whitedawg22 Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiasco! Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickNickNick Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 In other news, does anyone dig the stripes on the uniform he's wearing in the first vid?I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brass Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?Money, money, money, money, money.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?St. Louis and Chicago say hello. As a matter of fact, so do all the major league cities, because attendance is on the rise. There's not as much correlation between payroll and success as you think, either. Nobody gets to cry poor when the 14-million-dollar Marlins were even so much as a wild card longshot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?Money, money, money, money, money....That reminds the immortal words of the Spanish writer Francisco de Quevedo: "Poderoso caballero es don Dinero".(Powerful gentleman, that is Mister Money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawg22 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?St. Louis and Chicago say hello. As a matter of fact, so do all the major league cities, because attendance is on the rise. There's not as much correlation between payroll and success as you think, either. Nobody gets to cry poor when the 14-million-dollar Marlins were even so much as a wild card longshot.St. Louis and Chicago are also fairly large-revenue cities, but I can't see either of them ponying up $25 mil just for the right to negotiate with this dude. I would say there's about a 90% chance that he signs with the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels, and about a 1% chance he signs with anybody other than those teams, the Cards, Cubs, ChiSox, or Dodgers.My point isn't that it's impossible for low-revenue teams to compete in any given season. My point is that large-revenue teams have a major competitive advantage, which makes the game (and especially the off-season) substantially less fun for 2/3 of the teams out there. And while it's true that revenue has a low correlation to wins in any given season, try correlating average payroll to wins over a 5-year or 10-year stretch. The correlation in this case is extremely high, which is a strong indicator that it's very difficult for a team to remain consistently competitive without being a big spender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amare32 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Hes already got his pinstripes ready for him he will be a Yankee mark it down.Hideki Irabu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 My point is that large-revenue teams have a major competitive advantage, which makes the game (and especially the off-season) substantially less fun for 2/3 of the teams out there. And while it's true that revenue has a low correlation to wins in any given season, try correlating average payroll to wins over a 5-year or 10-year stretch. The correlation in this case is extremely high, which is a strong indicator that it's very difficult for a team to remain consistently competitive without being a big spender.I'm sure people in Oakland and the Twin Cities would rather have a busy October than a busy December.Speaking of that correlation, let's do this. Let's get the numbers for, oh let's go with five years, and see how things stack up. To MS Excel! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marlinfan Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 When will Bud Selig, the owners, and the MLBPA realize that baseball would be a lot more popular everywhere except Boston, New York, and Anaheim if everybody had an equal chance to sign top international free agents?St. Louis and Chicago say hello. As a matter of fact, so do all the major league cities, because attendance is on the rise. There's not as much correlation between payroll and success as you think, either. Nobody gets to cry poor when the 14-million-dollar Marlins were even so much as a wild card longshot.St. Louis and Chicago are also fairly large-revenue cities, but I can't see either of them ponying up $25 mil just for the right to negotiate with this dude. I would say there's about a 90% chance that he signs with the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels, and about a 1% chance he signs with anybody other than those teams, the Cards, Cubs, ChiSox, or Dodgers.My point isn't that it's impossible for low-revenue teams to compete in any given season. My point is that large-revenue teams have a major competitive advantage, which makes the game (and especially the off-season) substantially less fun for 2/3 of the teams out there. And while it's true that revenue has a low correlation to wins in any given season, try correlating average payroll to wins over a 5-year or 10-year stretch. The correlation in this case is extremely high, which is a strong indicator that it's very difficult for a team to remain consistently competitive without being a big spender.The issue today is that the small market teams are taking in revenue sharing money and not spending it on improving the product on the field. Also, instead of finding new and innovative ways to make money most of these small market teams are just sitting on their hands and waiting for the revenue sharing check to come in the mail. Yes, I do believe a handful of teams (NYY, NYM, BOS to a lesser extent the LA teams) have a big monetary advantage BUT after that most of the teams are basically on a level playing field. Any team with a new stadium could have a payroll in the $85-95M range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NDwas Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 When will Bud Selig realize that baseball...Stop there. The answer is never. Selig will NEVER give a crap about what the fans want.Just keep praying for a new commissioner...and hope its not Bob DuPuy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawg22 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Speaking of that correlation, let's do this. Let's get the numbers for, oh let's go with five years, and see how things stack up. To MS Excel!Do you have those numbers? I'm asking because I'm actually curious to see... I said that because I read an article somewhere a few months ago that mentioned this exact point, but I can't for the life of me remember where it was or find it again. I'm pretty sure that the correlation is fairly high (.65 to .8 range). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I found this Newsday blog from yesterday on Matsuzaka, which speculates that the posting price might be significantly lower than previously thought... A couple of questions: 1) how reliable is Newsday in their coverage of the Mets? 2) Anyone know who this Ken Davidoff guy is? Is he reliable?I suppose the reasons for a lower posting price would be that everyone thought that the Yankees were going to "get" Matsuzaka, and therefore, just threw in lowball offers, just to show that they "tried" to get him. Either the Yankees knew this, and also threw in a lowball offer too, or the Yankees didn't bid at all... Just some speculation on my part if this turns out to be true...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 5 teams have placed bids. Speculation is that they're the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Rangers, and Mets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 2006 payrolls, wins, followed by cost per win.01 NYY $194,663,079 97 $2,006,835.87 02 BOS $120,099,824 87 $1,380,457.75 03 LAA $103,472,000 89 $1,162,606.74 04 CHW $102,750,667 90 $1,141,674.08 05 NYM $101,084,963 97 $1,042,113.02 06 LAD $98,447,187 88 $1,118,718.03 07 CHC $94,424,499 66 $1,430,674.23 08 HOU $92,551,503 82 $1,128,676.87 09 ATL $90,156,876 79 $1,141,226.28 10 SFG $90,056,419 76 $1,184,952.88 11 STL $88,891,371 83 $1,070,980.37 12 PHL $88,273,333 85 $1,038,509.80 13 SEA $87,959,833 78 $1,127,690.17 14 DET $82,612,866 95 $869,609.12 15 BAL $72,585,582 70 $1,036,936.89 16 TOR $71,915,000 86 $836,220.93 17 SDP $69,896,141 88 $794,274.33 18 TEX $68,228,662 80 $852,858.28 19 MNN $63,396,006 96 $660,375.06 20 WSH $63,143,000 71 $889,338.03 21 OAK $62,243,079 93 $669,280.42 22 CNC $60,909,519 80 $761,368.99 23 ARZ $59,684,226 76 $785,318.76 24 MLW $57,568,333 75 $767,577.77 25 CLE $56,031,500 78 $718,352.56 26 KAN $47,294,000 62 $762,806.45 27 PTT $46,717,750 67 $697,279.85 28 COL $41,233,000 76 $542,539.47 29 TMB $35,417,967 61 $580,622.41 30 FLA $14,998,500 78 $192,288.46 Rankings,TEAM $/WIN PAY WINSNYY 1st 1st 1stCHC 2nd 7th 28thBOS 3rd 2nd 10thSFG 4th 10th 21stLAA 5th 3rd 7thCHW 6th 4th 6thATL 7th 9th 17thHOU 8th 8th 14thSEA 9th 13th 18thLAD 10th 6th 8thSTL 11th 11th 13thNYM 12th 5th 2ndPHL 13th 12th 12thBAL 14th 15th 26thWSH 15th 20th 25thDET 16th 14th 4thTEX 17th 18th 15thTOR 18th 16th 11thSDP 19th 17th 9thARZ 20th 23rd 22ndMLW 21st 24th 24thKAN 22nd 26th 29thCNC 23rd 22nd 16thCLE 24th 25th 19thPTT 25th 27th 27thOAK 26th 21st 5thMNN 27th 19th 3rdTAM 28th 29th 30thCOL 29th 28th 23rdFLA 30th 30th 20thFinally, if you take those and make a differential between payroll rank and wins rank, you get16 Oakland Athletics (lost ALCS)16 Minnesota Twins (lost ALDS)10 Detroit Tigers (A.L. Champions)10 Florida Marlins8 San Diego Padres (lost NLDS)6 Cincinnati Reds6 Cleveland Indians5 Toronto Blue Jays5 Colorado Rockies3 New York Mets (lost NLCS)3 Texas Rangers1 Arizona Diamondbacks0 New York Yankees (lost ALDS)0 Philadelphia Phillies0 Milwaukee Brewers0 Pittsburgh Pirates-1 Tampa Bay Devil Rays-2 Chicago White Sox-2 Los Angeles Dodgers (lost NLDS)-2 St. Louis Cardinals (World Champions)-3 Kansas City Royals-4 Los Angeles Angels-5 Seattle Mariners-5 Washington Nationals-6 Houston Astros-8 Boston Red Sox-8 Atlanta Braves-11 San Francisco Giants-11 Baltimore Orioles-21 Chicago Cubs0 means you got what you paid for, positives are bargains, negatives are money pits.I think this proves two things.1) There's not much of a connection between payroll and success2) Oh God, the Chicago Cubs are :censored:ing awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mania Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/ne...sp&c_id=texThe Rangers have officially bid(mentioned in passing in the article). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I found this Newsday blog from yesterday on Matsuzaka, which speculates that the posting price might be significantly lower than previously thought... A couple of questions: 1) how reliable is Newsday in their coverage of the Mets? 2) Anyone know who this Ken Davidoff guy is? Is he reliable?I suppose the reasons for a lower posting price would be that everyone thought that the Yankees were going to "get" Matsuzaka, and therefore, just threw in lowball offers, just to show that they "tried" to get him. Either the Yankees knew this, and also threw in a lowball offer too, or the Yankees didn't bid at all... Just some speculation on my part if this turns out to be true...MooseNewsday is the best at covering the Mets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Speaking of that correlation, let's do this. Let's get the numbers for, oh let's go with five years, and see how things stack up. To MS Excel!Do you have those numbers? I'm asking because I'm actually curious to see... I said that because I read an article somewhere a few months ago that mentioned this exact point, but I can't for the life of me remember where it was or find it again. I'm pretty sure that the correlation is fairly high (.65 to .8 range).Okay, I finally have all the numbers from 2001 to 2006. As expected, the Yankees lead the majors in spending and winning. They are trailed in spending by Boston, but trailed in winning by Oakland. I'll have the data posted later.Humorous quirk: the 2003 Tigers overpaid for 49 wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See Red Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 According to Buster Olney, the Red Sox may have won the bidding with a bid of between $38 to $45 million.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2656687I wasn't sure at first, but considering he opens the door to the Japanese market for the Red Sox, I don't think it's a bad investment if he ends up being even close to as good as expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 According to Buster Olney, the Red Sox may have won the bidding with a bid of between $38 to $45 million.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2656687I wasn't sure at first, but considering he opens the door to the Japanese market for the Red Sox, I don't think it's a bad investment if he ends up being even close to as good as expected.This blog from Baseball Digest Daily states:If you've heard a Daisuke Matsuzaka rumor, it's most likely bogus. I have heard everything from the Red Sox bidding $38-$45 million, the Rangers bidding $30 million, the Angels winning the bidding, and then the Angels not bidding at all! So until we have more concrete information, I will refrain from giving more details.An excelent point... I'm not believeing anything until I see an official MLB release, but that's just me...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.