|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 17, 2022 21:45:04 GMT -8
So is literally every other team in baseball, save for the Mets. And, they're literally in contention just about every year, and recently have been to the WS in 2017, 2018, 2020. Wouldn't that be nice. That's not because of their payroll....spoiler alert. They know how to develop assets. Their player development department is top notch, they have excellent scouting and identify targets really well, even for minor trades. Alex Vesia is a recent example. They traded for an unemployed Max Muncy and turned him into an All-Star. Ditto Justin Turner. That has nothing to do with their payroll.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 17, 2022 21:54:36 GMT -8
And, they're literally in contention just about every year, and recently have been to the WS in 2017, 2018, 2020. Wouldn't that be nice. That's not because of their payroll....spoiler alert. They know how to develop assets. Their player development department is top notch, they have excellent scouting and identify targets really well, even for minor trades. Alex Vesia is a recent example. They traded for an unemployed Max Muncy and turned him into an All-Star. Ditto Justin Turner. That has nothing to do with their payroll. Go by your own words. Here's a spoiler alert for you: It's about both. Because of their payroll, they can keep these guys and pay them.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 17, 2022 22:52:22 GMT -8
So is literally every other team in baseball, save for the Mets. And, they're literally in contention just about every year, and recently have been to the WS in 2017, 2018, 2020. Wouldn't that be nice. I feel like the Dodgers are the late 90's/2000's Yankees and we are the late 90's/2000's Red Sox
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 17, 2022 23:27:26 GMT -8
And, they're literally in contention just about every year, and recently have been to the WS in 2017, 2018, 2020. Wouldn't that be nice. I feel like the Dodgers are the late 90's/2000's Yankees and we are the late 90's/2000's Red Sox I hear ya!!!
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 8:10:13 GMT -8
And, they're literally in contention just about every year, and recently have been to the WS in 2017, 2018, 2020. Wouldn't that be nice. That's not because of their payroll....spoiler alert. They know how to develop assets. Their player development department is top notch, they have excellent scouting and identify targets really well, even for minor trades. Alex Vesia is a recent example. They traded for an unemployed Max Muncy and turned him into an All-Star. Ditto Justin Turner. That has nothing to do with their payroll. You do know that having a great scouting department and great player development requires the best scouts and coaches, right? And the best scouts and coaches go to the big money teams because they get paid more there. Money is a HUGE part of the equation. It kicks in before you sign players. The Padres lost Jed Hoyer because they were not able to pay him what the Cubs could pay him. Plus he knew he couldn't afford to sign the same caliber of players in San Diego as he could in Chicago. It also wasn't as high profile a gig because San Diego is a smaller market that is ignored by the rest of the country whereas Chicago is a big, prestigious market where you can really make a name for yourself. Hoyer helped build a World Series Championship team in Chicago. He's a great GM. And we couldn't keep him for the reasons above. The MLB system is not set up to be balanced, competitively. The NFL is. In the NFL it's 100% about how good your management is. In MLB it's about how well your management handles the budget that they're given. If you've got all the money you need, it's a lot easier to build a winner. (If you manage a big money team and you make a free agent mistake, you blow it off and sign a replacement the next year, but if you're a smaller market team and you make a mistake on a big money free agent it cripples your team for 2-3 years.)
