$40 Million for at most 35 games?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by todeen

He has said he wants to have short contracts worth a lot of money. Some teams will like the idea of paying up front, rather than giving out a Homer Bailey contract. If he is great this year, or next year, everything will out fine for the Dodgers, and both parties will separate mutually respecting the other.

However, I think the real problem are the rules that tether rookies to their "home team." They can't maximize their contracts up front, and then they get screwed on the tail end of their careers. Manipulating player service time by keeping the top promising players in the minors to get one more contract year out of them does not endear a rookie to their bosses.

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

There are no perfect solutions. But small market teams do win, and win World Series: Nationals, Astros, Rays, Oakland, San Diego. They have figured out how to win under current rules, and will continue to figure out ways to win with new rules. Personally, I think the current strategy of tanking is horrendous, and that the commissioner and players union should figure out some remedy. Parody has worked in other major sports, and should be figured out in MLB.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

How are small market teams supposed to compete if they don't at least have a chance to keep their "home team" together for at least a few years? Or should we just reduce the teams to the major market teams and let them outspend each other.

What exactly is a small market team, though? Don't they have a billionaire owner too?

[MooseDog]

The Oakland A's would be considered a "small-market" team despite being in a major metro area. They don't have much of a TV contract, apparel sales are probably far lower than say the Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox (I don't think that revenue is shared) and I even think for some reason they don't get a share of MLB TV revenue any more.

This plus an ownership group that is happy to be competitive, mildly profitable and has trained the fan base to not get attached to any particular players since they'll be gone in 3-4 years. We're basically an MLB "farm system" for the rest of the league.

Also playing in a 55 year old football stadium unfavorable to hitters doesn't make the team a prime destination for marquee players.

[packs]

Sure but wouldn't a winning team put an end to those woes? Every owner is a billionaire and the only reason for a team to stink is because they want to.

All things being equal, if the Pirate's owner owned the Yankees, do you think the Yankees would be any good? I don't. That owner doesn't want a winning team no matter where it is. They're paying 38 million dollars to field one this year. Less than Bauer makes in one season as an individual.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

What exactly is a small market team, though? Don't they have a billionaire owner too?

All of the money is from apparel and tv contracts. When the Dodgers landed their last tv contact, it gave them the ability to spend extravagantly. They were established long before the Padres, win more often, and have a historical following. All of that makes them the largest draw in the region for MLB, hardly any competition. Whereas the Reds are surrounded by other clubs with larger fan bases: the Cubs to the north, and St. Louis to the south. Even the Brewers and Pirates draw away possible fans. So the Reds tv money is far less, and their apparel as well. And the one farther goes outside of Cincinnati, the fewer fans one meets. Whereas when I went to Derek Jeters final series in Seattle, there was hardly a Mariners fan to be seen. I was swamped in a sea of black and white and pin stripes.

As for every owner being billionaires, that answer is simple: these men and women became billionaires by spending other peoples money. They don't spend their own, otherwise they wouldn't be billionaires. They are not going to spend $300 to $400 million of their own money to sign a Trout, Harper, Tatis, Machado. They will spend tv money, ticket money, and apparel money. And if that pot of money is substantially smaller in a small market team, than the players are going to be paid contracts of small markets. Homer Bailey's and Votto's contracts are the killer of competition for the Reds.

Further, in the last couple of years the competitive balance checks have grown smaller as well since the big spenders have attempted to go under the defacto salary cap. Its just another stream of revenue that got pinched.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

I hear you and those are good points but I still think MLB has a bigger problem with lame duck owners than it does small markets. George Steinbrenner took over the Yankees at their lowest point in franchise history. He willed them into champions in the 70s and then again in the 90s. I think he would have been that guy regardless of what team he owned. But like I said, if Peter Angelos owned the Yankees instead of the Orioles I'm pretty sure he'd field the same terrible team.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by packs

I hear you and those are good points but I still think MLB has a bigger problem with lame duck owners than it does small markets. George Steinbrenner took over the Yankees at their lowest point in franchise history. He willed them into champions in the 70s and then again in the 90s. I think he would have been that guy regardless of what team he owned. But like I said, if Peter Angelos owned the Yankees instead of the Orioles I'm pretty sure he'd field the same terrible team.

I agree that some owners have been problematic. But I would argue that GM / pres of operations are a bigger problem. Some keep their jobs and they are just atrocious. They tinker too much, draft poorly, sell the farm for a sniff of glory. I can't stand Seattle's GM Jerry Dipoto. He sucked with the Angels and now he sucks with the Mariners. And he has a free hand in Seattle, minimal owner involvement. It just seems he throws spaghetti at the wall to make decisions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Nunzio11]

I've never bought into the small market argument. Sure, larger market teams are advantaged because or merchandising and TV contracts leading to the ability to sign free agents but if you put a team on the field the fans will come. I'll use Baltimore as an example because it came up and (not proud to say) I live here. This is a sports town. The Ravens have been sold out since they played at Memorial Stadium. Camden Yards was the place to be in the 90s into the 2000s. When the O's were winning in 2012-2016 the place was packed all week long because a good young team was on the field. That whole time poor organizational decisions were made ruining the farm system, and terrible contract decisions completely crushed the team.
With many of these "small markets" the franchise is a second business for ownership. With revenue sharing and luxury taxes it's hard to give a pass. Ownership is still making a killing.