2012 MLB Season

[Epiphanic]

Adjusting for inflation isn't necessary since you only care about payrolls within a specific year. You could adjust for inflation, but the point should be about teams spending more money than other teams rather than just spending more money.

I've mentioned it before, but this discussion reminds me of a blog post that Joe Posnanski wrote a few years ago. He was talking about how the Yankees spend gobs more money than the next team (something like taking the Chicago Cubs and adding it to the Red Sox) but they haven't won the World Series since 2000 (they ended up winning in 2009, but that was after the article was written). What struck me about that article was how many times the Yankees had the best record in baseball. Sure you don't really think it's that surprising if you think about it, but when you see it listed out it's kind of astonishing. Yet no one cares about having the best record in baseball. All that matters is winning the World Series.

As STL Fanatic mentioned, the inherent "randomness" of baseball is a large equalizer especially in the playoff environment. Once you get to October, anything can happen. So the point is to get to October and that is more easily done with a larger payroll. You have to be in it to win it. Payroll matters, but it matters less in baseball than in other sports because it's baseball.

[The_Admiral]

Baseball economics has problems, but I don't think supersaturating Greater New York with five teams is the solution.

[pmoehrin]

Baseball economics has problems, but I don't think supersaturating Greater New York with five teams is the solution.

I just said it was a possibility. There's a very good argument to be made that the most valuable expansion team you could do would be in Northern New Jersey, so I would say three at a minimum.

Point is part of the reason teams like the Yankees are able to afford so much for their players is because they take advantage of an artifical limit on the number of teams that can be in one market. I think that's more unfair then capping the amount of money they are able to spend on players.

[OnWis97]

It's true that the income gap has mattered less in the 2000s than it did post-strike. I know the first five years of the original wildcard format saw 40 playoff teams and every one of those teams was in the top 50% of payroll...that was not a coincidence. That is the time I was hoping the Yankees would just win it all ever year and baseball would implode (though I've since decided that the Yankees winning it all every year would draw more fans).

What's happened since is things like Moneyball; teams figuring out how to work within their financial disadvantages. It's made baseball more interesting to say the least. But the notion that there is not some advantage to bigger markets is ludicrous. The Yankees had the second best SS in MLB and signed the best. There were at least 25 teams not in the A-Rod sweepstakes at that time. How many times have the Yankees missed the playoffs since the strike? (Once?). Atlanta (Once?).

The Twins, for example, have a fairly high payroll now, but much is tied up in the most over-rated player in MLB. Now they made that mistake; I understand that. But if the Yankees made that mistake, they could afford to go out and cover it up. The Twins cannot. So you can tell me that "the Twins have to be smarter; they blew it" and you are correct. But some teams do not have to be smarter.

You can argue the degree of advantage, but can you really argue the existence?

[The_Admiral]

The Braves have missed the playoffs five times in the last seven seasons, actually. Or are you concept-posting as if it's 2004 with the grousing about Jeter/A-Rod, in which case, no, the Braves haven't missed the playoffs?

[OnWis97]

The Braves have missed the playoffs five times in the last seven seasons, actually. Or are you concept-posting as if it's 2004 with the grousing about Jeter/A-Rod, in which case, no, the Braves haven't missed the playoffs?

Wow! I did not realize that.

Well as I acknowledged, it's gotten better. I am not exactly sure why...new ballparks everywhere? Smarter small-market teams? The revenue sharing they have? I am not sure.

Maybe my "degree" of advantage argument just took a hit, but the "existence" is tough to debate.

[pmoehrin]

Well as I acknowledged, it's gotten better. I am not exactly sure why...new ballparks everywhere? Smarter small-market teams? The revenue sharing they have? I am not sure.