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 8:48:57 GMT -8
That's not because of their payroll....spoiler alert. They know how to develop assets. Their player development department is top notch, they have excellent scouting and identify targets really well, even for minor trades. Alex Vesia is a recent example. They traded for an unemployed Max Muncy and turned him into an All-Star. Ditto Justin Turner. That has nothing to do with their payroll. You do know that having a great scouting department and great player development requires the best scouts and coaches, right? And the best scouts and coaches go to the big money teams because they get paid more there. Money is a HUGE part of the equation. It kicks in before you sign players. The Padres lost Jed Hoyer because they were not able to pay him what the Cubs could pay him. Plus he knew he couldn't afford to sign the same caliber of players in San Diego as he could in Chicago. It also wasn't as high profile a gig because San Diego is a smaller market that is ignored by the rest of the country whereas Chicago is a big, prestigious market where you can really make a name for yourself. Hoyer helped build a World Series Championship team in Chicago. He's a great GM. And we couldn't keep him for the reasons above. The MLB system is not set up to be balanced, competitively. The NFL is. In the NFL it's 100% about how good your management is. In MLB it's about how well your management handles the budget that they're given. If you've got all the money you need, it's a lot easier to build a winner. (If you manage a big money team and you make a free agent mistake, you blow it off and sign a replacement the next year, but if you're a smaller market team and you make a mistake on a big money free agent it cripples your team for 2-3 years.) So many assumptions in here. The NFL has a salary cap. There's no direct, viable comparison to be made there because every team operates under the same conditions. The MLB doesn't have a cap, the players would never agree to that (and didn't in the latest CBA) - Apples to oranges on that level.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 9:36:05 GMT -8
You do know that having a great scouting department and great player development requires the best scouts and coaches, right? And the best scouts and coaches go to the big money teams because they get paid more there. Money is a HUGE part of the equation. It kicks in before you sign players. The Padres lost Jed Hoyer because they were not able to pay him what the Cubs could pay him. Plus he knew he couldn't afford to sign the same caliber of players in San Diego as he could in Chicago. It also wasn't as high profile a gig because San Diego is a smaller market that is ignored by the rest of the country whereas Chicago is a big, prestigious market where you can really make a name for yourself. Hoyer helped build a World Series Championship team in Chicago. He's a great GM. And we couldn't keep him for the reasons above. The MLB system is not set up to be balanced, competitively. The NFL is. In the NFL it's 100% about how good your management is. In MLB it's about how well your management handles the budget that they're given. If you've got all the money you need, it's a lot easier to build a winner. (If you manage a big money team and you make a free agent mistake, you blow it off and sign a replacement the next year, but if you're a smaller market team and you make a mistake on a big money free agent it cripples your team for 2-3 years.) So many assumptions in here. The NFL has a salary cap. There's no direct, viable comparison to be made there because every team operates under the same conditions. The MLB doesn't have a cap, the players would never agree to that (and didn't in the latest CBA) - Apples to oranges on that level. I know. That's my exact point. The MLB system is a total JOKE compared to the NFL system. The MLB system is designed to keep the big market teams in the playoffs (for TV ratings), while the NFL system is designed to give every team an equal chance to win. The NFL knows that for smaller market teams to create a fanbase that totally buys in and believes that with the right player personnel moves and/or the right GM or coaching hire that the team has a legit shot at going to the Super Bowl. In MLB most small/mid market fanbases know that in most years they have no chance at all of making the playoffs, let alone the World Series.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 10:09:38 GMT -8
So many assumptions in here. The NFL has a salary cap. There's no direct, viable comparison to be made there because every team operates under the same conditions. The MLB doesn't have a cap, the players would never agree to that (and didn't in the latest CBA) - Apples to oranges on that level. I know. That's my exact point. The MLB system is a total JOKE compared to the NFL system. The MLB system is designed to keep the big market teams in the playoffs (for TV ratings), while the NFL system is designed to give every team an equal chance to win. The NFL knows that for smaller market teams to create a fanbase that totally buys in and believes that with the right player personnel moves and/or the right GM or coaching hire that the team has a legit shot at going to the Super Bowl. In MLB most small/mid market fanbases know that in most years they have no chance at all of making the playoffs, let alone the World Series. That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 10:44:51 GMT -8
