Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

The point bk is making, I think, is this.

Sure, a team can catch lightning in a bottle. Or they can sign a couple of free agents and make a singular run at the playoffs.

But year in, year out, there are only a small handful of teams that can afford to make mistake after mistake in free agency, and still be able to operate in the black and pursue free agents. For most teams, a mistake or two in free agency can kill the next five years for them.

It is not a level playing field. And baseball isn't a legitimate sport anymore because of it.

Exactly my point. Not to mention even when these teams develop their young players, when contract time comes up they can't re-sign them.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Seriously though, name me a sport that is a level playing field? The NBA has a salary cap yet the Knicks have a payroll almost $100 million more than the Bobcats. In any sport you look at there are going to be teams who consistently don't compete. The question you have to ask is why is a team like the A's consistently in the hunt with a $50 million dollar payroll yet the Reds havn't had a winning record in the last 5 years while spending more money.

I agree baseball doesn't have a level playing field, and it never will. No sport has a level playing field because there's always going to be a big difference between markets and more importantly ownership and management.

The NFL has a level playing field. Think it's a mystery why it's the top dog for professional sports in the US?

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

The NFL has a level playing field. Think it's a mystery why it's the top dog for professional sports in the US?

Yet there are still teams who never compete. Either way, there is no comparison between MLB and the NFL. The season's are different, number of playoff teams are different, drafts are different, and so on. I'm not saying MLB's system is perfect, but it's not as bad as most think and it's certainly not as bad as it would be if they put in a salary cap.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Yet there are still teams who never compete. Either way, there is no comparison between MLB and the NFL. The season's are different, number of playoff teams are different, drafts are different, and so on. I'm not saying MLB's system is perfect, but it's not as bad as most think and it's certainly not as bad as it would be if they put in a salary cap.

Those NFL teams never compete not because they system makes it nearly impossible for them to, but due to their own incompetence. In the MLB how many teams actually have competent front office, but struggle year in and year due simply to the fact they can not spend with the big boys?

If you fail, because other teams legitimately beat you, I can live with that. But if you fail, because the system is set up for you to fail, that's where my problem lies.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Those NFL teams never compete not because they system makes it nearly impossible for them to, but due to their own incompetence. In the MLB how many teams actually have competent front office, but struggle year in and year due simply to the fact they can not spend with the big boys?

If you fail, because other teams legitimately beat you, I can live with that. But if you fail, because the system is set up for you to fail, that's where my problem lies.

How many teams in baseball consistently don't have a chance to compete? As stated in the article there have been 10 teams with zero or one playoff appearance in the last 10 years. (Reds, Devil Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Royals, Phillies, Expos/Nationals, Pirates, Brewers and Rockies)

The Tigers and Reds are both middle of the road in terms of payroll. The Phillies had the 5th highest payroll last year. The Blue Jays were one of this offseasons biggest spenders.

That leaves you with the D-Rays, Royals, Nationals, Pirates, Brewers and Rockies. Can you honestly say those teams have been managed well but are victims of the system? Is it because they can't spend with the big boys, or they choose not to?

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

How many teams in baseball consistently don't have a chance to compete? As stated in the article there have been 10 teams with zero or one playoff appearance in the last 10 years. (Reds, Devil Rays, Blue Jays, Tigers, Royals, Phillies, Expos/Nationals, Pirates, Brewers and Rockies)

The Tigers and Reds are both middle of the road in terms of payroll. The Phillies had the 5th highest payroll last year. The Blue Jays were one of this offseasons biggest spenders.

That leaves you with the D-Rays, Royals, Nationals, Pirates, Brewers and Rockies. Can you honestly say those teams have been managed well but are victims of the system? Is it because they can't spend with the big boys, or they choose not to?

Rockies spent but were mismanged, and are just now getting out of the funk.

D-Ray, Royals, Nationals, Pirates and Brewers? Do you really have to ask with those teams? How much talent has a team like the Nationals/Expos that they develop had to let go over the last decade because they couldn't afford to re-sign them.

Listen you can believe baseball is all ok, and this isn't a problem, but I am thougoughly convinced it is. I don't think I am alone in that sentiment. As a Red Sox fan, I don't think you can possibly get it.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

D-Ray, Royals, Nationals, Pirates and Brewers? Do you really have to ask with those teams? How much talent has a team like the Nationals/Expos that they develop had to let go over the last decade because they couldn't afford to re-sign them.

