|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 20, 2022 15:10:06 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. Your last paragraph is right on.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 20, 2022 15:24:21 GMT -8
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. The differences are there by choice on the part of Major League Baseball. The system is what they want - the big market teams in the playoffs every year for TV ratings. It's a highly flawed system, inherently UNfair. No level playing field. The comparison to the NFL is VERY relevant. One league gets it right, the other chooses not to. You make excuses for an intentionally flawed system, while others don't accept those excuses because the system COULD be fair if they really wanted it to be. They don't.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 18:04:35 GMT -8
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. The differences are there by choice on the part of Major League Baseball. The system is what they want - the big market teams in the playoffs every year for TV ratings. It's a highly flawed system, inherently UNfair. No level playing field. The comparison to the NFL is VERY relevant. One league gets it right, the other chooses not to. You make excuses for an intentionally flawed system, while others don't accept those excuses because the system COULD be fair if they really wanted it to be. They don't. The differences are there as a result of the players (yes, the players) refusing a salary cap for more than a decade. Having a salary cap suppresses the top markets, lowering the elite level player's salary. Baseball contracts are fully guaranteed. Massive difference, right away. The NFL employs double the number of players that MLB does, another huge difference. The seasons are only separated by 144 games, totally similar. It's not relevant at all. Your line of logic is completely nonsensical, not backed up by facts or any of the data in this thread. Stop bitching about "fairness" and start realizing that the owners are to blame, not the "system." Sidenote: Even using the example you provide, the NFL isn't a "level playing field" when the same franchises make the playoffs year after year. The NFL doesn't care about ratings, right? Sounds familiar, right? Give me a break. Nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 20, 2022 18:28:37 GMT -8
The differences are there by choice on the part of Major League Baseball. The system is what they want - the big market teams in the playoffs every year for TV ratings. It's a highly flawed system, inherently UNfair. No level playing field. The comparison to the NFL is VERY relevant. One league gets it right, the other chooses not to. You make excuses for an intentionally flawed system, while others don't accept those excuses because the system COULD be fair if they really wanted it to be. They don't. The differences are there as a result of the players (yes, the players) refusing a salary cap for more than a decade. Having a salary cap suppresses the top markets, lowering the elite level player's salary. Baseball contracts are fully guaranteed. Massive difference, right away. The NFL employs double the number of players that MLB does, another huge difference. The seasons are only separated by 144 games, totally similar. It's not relevant at all. Your line of logic is completely nonsensical, not backed up by facts or any of the data in this thread. Stop bitching about "fairness" and start realizing that the owners are to blame, not the "system." Sidenote: Even using the example you provide, the NFL isn't a "level playing field" when the same franchises make the playoffs year after year. The NFL doesn't care about ratings, right? Sounds familiar, right? Give me a break. Nonsense. In the NFL the ONLY things that determine a franchise's success are the quality of the team's management, and the quality of the team's coaching. Period. Every franchise has equal resources. Baseball doesn't want that. The players don't, and the owners don't. So baseball is just a step above pro westling as a result. We know that the Dodgers and Yankees will contend for division titles and they won't have losing records just about ever. But that's OK with you. I really can't stand MLB apologists. They're as bad as the league.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 18:42:34 GMT -8
The differences are there as a result of the players (yes, the players) refusing a salary cap for more than a decade. Having a salary cap suppresses the top markets, lowering the elite level player's salary. Baseball contracts are fully guaranteed. Massive difference, right away. The NFL employs double the number of players that MLB does, another huge difference. The seasons are only separated by 144 games, totally similar. It's not relevant at all. Your line of logic is completely nonsensical, not backed up by facts or any of the data in this thread. Stop bitching about "fairness" and start realizing that the owners are to blame, not the "system." Sidenote: Even using the example you provide, the NFL isn't a "level playing field" when the same franchises make the playoffs year after year. The NFL doesn't care about ratings, right? Sounds familiar, right? Give me a break. Nonsense. In the NFL the ONLY things that determine a franchise's success are the quality of the team's management, and the quality of the team's coaching. Period. Every franchise has equal resources. Baseball doesn't want that. The players don't, and the owners don't. So baseball is just a step above pro westling as a result. We know that the Dodgers and Yankees will contend for division titles and they won't have losing records just about ever. But that's OK with you. I really can't stand MLB apologists. They're as bad as the league. And I can't stand people who whine incessantly about "fairness" like this is Little League participation trophy hour. The NFL franchises do NOT have equal resources. That's hilarious. They have a salary cap, a limit they can spend to. That's it. Nothing more. I'll say it again, one more time.... Every single MLB franchise could be competitive if they chose to invest in their team. Every team gets and has the resources to run a competitive payroll to win games. It doesn't matter if they are run by Dick Monfort, Peter Seidler, Magic Johnson, Steve Cohen or Tom Ricketts. You're literally arguing that small market teams make too much money. You realize that, right? You want the league to give them more money so they can....not spend? The argument makes no sense. Let's get this thread back to being about Fernando Tatis and not this silly argument.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 20, 2022 19:02:48 GMT -8
