|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 18, 2022 21:58:10 GMT -8
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. "There are stats out there" isn't an argument. Produce something. I did. It took a 30 second search to refute your argument and illustrate the exact opposite. Then you pivot back to the same false argument again and again, which has been debunked multiple times in this thread. Stop shifting goalposts. I just gave you concrete proof that it's not a money problem, it's an ownership not willing to invest problem, corporate greed, as I've said multiple times. Every single team can run a payroll in excess of 100 million dollars if they chose to. Period. Stop using the NFL as an example. It's not relevant or similar in any capacity. Also, I'm not "invested in the system" at all. I'm just tired of seeing the same false narrative be spread over and over and over again. It's exhausting. You also never answered either question I posed: If the big market teams have unlimited resources, why do teams not go beyond the luxury tax every year? Why did the two teams you're talking about repeatedly spend within a few million of the tax, but not exceed it? Why did five other teams follow suit, all within 3 or 4 million dollars of the CBT? And since the timing of this is perfect, the massive media market Minnesota Twins, juggernauts that they are....Just signed the #1 free agent on the market to a deal worth over $105M. But...how?
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 22:49:00 GMT -8
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. "There are stats out there" isn't an argument. Produce something. I did. It took a 30 second search to refute your argument and illustrate the exact opposite. Then you pivot back to the same false argument again and again, which has been debunked multiple times in this thread. Stop shifting goalposts. I just gave you concrete proof that it's not a money problem, it's an ownership not willing to invest problem, corporate greed, as I've said multiple times. Every single team can run a payroll in excess of 100 million dollars if they chose to. Period. Stop using the NFL as an example. It's not relevant or similar in any capacity. Also, I'm not "invested in the system" at all. I'm just tired of seeing the same false narrative be spread over and over and over again. It's exhausting. You also never answered either question I posed: If the big market teams have unlimited resources, why do teams not go beyond the luxury tax every year? Why did the two teams you're talking about repeatedly spend within a few million of the tax, but not exceed it? Why did five other teams follow suit, all within 3 or 4 million dollars of the CBT? And since the timing of this is perfect, the massive media market Minnesota Twins, juggernauts that they are....Just signed the #1 free agent on the market to a deal worth over $105M. But...how? ONLY $105 million? Whoop dee freaking doo. The Twins were 17th in the league in salary last year. Even with another 35 million added on for Correa that would still leave them far below the Dodgers or Yankees. Nice try, though. Oh, and here's a chart showing the local markets TV revenues for each team...
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 18, 2022 22:51:26 GMT -8
"There are stats out there" isn't an argument. Produce something. I did. It took a 30 second search to refute your argument and illustrate the exact opposite. Then you pivot back to the same false argument again and again, which has been debunked multiple times in this thread. Stop shifting goalposts. I just gave you concrete proof that it's not a money problem, it's an ownership not willing to invest problem, corporate greed, as I've said multiple times. Every single team can run a payroll in excess of 100 million dollars if they chose to. Period. Stop using the NFL as an example. It's not relevant or similar in any capacity. Also, I'm not "invested in the system" at all. I'm just tired of seeing the same false narrative be spread over and over and over again. It's exhausting. You also never answered either question I posed: If the big market teams have unlimited resources, why do teams not go beyond the luxury tax every year? Why did the two teams you're talking about repeatedly spend within a few million of the tax, but not exceed it? Why did five other teams follow suit, all within 3 or 4 million dollars of the CBT? And since the timing of this is perfect, the massive media market Minnesota Twins, juggernauts that they are....Just signed the #1 free agent on the market to a deal worth over $105M. But...how? ONLY $105 million? Whoop dee freaking doo. The Twins were 17th in the league in salary last year. Even with another 35 million added on for Correa that would still leave them far below the Dodgers or Yankees. Nice try, though. Oh, and here's a chart showing the local markets TV revenues for each team... Yeah, that's just one $105 million dollar player they can sign and not much else. The Dodgers, et al, can sign multiple big money guys, and more importantly re-sign/keep them.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 18, 2022 23:03:21 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 19, 2022 5:18:04 GMT -8
