Since my last post, the Royals have tanked every game and are back on track to be one of the worst of all time. Their poor performance elicited this comment from an anonymous reader:
"Why can't we have a discussion about how baseball as a professional sport is an absolute joke due to the fact there is no salary cap whatsoever (and don't even give me that crap about the luxury tax) and parity is non-existent. if they don't fix this, baseball can be in serious trouble, not only in KC but in many towns across the nation."
My reaction is this: Yes, the financial structure of Major League Baseball is a joke. It is a situation that desperately needs to be fixed. And there have been numerable suggestions on how to go about righting the ship.
For instance, I've seen proposals where both a salary cap and a salary *floor* are put into place. This would force teams to spend a minimum amount of money on salary while keeping teams from grossly outspending the competition. It would be a way to keep stingy owners from pocketing their revenue sharing money rather than re-investing it back into the team. But it would be tough to regulate. Spending $50 million on salaries doesn't mean your team is going to compete (see: Kansas City Royals, 2006). If you could regulate that a certain amount was spent on player development, competent front office personnel, etc., that might improve teams to a certain degree. But, as in the Royals' case, it doesn't matter how much or how little money you spend if the decisions on how to spend it are ill-informed or misguided.
Look at the Baltimore Orioles as an example. Peter Angelos has spent significantly more money than the Royals over the last several years (the Oriole's average payroll over the last decade was $66 million, ranking 9th highest overall in MLB) and what does he have to show for it? Only two playoff appearances in the last 10 years and a .475 overall winning percentage.
How about last year's Mariners? They went out and picked up two big ticket free agents. The result? A payroll of $88 million and 69 wins. Is that what the Royals should be striving for? I hope not.
We all know how successful the Rangers were after giving Alex Rodriquez his otherworldly contract. They averaged 72 wins per season and finished last in their division every year until they traded him to the Yankees.
Also, I don't buy the parity argument. Here is a list of the World Series winners since the latest Yankee dynasty ended in 2000:
2001: Arizona Diamondbacks
2002: Anaheim Angels
2003: Florida Marlins
2004: Boston Red Sox
2005: Chicago White Sox
That's five different winners in five years. And two of those teams hadn't won a championship since World War I.
Additionally, 17 *different* teams have made the playoffs in that same time frame. Over 50% of the teams in the majors have made it to the postseason at least once in the last five years. That sounds like parity to me. Or should we reconstruct the playoffs to look like the NHL or NBA where nearly everyone gets in every year? Maybe we should ask the 12 people who actually watch the NHL playoffs or the three dozen who get excited for the NBA playoffs.
My point is this: Yes, the system baseball has in place is flawed. Seriously, in fact. But teams that don't make smart decisions with meager payrolls shouldn't be expected to make smart decisions with increased payrolls.
I'm not sure exactly what the best solution is. The NFL has a "hard" cap, the NBA a "soft" cap. Each of those leagues is thriving. But so is MLB. Attendance has never been higher. Same with overall revenues. It's just certain teams within MLB that are barely treading water. Of course, the same could be said for Portland, Golden State, and Atlanta in the NBA. Or Detroit, Arizona and New Orleans in the NFL. Are those teams hampered by the system? Not likely. They're just poorly run organizations.
So, fix the system in baseball! I'm all for it! Unfortunately, it isn't going to help teams like the Royals until someone can manage them competently.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I agree in the sense that teams are mismanaged from the front office and that makes them suck. The Royals are a strong case to this, as well as some of those other teams you mentioned. Hell, we can say the Chiefs have been in that category for ten years. But at the same time, when you are talking about a league who has some teams in the 150+ million payroll v. the Royals and their 50 million, that is inherently unfair. i realize football can do some cap wiggling, but by and large there isn't a huge difference between the Chiefs and any other team. If the Chiefs do go out and spend too much, they will be punished in the subsequent years, and thus will have to dump talent and still get hit against the cap. My question is how are we able to tell how much it is mismanagement and how much it is that some teams spend more then 150 million more than others. It is impossible. I could say right now the Yankees are poorly managed given they have not been to the world series in a few years. I agree attendance is doing well, but i honestly believe in most markets that will only last so long. If the Royals continue to suck, attendance will drop. Worse yet, they will move. Look at Tampa, after the initial newness wore off, they struggle. you don't want teams constantly relocating. As far as the "popularity" of a sport besides attendance, you have to look at TV ratings. Hockey doesn't even count, so that little quirp was irrelevant. Right now football has been king for the past ten years. Their ratings especially in the playoffs would blow away baseballs. Why? I would argue parity, more than anything. You could say more people just like football, but i don't buy that. i bet more kids play organized baseball growing up and after all baseball is america's pasttime. just my two cents
more w. parity: i see you throw in that there have been five different world series winners. i think that is skewed. that tells us there is parity as far as who wins it every year, but i would be willing to bet (i am not a betting man nick) that if you look at payrolls, more times than not, higher payroll teams advance to the playoffs. granted there are some exceptions, like when minnesota had there runs a few years ago. take last years playoffs: the eight teams were san diego, st louis, white sox, red soxx, yankees, angels, astros and braves--those teams ranked 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 12th, 13th, and 17th out of 30 teams. Is this parity? to me no. this was one year, though, it could have been an aberration. 2004 teams were minnesota, new york, boston, anaheim, dodgers, st louis, braves and houston---there payrolls were 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, 12th, and 19th (Twins). again we see a similar pattern in that in two years out of 16 total spots only twice did a team advance to the playoffs who was not ranked in the top half of payroll. i could also say you have a better than 60% chance of making it to the playoffs if you are in the top ten, where the league as a whole, you have less than a 25% chance. I think parity is huge. i only did this for two years, but i am fairly confident this pattern would hold out. it also shows us that you were right in the fact that sometimes money doesn't matter. the mets were 3rd and 4th in the two years and did not make it, so yes mismanagment can play a role, but parity, in my mind, is the major indicator of sucess in MLB
I agree with you Nick. I don't care how much money the Royals get, the team will still suck without competent management from the top down.