In the NFL the ONLY things that determine a franchise's success are the quality of the team's management, and the quality of the team's coaching. Period. Every franchise has equal resources. Baseball doesn't want that. The players don't, and the owners don't. So baseball is just a step above pro westling as a result. We know that the Dodgers and Yankees will contend for division titles and they won't have losing records just about ever. But that's OK with you. I really can't stand MLB apologists. They're as bad as the league. And I can't stand people who whine incessantly about "fairness" like this is Little League participation trophy hour. The NFL franchises do NOT have equal resources. That's hilarious. They have a salary cap, a limit they can spend to. That's it. Nothing more. I'll say it again, one more time.... Every single MLB franchise could be competitive if they chose to invest in their team. Every team gets and has the resources to run a competitive payroll to win games. It doesn't matter if they are run by Dick Monfort, Peter Seidler, Magic Johnson, Steve Cohen or Tom Ricketts. You're literally arguing that small market teams make too much money. You realize that, right? You want the league to give them more money so they can....not spend? The argument makes no sense. Let's get this thread back to being about Fernando Tatis and not this silly argument. While I agree with you for the most part--don't NFL teams start with the same basic revenue stream every season, that is, don't they all get an equal amount of revenue from the equal division of national media contracts? I mean, right there, the amount each team receives is more than enough to cover the salary cap. But after that, I agree that many NFL teams still have the ability to generate more revenue, based on ticket sales, stadium situations, etc.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 19:31:47 GMT -8
And I can't stand people who whine incessantly about "fairness" like this is Little League participation trophy hour. The NFL franchises do NOT have equal resources. That's hilarious. They have a salary cap, a limit they can spend to. That's it. Nothing more. I'll say it again, one more time.... Every single MLB franchise could be competitive if they chose to invest in their team. Every team gets and has the resources to run a competitive payroll to win games. It doesn't matter if they are run by Dick Monfort, Peter Seidler, Magic Johnson, Steve Cohen or Tom Ricketts. You're literally arguing that small market teams make too much money. You realize that, right? You want the league to give them more money so they can....not spend? The argument makes no sense. Let's get this thread back to being about Fernando Tatis and not this silly argument. While I agree with you for the most part--don't NFL teams start with the same basic revenue stream every season, that is, don't they all get an equal amount of revenue from the equal division of national media contracts? I mean, right there, the amount each team receives is more than enough to cover the salary cap. But after that, I agree that many NFL teams still have the ability to generate more revenue, based on ticket sales, stadium situations, etc. Every team gets equal national revenue (according to the CBA), but the local revenues vary widely based on a host of factors.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 20, 2022 22:54:37 GMT -8
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. Your last paragraph is right on. This is it 100%. Big market teams have more financial incentive to invest in their team, whereas small market teams are incentivized to tank for 5-7 years in a row to stockpile prospects and cash, then once they have a core that they can make a run in the playoffs with, sell out short term by trading the farm to add the pieces that they need to have a 2-3 year window of contention for a WS, and maybe in that WS contention window they make a splash or two in free agency. Then afterwards they trade everybody, slash payroll and start over. it's the optimal business model for MLB small market teams to maximize profits, I don't understand why you are arguing this point Ryan. You're saying "They could" be competitive - and what everyone else is saying is that a. they can be competitive, but competition is still not an equal playing field and b. it would be suboptimal for these teams to do that from a profit maximization perspective (Which is the purpose of running a business after all). A 48% MLB revenue sharing agreement isn't the same as the NFL's 100% national media revenue sharing agreement.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 20, 2022 23:03:47 GMT -8
Your last paragraph is right on. This is it 100%. Big market teams have more financial incentive to invest in their team, whereas small market teams are incentivized to tank for 5-7 years in a row to stockpile prospects and cash, then once they have a core that they can make a run in the playoffs with, sell out short term by trading the farm to add the pieces that they need to have a 2-3 year window of contention for a WS, and maybe in that WS contention window they make a splash or two in free agency. Then afterwards they trade everybody, slash payroll and start over. it's the optimal business model for MLB small market teams to maximize profits, I don't understand why you are arguing this point Ryan. You're saying "They could" be competitive - and what everyone else is saying is that a. they can be competitive, but competition is still not an equal playing field and b. it would be suboptimal for these teams to do that from a profit maximization perspective (Which is the purpose of running a business after all). A 48% MLB revenue sharing agreement isn't the same as the NFL's 100% national media revenue sharing agreement. I'm done on this subject and would prefer to restore the thread back to what it should be about, Fernando Tatis Jr.