"There are stats out there" isn't an argument. Produce something. I did. It took a 30 second search to refute your argument and illustrate the exact opposite. Then you pivot back to the same false argument again and again, which has been debunked multiple times in this thread. Stop shifting goalposts. I just gave you concrete proof that it's not a money problem, it's an ownership not willing to invest problem, corporate greed, as I've said multiple times. Every single team can run a payroll in excess of 100 million dollars if they chose to. Period. Stop using the NFL as an example. It's not relevant or similar in any capacity. Also, I'm not "invested in the system" at all. I'm just tired of seeing the same false narrative be spread over and over and over again. It's exhausting. You also never answered either question I posed: If the big market teams have unlimited resources, why do teams not go beyond the luxury tax every year? Why did the two teams you're talking about repeatedly spend within a few million of the tax, but not exceed it? Why did five other teams follow suit, all within 3 or 4 million dollars of the CBT? And since the timing of this is perfect, the massive media market Minnesota Twins, juggernauts that they are....Just signed the #1 free agent on the market to a deal worth over $105M. But...how? ONLY $105 million? Whoop dee freaking doo. The Twins were 17th in the league in salary last year. Even with another 35 million added on for Correa that would still leave them far below the Dodgers or Yankees. Nice try, though. Oh, and here's a chart showing the local markets TV revenues for each team... It's the same link I posted....Lol.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 19, 2022 5:18:46 GMT -8
ONLY $105 million? Whoop dee freaking doo. The Twins were 17th in the league in salary last year. Even with another 35 million added on for Correa that would still leave them far below the Dodgers or Yankees. Nice try, though. Oh, and here's a chart showing the local markets TV revenues for each team... Yeah, that's just one $105 million dollar player they can sign and not much else. The Dodgers, et al, can sign multiple big money guys, and more importantly re-sign/keep them. So. Can. Every. Team. In. The. League. Neither one of you is hitting on the real issue here. Scroll up. It's up to individual owners to spend money. Every team is capable.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 19, 2022 9:48:01 GMT -8
Yeah, that's just one $105 million dollar player they can sign and not much else. The Dodgers, et al, can sign multiple big money guys, and more importantly re-sign/keep them. So. Can. Every. Team. In. The. League. Neither one of you is hitting on the real issue here. Scroll up. It's up to individual owners to spend money. Every team is capable. So, the Dodgers with $209 Million in TV revenue alone can't outbid the Marlins who only had $20 Million in TV revenue? Are you on crack? Weed? Shrooms? The Dodgers have 10 times the TV revenue that the Marlins do. TEN TIMES. (And more than FIVE times the Padres TV revenue.) Come on, man.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 19, 2022 11:00:06 GMT -8
So. Can. Every. Team. In. The. League. Neither one of you is hitting on the real issue here. Scroll up. It's up to individual owners to spend money. Every team is capable. So, the Dodgers with $209 Million in TV revenue alone can't outbid the Marlins who only had $20 Million in TV revenue? Are you on crack? Weed? Shrooms? The Dodgers have 10 times the TV revenue that the Marlins do. TEN TIMES. (And more than FIVE times the Padres TV revenue.) Come on, man. He won't/can't get the fact, due to the reason that you just raised, that even if they can sign one or two of those free agents, they RARELY can keep them, along with the fact that teams like the Dodgers can REALISTICALLY re-sign them and win titles and continually put their team in title contention. Most of the time when teams get a big name player, it's merely a rental.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 19, 2022 15:32:11 GMT -8