Listen you can believe baseball is all ok, and this isn't a problem, but I am thougoughly convinced it is. I don't think I am alone in that sentiment. As a Red Sox fan, I don't think you can possibly get it.

Yes I do have to ask. You're telling me a team like the Pirates who have a brand new city financed ballpark and receive $20+ million a year in revenue sharing can't afford a payroll of more than the $38 million they spent last year?

Also, I'm not saying there isn't a problem. Obviously the Red Sox and Yankees shouldn't be spending as much as 5 times as other teams. But is that problem with the Red Sox and Yankees or is it with the teams who aren't spending?

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Yes I do have to ask. You're telling me a team like the Pirates who have a brand new city financed ballpark and receive $20+ million a year in revenue sharing can't afford a payroll of more than the $38 million they spent last year?

Yes that's what I am telling you. They were at 50+ million just two years ago. However come on, the Yankees spend more than that on just their infield. Since the team has struggled, and the newness of the ballpark has worn off, attendance is down and so is revenue.

I have a hard time buying the argument that a salary cap, and a salary floor would be a bad thing for baseball.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

I have a hard time buying the argument that a salary cap, and a salary floor would be a bad thing for baseball.

It may not be a bad thing, if implemented correctly but it will never happen. The players won't accept a salary cap and the owners won't accept a salary floor.

Financials in baseball are a mystery none of us will ever know. My only major point is that I don't think the assumption that smaller market teams don't spend because they can't afford it, is correct. These "small market" owners will never agree to a salary floor because they won't be able to take the money they receive from revenue sharing and put it in their pockets.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

It may not be a bad thing, if implemented correctly but it will never happen. The players won't accept a salary cap and the owners won't accept a salary floor.

Financials in baseball are a mystery none of us will ever know. My only major point is that I don't think the assumption that smaller market teams don't spend because they can't afford it, is correct. These "small market" owners will never agree to a salary floor because they won't be able to take the money they receive from revenue sharing and put it in their pockets.

As a fan of a small market team, who does spend some money, I find the system inequitable. The Padres are spending $75 million this year. Yet are still spending like a $100 million less than a team like the Yankees. How can they compete?

[MassNole]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Very good article. Most people just assume that no salary cap = no competetive balance but the author did a good job showing that isn't necesarily the case. I think an important point is that bad teams, such as the Devil Rays, Royals, etc are going to be bad with or without a cap. They don't have a chance because they've been poorly run, not because there's no cap.

Also, YankeePride, the Red Sox made the playoffs last year.

Look at the talent KC has had, they haven't been poorly run they just can't spend money to keep players.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

As a fan of a small market team, who does spend some money, I find the system inequitable. The Padres are spending $75 million this year. Yet are still spending like a $100 million less than a team like the Yankees. How can they compete?

$75 million puts them about middle of the road in terms of payroll and is more than enough to compete. The Yankees are a very big exception to the rule. They spent $80 million more than the next closest team last year, but teams obviously can still compete with them.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

Look at the talent KC has had, they haven't been poorly run they just can't spend money to keep players.

My question is still, do they not spend money because they can't or because they choose not to? I don't know the answer but I think in many cases the assumption that smaller markets can't resign players because they can't afford it is a myth. When teams like the Royals and D-Rays are receiving almost as much as their payroll in revenue sharing, something just doesn't add up.

[bkrich83]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

My question is still, do they not spend money because they can't or because they choose not to? I don't know the answer but I think in many cases the assumption that smaller markets can't resign players because they can't afford it is a myth. When teams like the Royals and D-Rays are receiving almost as much as their payroll in revenue sharing, something just doesn't add up.

There is some validity to that. But to say the game is played on an even playing field, is simply not correct.

[Stu]

Re: Baseball doesn't have competitve balance?

There is some validity to that. But to say the game is played on an even playing field, is simply not correct.

I agree, and unfortunately I think the only way to even the playing field would be a salary cap and floor, but thats not something either side wants.

EDIT - Just to add onto this a little bit. I don't think an even playing field can be achieved until baseball starts taking a look at the actual financial health of its teams. Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can find loopholes to hide revenue to avoid sharing it while teams like the Royals and D-Rays can take the shared revenue and put it in their pockets rather than reinvest it in their teams.