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Mar 20, 2022 23:30:22 GMT -8
Your last paragraph is right on. This is it 100%. Big market teams have more financial incentive to invest in their team, whereas small market teams are incentivized to tank for 5-7 years in a row to stockpile prospects and cash, then once they have a core that they can make a run in the playoffs with, sell out short term by trading the farm to add the pieces that they need to have a 2-3 year window of contention for a WS, and maybe in that WS contention window they make a splash or two in free agency. Then afterwards they trade everybody, slash payroll and start over. it's the optimal business model for MLB small market teams to maximize profits, I don't understand why you are arguing this point Ryan. You're saying "They could" be competitive - and what everyone else is saying is that a. they can be competitive, but competition is still not an equal playing field and b. it would be suboptimal for these teams to do that from a profit maximization perspective (Which is the purpose of running a business after all). A 48% MLB revenue sharing agreement isn't the same as the NFL's 100% national media revenue sharing agreement. Very good post. This is it.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 21, 2022 7:16:14 GMT -8
Your last paragraph is right on. This is it 100%. Big market teams have more financial incentive to invest in their team, whereas small market teams are incentivized to tank for 5-7 years in a row to stockpile prospects and cash, then once they have a core that they can make a run in the playoffs with, sell out short term by trading the farm to add the pieces that they need to have a 2-3 year window of contention for a WS, and maybe in that WS contention window they make a splash or two in free agency. Then afterwards they trade everybody, slash payroll and start over. it's the optimal business model for MLB small market teams to maximize profits, I don't understand why you are arguing this point Ryan. You're saying "They could" be competitive - and what everyone else is saying is that a. they can be competitive, but competition is still not an equal playing field and b. it would be suboptimal for these teams to do that from a profit maximization perspective (Which is the purpose of running a business after all). A 48% MLB revenue sharing agreement isn't the same as the NFL's 100% national media revenue sharing agreement. If competition isn't a level playing field, not sure what is. It goes back to my point that it comes down to individual owners, not baseball itself. Giving smaller market teams more money changes nothing, it gives them less incentive to compete. The owners told you this during the CBA negotiations when they adamantly said that owning a franchise isn't a lucrative endeavor. The revenue sharing is only one piece of a much more convoluted puzzle. Now, back to Fernando.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Mar 21, 2022 8:36:51 GMT -8
This is it 100%. Big market teams have more financial incentive to invest in their team, whereas small market teams are incentivized to tank for 5-7 years in a row to stockpile prospects and cash, then once they have a core that they can make a run in the playoffs with, sell out short term by trading the farm to add the pieces that they need to have a 2-3 year window of contention for a WS, and maybe in that WS contention window they make a splash or two in free agency. Then afterwards they trade everybody, slash payroll and start over. it's the optimal business model for MLB small market teams to maximize profits, I don't understand why you are arguing this point Ryan. You're saying "They could" be competitive - and what everyone else is saying is that a. they can be competitive, but competition is still not an equal playing field and b. it would be suboptimal for these teams to do that from a profit maximization perspective (Which is the purpose of running a business after all). A 48% MLB revenue sharing agreement isn't the same as the NFL's 100% national media revenue sharing agreement. If competition isn't a level playing field, not sure what is. It goes back to my point that it comes down to individual owners, not baseball itself. Giving smaller market teams more money changes nothing, it gives them less incentive to compete. Less incentive to compete? How much less incentive could there be than under the current system. Small market teams make MUCH more profit when they have low payroll than when they have higher payroll. If they matched the big market teams in spending they'd make less profit than by tanking. That's a pretty big incentive to NOT spend money. You are just unwilling to admit that the current system is not as good as it could be or should be.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 21, 2022 8:48:32 GMT -8