So. Can. Every. Team. In. The. League. Neither one of you is hitting on the real issue here. Scroll up. It's up to individual owners to spend money. Every team is capable. So, the Dodgers with $209 Million in TV revenue alone can't outbid the Marlins who only had $20 Million in TV revenue? Are you on crack? Weed? Shrooms? The Dodgers have 10 times the TV revenue that the Marlins do. TEN TIMES. (And more than FIVE times the Padres TV revenue.) Come on, man. You're conflating two different things here, which means we're arguing in circles. Some teams have more money in TV dollars than others - There are more people in Los Angeles than there are in Miami. (Shocking?) That does not mean that the Marlins cannot spend competitively to win games.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 19, 2022 15:35:42 GMT -8
So, the Dodgers with $209 Million in TV revenue alone can't outbid the Marlins who only had $20 Million in TV revenue? Are you on crack? Weed? Shrooms? The Dodgers have 10 times the TV revenue that the Marlins do. TEN TIMES. (And more than FIVE times the Padres TV revenue.) Come on, man. He won't/can't get the fact, due to the reason that you just raised, that even if they can sign one or two of those free agents, they RARELY can keep them, along with the fact that teams like the Dodgers can REALISTICALLY re-sign them and win titles and continually put their team in title contention. Most of the time when teams get a big name player, it's merely a rental. I literally just showed you that smaller market teams have the resources through revenue sharing alone to spend money. If you're silly enough to believe that the Orioles running a payroll south of 40 million dollars is due to their lack of resources....You're wrong, again. Remind me how many titles the Dodgers have won this century?
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 19, 2022 15:42:00 GMT -8
He won't/can't get the fact, due to the reason that you just raised, that even if they can sign one or two of those free agents, they RARELY can keep them, along with the fact that teams like the Dodgers can REALISTICALLY re-sign them and win titles and continually put their team in title contention. Most of the time when teams get a big name player, it's merely a rental. I literally just showed you that smaller market teams have the resources through revenue sharing alone to spend money. If you're silly enough to believe that the Orioles running a payroll south of 40 million dollars is due to their lack of resources....You're wrong, again. Remind me how many titles the Dodgers have won this century? God, you are obtuse. A team with more money can outbid a team with less money for an individual free agent. Period, end of story. A team with more money can spend more on payrol, overall. Period, end of story. Revenue sharing is NOT the same as having the same revenue. The Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, have FAR more revenue than do the Padres or Marlins. Therefore they can afford to spend more on payroll than can the Padres or Marlins. Just because the Padres and Marlins are not destitute doesn't mean it's a level playing field. It's not even close to being a level playing field, and the more you try to say it is the more foolish you look. Just stop. Oh, and, even in the horribly mismanaged Frank McCourt years, the Dodgers almost never have losing seasons. They have had TWO losing seasons this century. TWO.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 19, 2022 17:23:48 GMT -8
He won't/can't get the fact, due to the reason that you just raised, that even if they can sign one or two of those free agents, they RARELY can keep them, along with the fact that teams like the Dodgers can REALISTICALLY re-sign them and win titles and continually put their team in title contention. Most of the time when teams get a big name player, it's merely a rental. I literally just showed you that smaller market teams have the resources through revenue sharing alone to spend money. If you're silly enough to believe that the Orioles running a payroll south of 40 million dollars is due to their lack of resources....You're wrong, again. Remind me how many titles the Dodgers have won this century? So, if they have the resources you say they do, then why don't those teams spend the same amount as the Dodgers?
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 19, 2022 17:46:17 GMT -8
I believe I found ONE reason why smaller market teams don't spend money on their payroll/free agents. The Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees have more opportunity to make up for the money they spend on free agents, etc, from the gate, and TV revenues, etc....