I'll agree with sabermetrics and teams getting smarter with how they spend money and better revenue sharing structure in terms of producing a more competitive envrionment in recent years. The luxury tax was not around 15 years ago and its tougher for teams now to just hoard cash they receive from revenue sharing as I think some owners were doing and still are to an extent. (cough, cough, Jeffrey Loria)

The new ballparks are a little less clear. When they were first starting to go up, I would say it was a major advantage for a smaller market team like the Orioles or Indians to have. But now virtually everyone's got one so I think its kind of balanced itself out.

[OnWis97]

Well as I acknowledged, it's gotten better. I am not exactly sure why...new ballparks everywhere? Smarter small-market teams? The revenue sharing they have? I am not sure.

I'll agree with sabermetrics and teams getting smarter with how they spend money and better revenue sharing structure in terms of producing a more competitive envrionment in recent years. The luxury tax was not around 15 years ago and its tougher for teams now to just hoard cash they receive from revenue sharing as I think some owners were doing and still are to an extent. (cough, cough, Jeffrey Loria)

The new ballparks are a little less clear. When they were first starting to go up, I would say it was a major advantage for a smaller market team like the Orioles or Indians to have. But now virtually everyone's got one so I think its kind of balanced itself out.

As much as I am usually pro-small market, this was a bigger problem 10-15 years ago and it was not right. I am not saying they don't do it anymore, but I'd certainly say the Twins, for example, are far less guilty than they used to be.

I don't deny that you can't just throw money and make a team win; the Orioles used to spend a ton of money for mediocrity (see also, Mets of recent years).

Actually this is the reason I like expanded playoffs (over the 1980s format I grew up with). You can "buy" a great team (with some smarts), but having an extra round of playoffs to get through makes buying a championship that much harder. Anyone can win a five-game series.

[pmoehrin]

Well as I acknowledged, it's gotten better. I am not exactly sure why...new ballparks everywhere? Smarter small-market teams? The revenue sharing they have? I am not sure.

I'll agree with sabermetrics and teams getting smarter with how they spend money and better revenue sharing structure in terms of producing a more competitive envrionment in recent years. The luxury tax was not around 15 years ago and its tougher for teams now to just hoard cash they receive from revenue sharing as I think some owners were doing and still are to an extent. (cough, cough, Jeffrey Loria)

The new ballparks are a little less clear. When they were first starting to go up, I would say it was a major advantage for a smaller market team like the Orioles or Indians to have. But now virtually everyone's got one so I think its kind of balanced itself out.

As much as I am usually pro-small market, this was a bigger problem 10-15 years ago and it was not right. I am not saying they don't do it anymore, but I'd certainly say the Twins, for example, are far less guilty than they used to be.

I would certainly say the Twins were one of the teams guilty of this, key word being were.

First off Minneapolis is not a small market by any means. I'll agree with mid-sized but them to get up there and start singing the small market blues I thought was an insult to teams that actually were/are in small markets like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Kansas City and Milwaukee.

The other thing was Connie Mack (who was the orginial sabermetrics guy in my opinion in terms of how he ran his team) said as an owner his goal was to win 85 games. It was enough to keep fan interest up, but not enough to where his players would be in a position to demand more money. And I think that's much of the same mentality Carl Pohlad approached in running the Twins. I think he was very serious about putting a good product out on the field and being competitive, but I don't think he was ever serious about actually contending for a World Series. I feel like he saw that more as a bonus then a goal. That's the type of mentality that alot of these small market teams need to and I think in alot of cases have gotten out of.

[Kramerica Industries]

That line of thinking is one thing in collegiate athletics. In the professional ranks, I much prefer the best teams be battling it out in the end with the championship at stake. That is, I prefer a Thunder/Heat type championship round, where they are clearly two of the very best teams (if not the best), than a Kings/Devils type, where neither team is among the very best.

Since 2008, there have been three teams in MLB to win 100 games. Two of those three - the 2008 Angels and 2011 Phillies - were ousted in the first round. In general, I don't think that's good for the sport. Not to say upsets can't be allowed to happen, but it should be harder than it currently is in MLB's first round, with the best-of-5 and the general nature of baseball rendering home-field much less significant than it is in other sports.