I don't think that NFL's supremecy has anything to do with parity. I think its because America's sportsfans are a bunch of mindless meatheads. The only sport that can compete in attendence with NFL right now? NASCAR. Do I need to go any further?
People don't watch baseball for the same reason no one reads the newspaper anymore. America has no attention span and just wants sensationalism. Fox news, loud noises and big hits. Depressing. Baseball takes some real attention to detail to enjoy and America doesn't have it anymore.
I vote Blakeley for baseball comish.
I disagree Jeffrey--College basketball's tourney gets the 2nd best ratings after the NFL playoffs. Are we all meatheads or does it have something to do w. the fact that 64 teams (parity) have a chance to win something? How great is it when a seemingly unknown team (george mason) had a chance to play in the national semi's. As an "average" baseball fan who lives in KC, i am turned off by baseball because in the big scheme of things, my team can not compete year in, year out
I agree with the attention span theory. The general public loves their neatly wrapped little NFL games every Sunday. A large number of people who watch the NCAA tourney don't watch a single minute of the regular season; they just tune in to see if their cockamamie bracket got busted or not. They like the quick hits of intensity during the tourney and tune the rest out.
Also, I would argue that the NCAA tourney isn't truly about parity. When was the last time a school from a non power conference won the championship? UNLV in 1990? There might be upsets in the first couple of rounds and the occasional George Mason (which hasn't happened before that since probably Villanova in '85), but that doesn't mean those underdog schools have a chance. The reason people pay attention to the tourney is because they have a bracket in front of them and money on the line, not because their team has a legitimate shot at winning the title.
The thing is, people watch baseball and football and college basketball. They're all generally popular. Obviously not every team is going to thrive. I'm not arguing that baseball's system is fine. But the teams that are doing poorly have compounded the problem by running themselves into the ground. As agonizing as it is to say it, the Royals themselves have done far more to contribute to their ineptitude than the system ever has.
Look at the Brewers. They were awful and had the same small market cash flow problems as the Royals. But they've gradually accumulated young, cheap talent and haven't overpaid for mediocrity. They will be challenging for their division within the next year or two because they managed themselves effectively in spite of the system.
What I'm getting at is that we can cry about the system being unfair until we're blue in the face, but until we get our own ducks in a row, it won't matter one bit. If teams like Oakland, Minnesota, Cleveland and Milwaukee can achieve moderate success in such a flawed system, then anything is possible.
By the way, the Royals aren't going anywhere now; that nifty little 25 year lease they just hoodwinked Jackson Countians for fixed that.
i agree w. what you say, but i think big market v. small market is the biggest reason why baseball lacks parity and is hurting. we can just agree to disagree on this one--i can't wait to go out and hang out in the new ampitheater they are going to attack to the K. The K rules-- what a view of the I-70 and FCA building, which is a stunning example of early 70s architectures.
Yeah, not only are the Royals run poorly, but their fans make poor decisions, too. The fact that Jackson County dropped the ball when an opportunity to improve the stadium situations for the Chiefs, Royals and the city of KC is inexcusable. With all the momentum that was building toward revitalizing downtown (the Sprint Center, H&R Block HQ/Entertainment District, etc.), the opportunity was available to get the Royals downtown and get the Chiefs new digs. But I must have been fooled by the progressive thinking and should have realized that this town is still ultra-conservative, lacking in vision and downright ignorant.
Post a Comment