Smaller Market teams don't make the same revenue from these sources and it's much more difficult to make up for it.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 19, 2022 21:34:09 GMT -8
I literally just showed you that smaller market teams have the resources through revenue sharing alone to spend money. If you're silly enough to believe that the Orioles running a payroll south of 40 million dollars is due to their lack of resources....You're wrong, again. Remind me how many titles the Dodgers have won this century? God, you are obtuse. A team with more money can outbid a team with less money for an individual free agent. Period, end of story. A team with more money can spend more on payrol, overall. Period, end of story. Revenue sharing is NOT the same as having the same revenue. The Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, have FAR more revenue than do the Padres or Marlins. Therefore they can afford to spend more on payroll than can the Padres or Marlins. Just because the Padres and Marlins are not destitute doesn't mean it's a level playing field. It's not even close to being a level playing field, and the more you try to say it is the more foolish you look. Just stop. Oh, and, even in the horribly mismanaged Frank McCourt years, the Dodgers almost never have losing seasons. They have had TWO losing seasons this century. TWO. I showed you the proof. In plain, excerpted, concrete format. It's up to you if you want to keep up the charade, honestly. You're flip-flopping back and forth between different talking points so much I'm losing track. It's an uneven playing field. So what? You can't buy titles. You have to go and win games. Not regular season games, actual playoff games. And when those series start, it's not about payroll size, market size, roster size or anything else but individual execution, managerial strategy and luck.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 19, 2022 23:43:35 GMT -8
God, you are obtuse. A team with more money can outbid a team with less money for an individual free agent. Period, end of story. A team with more money can spend more on payrol, overall. Period, end of story. Revenue sharing is NOT the same as having the same revenue. The Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, have FAR more revenue than do the Padres or Marlins. Therefore they can afford to spend more on payroll than can the Padres or Marlins. Just because the Padres and Marlins are not destitute doesn't mean it's a level playing field. It's not even close to being a level playing field, and the more you try to say it is the more foolish you look. Just stop. Oh, and, even in the horribly mismanaged Frank McCourt years, the Dodgers almost never have losing seasons. They have had TWO losing seasons this century. TWO. I showed you the proof. In plain, excerpted, concrete format. It's up to you if you want to keep up the charade, honestly. You're flip-flopping back and forth between different talking points so much I'm losing track. It's an uneven playing field. So what? You can't buy titles. You have to go and win games. Not regular season games, actual playoff games. And when those series start, it's not about payroll size, market size, roster size or anything else but individual execution, managerial strategy and luck. See, you don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about a championship every 20 or 30 years. I care about watching a top level team game in and game out. I don't want to sit through 7 or 8 losing seasons in a row to get the team in a position to win for 2 or 3 years, and then go through a 7 or 8 year drought again. Fans of the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, don't have to sit through losing seasons. They're contending for the playoffs EVERY year because they can re-sign their best homegrown talent while at the same time signing the best talent developed by the smaller market teams. Regular season games is what counts. If you don't win in the regular season, you don't go to the playoffs. I cannot and will not support a league that has an unfair, imbalanced system that is designed to benefit the teams in the largest markets at the expense of the smaller market teams. I don't like putting up with that kind of thing in college football (P5 vs G5), and I like it even less with professional sports where the playing field is SUPPOSED to be level. It's not. Sure, any team can rise up and build a contender afer 5-8 years of $#!+ baseball that the fans have to endure. But why shouldn't the big market fans have to endure that, too? Or, conversely, why can't more smaller market teams enjoy 8-10 years in a row of winning baseball like the fans in those big markets enjoy? Watching your team win more than they lose in the regular season is infinitely more enjoyable than watching your team lose more than they win.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 8:35:26 GMT -8
