Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dawgfan
Exactly.
In reality, team payrolls are not so static. When the A's were dominating the AL in the late '80's/early '90's, their payroll was among the highest in the league. The Twins have not always had one of the lowest payrolls in the AL. The Mariners used to be owned by skinflints trying to make a buck by moving the team and had mediocre or worse payrolls, until the magic of '95 happened and a new stadium was built which helped shoot revenues (and payroll) skyward. The Angels are spending a lot more money under Artie Moreno than they did under Disney.
I would be disappointed if revenues and payroll didn't fluctuate in BBM as they do in reality. Yes, certain markets will always have an advantage due to their size, economic status and TV/radio markets, but there are a lot of other markets that could swing from low revenue to high revenue based on on-field success and/or new stadiums, and others that see their revenue drop due to aging stadiums and declining on-field performance.
|
You're correct, to a point. The problem, however, is this: the economics of the game have changed pretty radically, even since the mid-90's. As I mentioned earlier, the days of the bidding war are virtually over. Teams trade players away but pay huge portions of their salaries. Top-tier players only bother talking to 2 or 3 teams during free agency. These are very recent developments (like 2000 and beyond), and I don't really see them changing until there are radical changes in the game's rules.