I know. That's my exact point. The MLB system is a total JOKE compared to the NFL system. The MLB system is designed to keep the big market teams in the playoffs (for TV ratings), while the NFL system is designed to give every team an equal chance to win. The NFL knows that for smaller market teams to create a fanbase that totally buys in and believes that with the right player personnel moves and/or the right GM or coaching hire that the team has a legit shot at going to the Super Bowl. In MLB most small/mid market fanbases know that in most years they have no chance at all of making the playoffs, let alone the World Series. That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing. Come on, each team sells their own TV and radio rights. Until the FoxSD deal a decade or so ago the Padres got about the same in TV rights as the Yankees got in radio rights. That money isn't shared. Big market teams have much bigger revenue streams. And they don't have to share much of it. The NFL shares all rights deals equally. There's a reason why small/mid market teams usually can't re-sign their own free agents. The big market teams can offer more money because they have larger revenue streams. That's why the big market teams almost never have losing seasons, while small/mid market teams lose more than half the time.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 18, 2022 16:48:50 GMT -8
That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing. Come on, each team sells their own TV and radio rights. Until the FoxSD deal a decade or so ago the Padres got about the same in TV rights as the Yankees got in radio rights. That money isn't shared. Big market teams have much bigger revenue streams. And they don't have to share much of it. The NFL shares all rights deals equally. There's a reason why small/mid market teams usually can't re-sign their own free agents. The big market teams can offer more money because they have larger revenue streams. That's why the big market teams almost never have losing seasons, while small/mid market teams lose more than half the time. Yep, the BIG advantage for the big market teams is that they can re sign their free agents if they want to.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 16:52:44 GMT -8
That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing. Come on, each team sells their own TV and radio rights. Until the FoxSD deal a decade or so ago the Padres got about the same in TV rights as the Yankees got in radio rights. That money isn't shared. Big market teams have much bigger revenue streams. And they don't have to share much of it. The NFL shares all rights deals equally. There's a reason why small/mid market teams usually can't re-sign their own free agents. The big market teams can offer more money because they have larger revenue streams. That's why the big market teams almost never have losing seasons, while small/mid market teams lose more than half the time. Every single team in baseball could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. www.blessyouboys.com/2021/12/16/22831008/mlbs-revenue-sharing-problem-and-how-to-solve-it
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 18, 2022 17:56:44 GMT -8
I know. That's my exact point. The MLB system is a total JOKE compared to the NFL system. The MLB system is designed to keep the big market teams in the playoffs (for TV ratings), while the NFL system is designed to give every team an equal chance to win. The NFL knows that for smaller market teams to create a fanbase that totally buys in and believes that with the right player personnel moves and/or the right GM or coaching hire that the team has a legit shot at going to the Super Bowl. In MLB most small/mid market fanbases know that in most years they have no chance at all of making the playoffs, let alone the World Series. That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing. I don't agree with this - where is your proof? Bigger market teams have more of an incentive to invest in winning then smaller market teams because they stand to make more money with a better record (through both media deals, stadium revenues, and memorabilia sales) then small market teams do. The bigger the city, the more eyeballs, butts and wallets. MLB team revenues vary by year in correlation with winning percentage. The Padres make more revenues now then they did before they had Tatis and Machado. So the investment in payroll pays off more in bigger markets then smaller markets.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 18:48:05 GMT -8
That's not accurate, either. I just showed you there's no real correlation in the winning percentages long-term in regards to payroll size. Once again, you're confusing owner apathy (and a willingness to invest in their team) with market size and competitive balance. Baseball has a literal competitive balance lottery for this exact reason. Every single franchise, repeat, every single franchise gets revenue sharing profits. Every franchise also got 50+ million dollars from the sale of BAMTech by Disney, also. It's just not a thing. I don't agree with this - where is your proof? Bigger market teams have more of an incentive to invest in winning then smaller market teams because they stand to make more money with a better record (through both media deals, stadium revenues, and memorabilia sales) then small market teams do. The bigger the city, the more eyeballs, butts and wallets. MLB team revenues vary by year in correlation with winning percentage. The Padres make more revenues now then they did before they had Tatis and Machado. So the investment in payroll pays off more in bigger markets then smaller markets. Where's my proof? Outside of the winning percentages this century, which are dead even in terms of split and tell an incomplete picture, here's the sale of BAMTech. mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/08/09/disney-to-give-mlb-another-1-58-billion-for-bamtech-the-players-will-see-none-of-it/Here's the TV deals broken down by team: blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/Every team could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. You're illustrating exactly what I said - It's not about market size, it's about ownership not willing to invest in their team to try and compete.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 20:05:19 GMT -8