I showed you the proof. In plain, excerpted, concrete format. It's up to you if you want to keep up the charade, honestly. You're flip-flopping back and forth between different talking points so much I'm losing track. It's an uneven playing field. So what? You can't buy titles. You have to go and win games. Not regular season games, actual playoff games. And when those series start, it's not about payroll size, market size, roster size or anything else but individual execution, managerial strategy and luck. See, you don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about a championship every 20 or 30 years. I care about watching a top level team game in and game out. I don't want to sit through 7 or 8 losing seasons in a row to get the team in a position to win for 2 or 3 years, and then go through a 7 or 8 year drought again. Fans of the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, don't have to sit through losing seasons. They're contending for the playoffs EVERY year because they can re-sign their best homegrown talent while at the same time signing the best talent developed by the smaller market teams. Regular season games is what counts. If you don't win in the regular season, you don't go to the playoffs. I cannot and will not support a league that has an unfair, imbalanced system that is designed to benefit the teams in the largest markets at the expense of the smaller market teams. I don't like putting up with that kind of thing in college football (P5 vs G5), and I like it even less with professional sports where the playing field is SUPPOSED to be level. It's not. Sure, any team can rise up and build a contender afer 5-8 years of $#!+ baseball that the fans have to endure. But why shouldn't the big market fans have to endure that, too? Or, conversely, why can't more smaller market teams enjoy 8-10 years in a row of winning baseball like the fans in those big markets enjoy? Watching your team win more than they lose in the regular season is infinitely more enjoyable than watching your team lose more than they win. Then don't support it? But don't whine and complain every single year with false talking points. You were shown in plain English what the real problem is with small market teams. They make so much money, they aren't incentivized to compete. You're missing the giant elephant in the room. Big market teams aren't big market teams for any other reason than they are in consolidated metro statistical areas. That's it. Not competitive imbalance, geography. People. New York has more people than Kansas City, Cleveland or Cincinnati. You're going to complain about that, too? The reason "small market" teams can't sustain success is this: Most baseball owners don't care about winning. They care about retaining profits and making money. That has nothing to do with baseball's system (in which any team can win a World Series ON THE FIELD) and everything to do with corporate....greed. Oakland is a massive CMSA. It's right across the bridge from San Francisco. The same CMSA. Why is one team winning and the other team trading everyone not nailed to the ground? Simple. Ownership, not competitive imbalance. A desire to win versus a desire to make money. Oakland knew they were facing a giant rebuild and raised ticket prices at the end of the season last year. Competitive imbalance? No. Billionaire owner choosing to not try and win games, but increase his profitability. John Fisher, owner of the A's, is worth just under $3B. You're seriously trying to tell me that he can't afford to be competitive? That's where your gripe is. That's where your ire should be directed. The Padres are proof that your argument doesn't hold water because under Moorad, they never tried to win anything. He refused to invest in the team because he didn't own the team outright, he financed and financed and financed until he got a majority stake. Payrolls were under $60M regularly. That's not a market size problem. The market size is still the same, it's who runs the team and the choices they make. Period.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 20, 2022 8:37:24 GMT -8
I showed you the proof. In plain, excerpted, concrete format. It's up to you if you want to keep up the charade, honestly. You're flip-flopping back and forth between different talking points so much I'm losing track. It's an uneven playing field. So what? You can't buy titles. You have to go and win games. Not regular season games, actual playoff games. And when those series start, it's not about payroll size, market size, roster size or anything else but individual execution, managerial strategy and luck. See, you don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about a championship every 20 or 30 years. I care about watching a top level team game in and game out. I don't want to sit through 7 or 8 losing seasons in a row to get the team in a position to win for 2 or 3 years, and then go through a 7 or 8 year drought again. Fans of the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, don't have to sit through losing seasons. They're contending for the playoffs EVERY year because they can re-sign their best homegrown talent while at the same time signing the best talent developed by the smaller market teams. Regular season games is what counts. If you don't win in the regular season, you don't go to the playoffs. I cannot and will not support a league that has an unfair, imbalanced system that is designed to benefit the teams in the largest markets at the expense of the smaller market teams. I don't like putting up with that kind of thing in college football (P5 vs G5), and I like it even less with professional sports where the playing field is SUPPOSED to be level. It's not. Sure, any team can rise up and build a contender afer 5-8 years of $#!