for the "eat the rich", but put that aside.  This media setup where the Dodgers have a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage (or MUCH more now that the RSNs are dying) versus their competition isn't good for the game.  

Players should get more of the pie AND we should call for the media pie to be shared more equally.  You want to make extra money in your market?  Sell more tickets.  More beer.  More gear.  Broadcasts of the game shouldn't be causing massive inequity.  That's just plain dumb.

[NYCTK]

21 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Well, it's pretty accurate as you acknowledge later.  And of course it reflects a better media situation for those other leagues...that's sorta the point?

I'm all for the "eat the rich", but put that aside.  This media setup where the Dodgers have a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage (or MUCH more now that the RSNs are dying) versus their competition isn't good for the game.  

Players should get more of the pie AND we should call for the media pie to be shared more equally.  You want to make extra money in your market?  Sell more tickets.  More beer.  More gear.  Broadcasts of the game shouldn't be causing massive inequity.  That's just plain dumb.

True, true. But the commentary with the graphic wasn't accurate, which is why my, and I assume others, reading of it was wrong. 

 

 

[NYCTK]

46 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

A few teams always ending up with the best players is GOOD for baseball?

Holy cow that's a bad take. Incredibly bad. 

I stand by it. A super team is good. Two super teams in the World Series helps grow the sport way more than, for example, last year's dull Rangers vs Diamondbacks series that no one watched. 

People are going to be watching Yamamoto, Ohtani, Betts, Judge, Soto, and Cole and be reminded that baseball is great actually. And this is good for every single team in the league. Even if the diehards hate these two teams and will not watch. 

[nicksaviking]

8 hours ago, USAFChief said:

A few teams always ending up with the best players is GOOD for baseball?

Holy cow that's a bad take. Incredibly bad. 

Right, why have more than two teams then?

The 52 best players on the planet all playing together. Sounds fun. They could call it something like The All Star Game..