I don't agree with this - where is your proof? Bigger market teams have more of an incentive to invest in winning then smaller market teams because they stand to make more money with a better record (through both media deals, stadium revenues, and memorabilia sales) then small market teams do. The bigger the city, the more eyeballs, butts and wallets. MLB team revenues vary by year in correlation with winning percentage. The Padres make more revenues now then they did before they had Tatis and Machado. So the investment in payroll pays off more in bigger markets then smaller markets. Where's my proof? Outside of the winning percentages this century, which are dead even in terms of split and tell an incomplete picture, here's the sale of BAMTech. mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/08/09/disney-to-give-mlb-another-1-58-billion-for-bamtech-the-players-will-see-none-of-it/Here's the TV deals broken down by team: blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-update-the-estimated-local-tv-revenue-for-mlb-teams/Every team could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. You're illustrating exactly what I said - It's not about market size, it's about ownership not willing to invest in their team to try and compete. You are flat unwilling to accept the fact that when you have a lot more money it's a lot easier (and a lot less risky) to spend a lot more. And the big money teams can shrug off the luxury tax like it's nothing, while the smaller market teams can't. There is, in point of fact, an advantage to having more money. You can offer more for free agents than can teams with less money. Supply and demand. Prices go up, the people with more money can buy more than people with less money. Simple economics. There is MUCH greater risk for a smaller market team to run a $200 Million payroll than a big market team. They stand to lose a lot more if the team flames out and attendance drops when payroll has skyrocketed. It's a MUCH higher risk for the smaller/mid market teams. That's just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 18, 2022 20:18:36 GMT -8
You are flat unwilling to accept the fact that when you have a lot more money it's a lot easier (and a lot less risky) to spend a lot more. And the big money teams can shrug off the luxury tax like it's nothing, while the smaller market teams can't. There is, in point of fact, an advantage to having more money. You can offer more for free agents than can teams with less money. Supply and demand. Prices go up, the people with more money can buy more than people with less money. Simple economics. There is MUCH greater risk for a smaller market team to run a $200 Million payroll than a big market team. They stand to lose a lot more if the team flames out and attendance drops when payroll has skyrocketed. It's a MUCH higher risk for the smaller/mid market teams. That's just a fact. When Ryan commits to something, he'll stick to it and won't budge an inch, even when presented with facts. He'll either call it simpleton stuff, bring out a quote about something that's in the extreme minority to TRY and prove his point, or in this case, just be simply stubborn. I've never spoken with someone who finds it so difficult to concede, admit that he's wrong, or at least mention that a person has a valid point, contrary to his. Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 20:25:38 GMT -8
You are flat unwilling to accept the fact that when you have a lot more money it's a lot easier (and a lot less risky) to spend a lot more. And the big money teams can shrug off the luxury tax like it's nothing, while the smaller market teams can't. There is, in point of fact, an advantage to having more money. You can offer more for free agents than can teams with less money. Supply and demand. Prices go up, the people with more money can buy more than people with less money. Simple economics. There is MUCH greater risk for a smaller market team to run a $200 Million payroll than a big market team. They stand to lose a lot more if the team flames out and attendance drops when payroll has skyrocketed. It's a MUCH higher risk for the smaller/mid market teams. That's just a fact. If the big market teams can shrug it off like it's "nothing".....Why did only two teams spend into the tax last season? And why was one of them the San Diego Padres? Why wouldn't all the big market teams just go above and beyond, if they could? Year after year? Why did seven teams last year spend within a few million dollars of the tax, but stop, including large market teams like the Yankees and Red Sox? The answer is pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 20:30:59 GMT -8