+ baseball that the fans have to endure. But why shouldn't the big market fans have to endure that, too? Or, conversely, why can't more smaller market teams enjoy 8-10 years in a row of winning baseball like the fans in those big markets enjoy? Watching your team win more than they lose in the regular season is infinitely more enjoyable than watching your team lose more than they win. Absolutely. Regular season games matter to fans, because if you're winning it gives you hope throughout the season. It's entertainment after all. Not many fans want to pony up the big bucks to take their family and see an inferior product game after game, year after year. Championships are the ultimate prize, but because it's such a long season it's important for a fan to have hope, and there's not a level playing field in the hope department, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 20, 2022 10:45:45 GMT -8
See, you don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about a championship every 20 or 30 years. I care about watching a top level team game in and game out. I don't want to sit through 7 or 8 losing seasons in a row to get the team in a position to win for 2 or 3 years, and then go through a 7 or 8 year drought again. Fans of the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc, don't have to sit through losing seasons. They're contending for the playoffs EVERY year because they can re-sign their best homegrown talent while at the same time signing the best talent developed by the smaller market teams. Regular season games is what counts. If you don't win in the regular season, you don't go to the playoffs. I cannot and will not support a league that has an unfair, imbalanced system that is designed to benefit the teams in the largest markets at the expense of the smaller market teams. I don't like putting up with that kind of thing in college football (P5 vs G5), and I like it even less with professional sports where the playing field is SUPPOSED to be level. It's not. Sure, any team can rise up and build a contender afer 5-8 years of $#!+ baseball that the fans have to endure. But why shouldn't the big market fans have to endure that, too? Or, conversely, why can't more smaller market teams enjoy 8-10 years in a row of winning baseball like the fans in those big markets enjoy? Watching your team win more than they lose in the regular season is infinitely more enjoyable than watching your team lose more than they win. Then don't support it? But don't whine and complain every single year with false talking points. You were shown in plain English what the real problem is with small market teams. They make so much money, they aren't incentivized to compete. You're missing the giant elephant in the room. Big market teams aren't big market teams for any other reason than they are in consolidated metro statistical areas. That's it. Not competitive imbalance, geography. People. New York has more people than Kansas City, Cleveland or Cincinnati. You're going to complain about that, too? The reason "small market" teams can't sustain success is this: Most baseball owners don't care about winning. They care about retaining profits and making money. That has nothing to do with baseball's system (in which any team can win a World Series ON THE FIELD) and everything to do with corporate....greed. Oakland is a massive CMSA. It's right across the bridge from San Francisco. The same CMSA. Why is one team winning and the other team trading everyone not nailed to the ground? Simple. Ownership, not competitive imbalance. A desire to win versus a desire to make money. Oakland knew they were facing a giant rebuild and raised ticket prices at the end of the season last year. Competitive imbalance? No. Billionaire owner choosing to not try and win games, but increase his profitability. John Fisher, owner of the A's, is worth just under $3B. You're seriously trying to tell me that he can't afford to be competitive? That's where your gripe is. That's where your ire should be directed. The Padres are proof that your argument doesn't hold water because under Moorad, they never tried to win anything. He refused to invest in the team because he didn't own the team outright, he financed and financed and financed until he got a majority stake. Payrolls were under $60M regularly. That's not a market size problem. The market size is still the same, it's who runs the team and the choices they make. Period. You still don't get it. These inequity problems don't exist AT ALL in the NFL. Because they share almost 100% of their revenues equally. Being in a major market is NOT an advantage in the NFL. It IS in MLB. It's a much smaller RISK to run huge salaries in major markets than it is smaller markets. The smaller market teams run the risk of cutting their profits down to nothing (compared to the profits of the major market teams). These owners don't buy the team for fun. They buy it to make f****** money. It's a BUSINESS. Why should small market teams make less money than big market teams? Because, under the current system, they do make less. Sure, when