If competition isn't a level playing field, not sure what is. It goes back to my point that it comes down to individual owners, not baseball itself. Giving smaller market teams more money changes nothing, it gives them less incentive to compete. Less incentive to compete? How much less incentive could there be than under the current system. Small market teams make MUCH more profit when they have low payroll than when they have higher payroll. If they matched the big market teams in spending they'd make less profit than by tanking. That's a pretty big incentive to NOT spend money. You are just unwilling to admit that the current system is not as good as it could be or should be. It has nothing to do with "admitting" anything. Your premise is faulty from the get go and the CBA negotiations back that up. Most owners do not care about winning, they care about money. Period. Point blank. I guess you can look forward to football season. I'll be doing the baseball thing.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Mar 21, 2022 10:14:33 GMT -8
Small market teams make MUCH more profit when they have low payroll than when they have higher payroll. If they matched the big market teams in spending they'd make less profit than by tanking. Most owners do not care about winning, they care about money. Period. Point blank. I think that we all agree on the above point. ----------------------------------------------- "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." "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." Geography is the competitive imbalance, and it's not just a MLB issue, it's a much larger societal issue.But I don't think that any of us disagree with this? Football solves the geography issue through the 100% sharing of the national media contract + a salary cap. The point that everyone else is making is that MLB hasn't solved this issue of geography. --------------------------- "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." But baseball's system (in combination with the capitalist society that we live in) create the parameters in which owners operate their businesses in order to maximize profits. What you are saying is that baseball teams could be competitive. You know, drugs companies could sell medicines that they have a patent for below the market rate instead of gouging consumers. But they don't have to because they have a patent that allows them to sell it at the market rate. ------------------------------------------- MLB teams - don't have to - field a competitive team every year. Besides, what does it even mean to be competitive??
Is a team that goes 52-110 uncompetitive? They won 52 of their games, about 30% or so. Is that competitive? Not every team can win every year. One team wins an individual game, another team loses an individual game. Only one team can win the World Series each year on the field. Out of all the teams.
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Mar 21, 2022 12:34:32 GMT -8
Most owners do not care about winning, they care about money. Period. Point blank. I think that we all agree on the above point. ----------------------------------------------- "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." "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." Geography is the competitive imbalance, and it's not just a MLB issue, it's a much larger societal issue.But I don't think that any of us disagree with this? Football solves the geography issue through the 100% sharing of the national media contract + a salary cap. The point that everyone else is making is that MLB hasn't solved this issue of geography. --------------------------- "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." But baseball's system (in combination with the capitalist society that we live in) create the parameters in which owners operate their businesses in order to maximize profits. What you are saying is that baseball teams could be competitive. You know, drugs companies could sell medicines that they have a patent for below the market rate instead of gouging consumers. But they don't have to because they have a patent that allows them to sell it at the market rate. ------------------------------------------- MLB teams - don't have to - field a competitive team every year. Besides, what does it even mean to be competitive??
Is a team that goes 52-110 uncompetitive? They won 52 of their games, about 30% or so. Is that competitive? Not every team can win every year. One team wins an individual game, another team loses an individual game. Only one team can win the World Series each year on the field. Out of all the teams. Too much is being made out of the revenue sharing. The cap is the differentiator. MLB will never have a salary cap because the top of the market would get squeezed with baseball's fully guaranteed deals.
|
|
|
Post by cmonaztecs on Apr 8, 2022 21:05:55 GMT -8
A new injury from the off season, geeze you can write him off. Mr Brittle.
|
|