You are flat unwilling to accept the fact that when you have a lot more money it's a lot easier (and a lot less risky) to spend a lot more. And the big money teams can shrug off the luxury tax like it's nothing, while the smaller market teams can't. There is, in point of fact, an advantage to having more money. You can offer more for free agents than can teams with less money. Supply and demand. Prices go up, the people with more money can buy more than people with less money. Simple economics. There is MUCH greater risk for a smaller market team to run a $200 Million payroll than a big market team. They stand to lose a lot more if the team flames out and attendance drops when payroll has skyrocketed. It's a MUCH higher risk for the smaller/mid market teams. That's just a fact. When Ryan commits to something, he'll stick to it and won't budge an inch, even when presented with facts. He'll either call it simpleton stuff, bring out a quote about something that's in the extreme minority to TRY and prove his point, or in this case, just be simply stubborn. I've never spoken with someone who finds it so difficult to concede, admit that he's wrong, or at least mention that a person has a valid point, contrary to his. Ridiculous. This kind of stuff is unnecessary and just makes you look uninformed and silly. One, I wasn't presented with any facts. Everything AP said is an opinion, literally, because the data (you know, the facts) refute his stance. The majority of baseball teams don't make their money from gate revenue, they make it from selling seat licensing and TV revenue. The link I provided shows you how many franchises have a TV contract in the billions (You know, more facts) and the other link I provided shows you how teams flat out are not trying to compete with integrity - Not because they DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, but because they CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND IT. Seriously, please talk to anyone who works as a baseball writer, as a professional. They will tell you that this stance is full of crap, laugh and set you straight. Comparisons to other sports are meaningless, they don't have the same framework, same style of contract or have much in common at all. A sport without a salary cap has nothing in common with a sport that has one. Baseball is the only sport that has an entire minor league structure, comes with six years of organizational control, has fully guaranteed salaries and so on and so forth. MLB generated 43 billion dollars in revenue in the last five seasons. 43 billion. So I'll repeat, once again, every team in baseball could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. From small market Tampa Bay to Los Angeles, from the Pirates and Orioles to the Red Sox and Yankees. If the "point" here is that money makes it easier to spend money, that's plainly obvious. That in no way means that any baseball franchise who is operating on a winning basis is set up to fail.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 20:44:54 GMT -8
When Ryan commits to something, he'll stick to it and won't budge an inch, even when presented with facts. He'll either call it simpleton stuff, bring out a quote about something that's in the extreme minority to TRY and prove his point, or in this case, just be simply stubborn. I've never spoken with someone who finds it so difficult to concede, admit that he's wrong, or at least mention that a person has a valid point, contrary to his. Ridiculous. This kind of stuff is unnecessary and just makes you look uninformed and silly. One, I wasn't presented with any facts. Everything AP said is an opinion, literally, because the data (you know, the facts) refute his stance. The majority of baseball teams don't make their money from gate revenue, they make it from selling seat licensing and TV revenue. The link I provided shows you how many franchises have a TV contract in the billions (You know, more facts) and the other link I provided shows you how teams flat out are not trying to compete with integrity - Not because they DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, but because they CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND IT. Seriously, please talk to anyone who works as a baseball writer, as a professional. They will tell you that this stance is full of crap, laugh and set you straight. Comparisons to other sports are meaningless, they don't have the same framework, same style of contract or have much in common at all. A sport without a salary cap has nothing in common with a sport that has one. Baseball is the only sport that has an entire minor league structure, comes with six years of organizational control, has fully guaranteed salaries and so on and so forth. MLB generated 43 billion dollars in revenue in the last five seasons. 43 billion. So I'll repeat, once again, every team in baseball could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. From small market Tampa Bay to Los Angeles, from the Pirates and Orioles to the Red Sox and Yankees. If the "point" here is that money makes it easier to spend money, that's plainly obvious. That in no way means that any baseball franchise who is operating on a winning basis is set up to fail. And of that 43 Billion the big market teams got a huge percentage of it, while the smaller market teams got a small percentage of it. 43 Billion, in and of itself, doesn't mean $#!+. The league is designed to have compeitive IMbalance. It's designed to keep the major market teams in the playoffs every year so that the TV ratings are higher. Yes, I know it's a different system with a different structure - and I'm calling that system/structure out for the utter bull$#!+ that it is.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 21:19:29 GMT -8