Obviously any playoff series will feel like a small sample compared to a 162 game schedule. At least make either a uniform best-of-7 LDS, or make things more difficult on a wild card team than a 2-2-1.

You can argue the degree of advantage, but can you really argue the existence?

I can't really argue that it doesn't exist, per se, because the team I watch on a daily basis is proof of that.

But money only gets you so far when the people running the team have no clue what they're doing. The Mets were all over that list I posted on the last page. The Mariners spent nine digits on a team they thought could compete with the Angels in 2008, and they were a hideous 40 games under .500 instead. And I would also say that there were plenty of ownership groups that could've spent more on their teams, but pocketed the money instead, hurting the on-field product, which as a direct result saw plummeting crowds at the ballpark.

It's so easy to rag on the Yankees, but they had a devoted owner and they played in the richest market in the country. It only made sense for them to take advantage of that. That's not their fault at all.

[bosrs1]

One problem with a salary cap in baseball is that the payroll structure is just so complicated and far-spanning that your brain shuts down if you try to think about it for too long. Do minor leaguers count against the cap? Do signing bonuses? What about player options? There are so many moving parts. Note that the NHL CBA prohibits options, extensions before contract years, cash considerations, and almost all performance incentives. It's really locked down.

Its one of those things where you can get almost infinitely into detail if you wanted to, or you can just get a very solid idea of where teams are.

My own opinion the goal of the salary cap should be to counter the big market teams holding territory rights over their huge markets. The New York metro area might very well be able to support five MLB teams given the population size, the GDP of the area and how popular the sport is. I don't think either the Yankees or the Mets should have the right to reap the benefits of an undersuplied market as it relates to their on field product. (ie. being able to pay more money for players because they present a greater value there then they do in Kansas City) That's really all it is to me. In terms of how fluid the standings are, I really don't care. My only point is your market size and your position in the standings should not have much correlation, and if you look at baseball especially going back to the late 90's and early 2000's, there most certainly was a correlation.

I'm anti salary cap, but I'm even more anti territory rights, and to me a salary cap is the lesser of two evils in terms of providing a fair and balanced playing field for teams.

You get rid of territorial rights and you'll just start a new wave of teams moving to fill in the big markets and abandoning the small ones. Which is counter productive to the extreme.

In case anyone didn't notice. The Padres sale went through today. $600 million dollars was the sale price to the Fowler/O'Malley/Mickelson group. John Moores also gets to filch $200 million from the TV deal on the way out the door.

[pmoehrin]

One problem with a salary cap in baseball is that the payroll structure is just so complicated and far-spanning that your brain shuts down if you try to think about it for too long. Do minor leaguers count against the cap? Do signing bonuses? What about player options? There are so many moving parts. Note that the NHL CBA prohibits options, extensions before contract years, cash considerations, and almost all performance incentives. It's really locked down.

Its one of those things where you can get almost infinitely into detail if you wanted to, or you can just get a very solid idea of where teams are.

My own opinion the goal of the salary cap should be to counter the big market teams holding territory rights over their huge markets. The New York metro area might very well be able to support five MLB teams given the population size, the GDP of the area and how popular the sport is. I don't think either the Yankees or the Mets should have the right to reap the benefits of an undersuplied market as it relates to their on field product. (ie. being able to pay more money for players because they present a greater value there then they do in Kansas City) That's really all it is to me. In terms of how fluid the standings are, I really don't care. My only point is your market size and your position in the standings should not have much correlation, and if you look at baseball especially going back to the late 90's and early 2000's, there most certainly was a correlation.

I'm anti salary cap, but I'm even more anti territory rights, and to me a salary cap is the lesser of two evils in terms of providing a fair and balanced playing field for teams.

You get rid of territorial rights and you'll just start a new wave of teams moving to fill in the big markets and abandoning the small ones. Which is counter productive to the extreme.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't agree with the idea that American sports has adopted which is that if we give a team to one city we have to take away another.