they keep their salaries under $100 Million they make a good profit! Of course they do, that's the point of a business. So why should they make $100 Million less in profit every year than the big market teams just because of geography and population? Complete revenue sharing should exist. It does in the NFL, and that's why the NFL is a better, more competitive league where the only things that are involved in creating contenders are the quality of management and the quality of coaching. Money isn't an issue at all in the NFL. Each team makes the same amount (for the most part), so there is no incentive to spend less to make the same amount of profit as the big market teams. You seem to expect the smaller market owners to be OK with making far less in profits each year than their big market partners. (And they are partners in the same business.) They're not stupid. They want to maximize profits, and the system incentivizes the small market owners to be cheap on salaries so they can make close to the same profit as the big market teams.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 20, 2022 13:53:44 GMT -8
Wow, I just looked up the Yankees. 29 straight winning seasons. 2022 will mark 30 straight winning seasons. They haven't had a losing record since 1992! Yeah, money has nothing major to do with that.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 15:02:42 GMT -8
Then don't support it? But don't whine and complain every single year with false talking points. You were shown in plain English what the real problem is with small market teams. They make so much money, they aren't incentivized to compete. You're missing the giant elephant in the room. Big market teams aren't big market teams for any other reason than they are in consolidated metro statistical areas. That's it. Not competitive imbalance, geography. People. New York has more people than Kansas City, Cleveland or Cincinnati. You're going to complain about that, too? The reason "small market" teams can't sustain success is this: Most baseball owners don't care about winning. They care about retaining profits and making money. That has nothing to do with baseball's system (in which any team can win a World Series ON THE FIELD) and everything to do with corporate....greed. Oakland is a massive CMSA. It's right across the bridge from San Francisco. The same CMSA. Why is one team winning and the other team trading everyone not nailed to the ground? Simple. Ownership, not competitive imbalance. A desire to win versus a desire to make money. Oakland knew they were facing a giant rebuild and raised ticket prices at the end of the season last year. Competitive imbalance? No. Billionaire owner choosing to not try and win games, but increase his profitability. John Fisher, owner of the A's, is worth just under $3B. You're seriously trying to tell me that he can't afford to be competitive? That's where your gripe is. That's where your ire should be directed. The Padres are proof that your argument doesn't hold water because under Moorad, they never tried to win anything. He refused to invest in the team because he didn't own the team outright, he financed and financed and financed until he got a majority stake. Payrolls were under $60M regularly. That's not a market size problem. The market size is still the same, it's who runs the team and the choices they make. Period. You still don't get it. These inequity problems don't exist AT ALL in the NFL. Because they share almost 100% of their revenues equally. Being in a major market is NOT an advantage in the NFL. It IS in MLB. It's a much smaller RISK to run huge salaries in major markets than it is smaller markets. The smaller market teams run the risk of cutting their profits down to nothing (compared to the profits of the major market teams). These owners don't buy the team for fun. They buy it to make f****** money. It's a BUSINESS. Why should small market teams make less money than big market teams? Because, under the current system, they do make less. Sure, when they keep their salaries under $100 Million they make a good profit! Of course they do, that's the point of a business. So why should they make $100 Million less in profit every year than the big market teams just because of geography and population? Complete revenue sharing should exist. It does in the NFL, and that's why the NFL is a better, more competitive league where the only things that are involved in creating contenders are the quality of management and the quality of coaching. Money isn't an issue at all in the NFL. Each team makes the same amount (for the most part), so there is no incentive to spend less to make the same amount of profit as the big market teams. You seem to expect the smaller market owners to be OK with making far less in profits each year than their big market partners. (And they are partners in the same business.) They're not stupid. They want to maximize profits, and the system incentivizes the small market owners to be cheap on salaries so they can make close to the same profit as the big market teams. Any comparison to football is irrelevant. Completely. You can harp on this further, but it shows a lack of understanding of the simple differences involved between the sports. Time to move on.
|
|