This kind of stuff is unnecessary and just makes you look uninformed and silly. One, I wasn't presented with any facts. Everything AP said is an opinion, literally, because the data (you know, the facts) refute his stance. The majority of baseball teams don't make their money from gate revenue, they make it from selling seat licensing and TV revenue. The link I provided shows you how many franchises have a TV contract in the billions (You know, more facts) and the other link I provided shows you how teams flat out are not trying to compete with integrity - Not because they DON'T HAVE THE MONEY, but because they CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND IT. Seriously, please talk to anyone who works as a baseball writer, as a professional. They will tell you that this stance is full of crap, laugh and set you straight. Comparisons to other sports are meaningless, they don't have the same framework, same style of contract or have much in common at all. A sport without a salary cap has nothing in common with a sport that has one. Baseball is the only sport that has an entire minor league structure, comes with six years of organizational control, has fully guaranteed salaries and so on and so forth. MLB generated 43 billion dollars in revenue in the last five seasons. 43 billion. So I'll repeat, once again, every team in baseball could run a competitive payroll if they chose to. From small market Tampa Bay to Los Angeles, from the Pirates and Orioles to the Red Sox and Yankees. If the "point" here is that money makes it easier to spend money, that's plainly obvious. That in no way means that any baseball franchise who is operating on a winning basis is set up to fail. And of that 43 Billion the big market teams got a huge percentage of it, while the smaller market teams got a small percentage of it. 43 Billion, in and of itself, doesn't meand $#!+. The league is designed to have compeitive IMbalance. It's designed to keep the major market teams in the playoffs every year so that the TV ratings are higher. Yes, I know it's a different system with a different structure - and I'm calling that system/structure out for the utter bull$#!+ that it is. Again, wrong. "Along with the TV deals, MLB teams also receive extra money through revenue sharing. Each team pools 48% of the revenue they earn and the total amount is then split evenly (3.3% of the total) and given to each team. Teams receive more than $110 million through revenue sharing." www.google.com/amp/s/dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-million-annually-from-tv-rights-contracts/2022/02/12/amp/1. The current system keeps small-market teams from competing "Frankly put, the recent high rates of sharing – 48 percent of local revenues, to repeat – means that small-market teams have very little skin in the game. The best way to boost gameday revenues is to invest in the on-field product and improve the roster. Small-market teams, however, receive so much money via revenue sharing that they have little incentive to invest in player payroll. Basically, teams on the lower end of the revenue continuum are guaranteed profitability regardless of on-field results. That's not healthy." www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-three-reasons-why-the-players-union-wants-to-alter-baseballs-revenue-sharing-system/Can we put this to bed now? There's absolutely nothing factual about what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 21:43:13 GMT -8
And of that 43 Billion the big market teams got a huge percentage of it, while the smaller market teams got a small percentage of it. 43 Billion, in and of itself, doesn't meand $#!+. The league is designed to have compeitive IMbalance. It's designed to keep the major market teams in the playoffs every year so that the TV ratings are higher. Yes, I know it's a different system with a different structure - and I'm calling that system/structure out for the utter bull$#!+ that it is. Again, wrong. "Along with the TV deals, MLB teams also receive extra money through revenue sharing. Each team pools 48% of the revenue they earn and the total amount is then split evenly (3.3% of the total) and given to each team. Teams receive more than $110 million through revenue sharing." www.google.com/amp/s/dodgerblue.com/mlb-teams-receive-at-least-100-million-annually-from-tv-rights-contracts/2022/02/12/amp/1. The current system keeps small-market teams from competing "Frankly put, the recent high rates of sharing – 48 percent of local revenues, to repeat – means that small-market teams have very little skin in the game. The best way to boost gameday revenues is to invest in the on-field product and improve the roster. Small-market teams, however, receive so much money via revenue sharing that they have little incentive to invest in player payroll. Basically, teams on the lower end of the revenue continuum are guaranteed profitability regardless of on-field results. That's not healthy." www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-lockout-three-reasons-why-the-players-union-wants-to-alter-baseballs-revenue-sharing-system/Can we put this to bed now? There's absolutely nothing factual about what you're saying. Actually, there are stats out there showing that even with the revenue sharing that the big market teams have 2-5 times the revenue of the small/mid market teams. That makes for a huge advantage. You clearly are invested in MLB and it's system. It's a crap system compared to the NFL. When you have teams like the Dodgers winning 18 out of 20 seasons, and similar numbers for the Yankees and Red Sox it becomes clear that money is a huge advantage. For a smaller market team to win even half the time it requires much better management as they cannot even re-sign their own homegrown players. The big boys steal those guys away almost every time because they have the money to outbid the smaller market teams. When you can just reload year after year that's an advantage that cannot be overstated. Keeping your best homegrown players while at the same time taking away the best players that other teams have developed turns you into a team that almost never has a losing record. Sorry, that system sucks. It is designed so that the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, etc, are in the playoff hunt every year - and if they don't get to the playoffs they don't miss by much. It's rigged.
|
|