Personally I would try to adopt a system similar to the English Premiership where teams can rise in leagues and fall but territory rights are non existent. If NYC or LA or Chicago can support x amount of teams, there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

I know it will never happen, mainly because it would basically mean bye bye to publicly financed stadiums and arenas, which is why I'm not stomping my feet over it and I've come to accept it. I think its as likely to occur as world peace. But that's just what I would do.

[BigMac12]

Sorry to break up this conversation on baseball economics, but Greg Gibson got Torii Hunter's cleat to the head last night. Ouch!

MLB.com's video

Sometimes, being close to the plate has its disavantages.

[The Six]

There has to be a balance between the extremes of MLB and the NFL. Maybe don't have a salary cap, per se, just come up with a far harsher ceiling that only impacts the handful of teams which spend like drunken sailors. The luxury tax is supposed to do that in theory, but it hasn't stopped the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies from spending like crazy. Knock those teams down to the financial level of the Orioles, Cardinals, Rockies and Brewers and that will improve everyone's chances of building winning teams.

Why should the Yankees be on the financial level of the Orioles? They're a bigger market, and have more fans. They make more money. They deserve to be able to spend that money as they please.

You are correct about the richer teams making the playoffs more often, and that is the biggest thing. Sure, the Marlins can catch fire every 9 years or so, win a Wild Card and get hot in the playoffs, but most years are going to be spent fighting an uphill battle due to a huge discrepancy in resources (theoretically, since Loria is a piece of crap and had ample opportunity to turn it around with the new stadium). Unless small market teams pretty much hit on every draft pick and scrap heap signing, they don't have a chance to be perennial playoff teams. Only the Twins have been able to do that in the last decade, and come playoff time, their deficiencies showed. If you can't succeed on every draft pick, you will likely have a 3-4 year window to win before the players start moving on to bigger money elsewhere. That is not right.

Actually, it is right. All teams are not equal. All markets are not equal. This is not baseball's doing; it's the economy. What isn't right is setting an arbitrary limit on how much can be spent, under the illusion of giving the little guys more of a chance. They shouldn't have that artificial chance. That's why they're the little guys.

[rams80]

Because the Orioles' guaranteed lack of success ultimately hurts the team and the market for starters.

[Kramerica Industries]

The Orioles guaranteed lack of success is a byproduct of Peter Angelos being a meddling ass hole who scares away good front office men, or drives the ones he has to insanity.

Any franchise in the world is going to be unsuccessful with that kind of instability.

[Lights Out]

Actually, it is right. All teams are not equal. All markets are not equal. This is not baseball's doing; it's the economy.

LOL at trying to connect real-world economic principles to a freaking SPORTS LEAGUE. If sports leagues had to play by regular free-market economic rules, they wouldn't exist, as they need anti-trust exceptions in order to operate.

Besides, even beyond that, it's a bad comparison. A sports team is more like, say, a McDonald's franchise than an individual, self-contained business. If all the McDonald's franchises in a given state were bombing in sales and running up debt, would McDonald's just throw up their hands and say "oh well, it's the market, we have to just accept the sunk cost"? Hell no - they'd either cut and run or change the way they do business to improve their presence in that state.

Likewise, if no small-market team can ever win anything or keep their players, it should be in the MLB's best interest to exhaust all possible ways of fixing the system before they just give up. Otherwise, they risk losing a bunch of fanbases across the country, because nobody's going to get attached to a franchise that will never, ever win consistently for reasons out of their control.

[The Six]

I'm trying to make the connection to demonstrate how unfair any kind of cap is. It doesn't matter if sports leagues are "different."

[STL FANATIC]

I'm trying to make the connection to demonstrate how unfair any kind of cap is. It doesn't matter if sports leagues are "different."

There's a lot of arguments for why a cap might not be needed or might not be a good thing, but I don't think a single one of them is because it's "unfair."

[The Six]

Setting a limit on how much teams can spend is unfair. There are many other words I could use, as well.