12/26/24
October 19, 2005
New Baseball Teams for New York and Boston?: In one of the most simple-minded articles I've ever seen written, BusinessWeekOnline's Michael Mandel argues that the reason that the Yankees and BoSox can afford such astronomical paychecks is due to the relative size of the local economies versus the number of teams in the relative area. The SportsBiz blog and Hardball Times offer up two of the myriad reasons that this thinking is not just oversimplistic, but unrealistic under the current set of MLB rules. (via The Sports Economist)
posted by Ufez Jones to baseball at 07:17 PM - 24 comments
I couldn't be more sixth paragraph, second sentence. But it doesn't jibe with the postseason history of the Mets.
posted by rcade at 07:34 PM on October 19, 2005
"The true path to parity lies not in expansion or franchise movement but in revenue sharing." - Sportsblitz I think we get rid of all the owners in MLB and sell shares in MLB. Then give every team the exact same amount to run the teams. Give general managers 3 year contracts. The six teams with the worst records every three years get new general managers. Yeah, MLB becomes a huge fantasy baseball leage for 30 people.
posted by ?! at 07:41 PM on October 19, 2005
An interesting proposed solution and when exploring how to solve a problem it is good to look at or explore every possible avenue. That said, I don't think it needs to be this complicated when salary cap, (NBA), could solve the parity issues. And as rcade points out, it has as much or more to do with how they are managed.
posted by geekyguy at 10:04 PM on October 19, 2005
I find it interesting that they leave out Toronto from their survey. They have a VERY large local (and somewhat affluent) population from which to draw fans (Greater Golden Horseshoe area holds more than 8 million people), and they don't have to share it with anyone.
posted by grum@work at 11:11 PM on October 19, 2005
couldn't disagree more,a good% of the yankees players have no trade clause's in their contracts,plus who's going to take their garbage? and with no farm system prospects to speak of, what will they trade with?I think ol george is stuck with what he has. The red sox on the other hand have much to play and deal with,except manny who will only go if he wants to. I expect BIG things fom the sox this off season.
I'm so tired of hearing about a salary cap. Show me the parity in the NFL how many superbowls have the pats won in recent years. I'm at 49ers fan and let me tell you the salary cap took a decent team and destroyed it. They have had to rebuild twice in the short amount of time and they don't have any super stars to speak of. Now with their record as poor as it's been they have kids staying in college longer so they don't have to be drafted by the forty 9ers. Tell me this has been fair to their fans.
posted by jtrluva at 07:49 AM on October 20, 2005
How the hell can they add another sports team to New York? The city- contrary to what people think, isnt very big. In fact, its quite small, which is why they started builing skyscarpers. In addition to that, NY already has the Yanks, Mets, Knicks, Rangers, Islanders, Giants and Jets (NJ) all within a short drive of each other. So, how are they going to add more teams??? That article was stupid, and not accurate at all.
posted by redsoxrgay at 08:02 AM on October 20, 2005
Show me the parity in the NFL how many superbowls have the pats won in recent years. How does that disprove the claim of parity? The Pats are so celebrated because they have managed to win 3 of 4 in a league where the top teams are on top for a couple of years. There's plenty of turnover at the top in the NFL. But I don't think the salary cap is the biggest reason why.
posted by yerfatma at 08:12 AM on October 20, 2005
Ok so it's just the pat that have managed to win right. How about the Philedelphia eagles how many times have they been in the post season or the colts, Broncos, Steelers, Atlanta. My point is the salary cap has screwed certain teams. 9ers, Raiders. I see one team that has improved and that would be the Bengals. Sorry but as a fan I think it's unfair to have your team destroyed by a rule. Nobody should have a right to tell the owner of a team or business what they can spend their money on. The same teams are winning all the time now it's just different teams then it was before.
posted by jtrluva at 08:22 AM on October 20, 2005
Screwed them how, jtrluva? Where's the Robert Kraft loophole in the salary cap?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:55 AM on October 20, 2005
How much previous debt did the patriots have? The 49ers are probably still paying for Steve Young. LOL. It screwed teams with lots of outstanding debt. At this point all the players will go to New England and play for less because they are winning superbowls. Where as the forty 9ers would have to overpay because who wants to go to a team that sucks. The only way they can get great players is to over pay them then the don't have the money for the rest of the players. Or they can continue to suck for the next ten years get the first round draft pick and build through the draft. But oh yeah didn't they have to overpay for Alex Smith already because he didn't want to go to San Fransisco. But I bet Robert Kraft is complaining. I bet he is saying I wish there wasn't a salary cap. Where's all the money go saved on salary caps?
posted by jtrluva at 09:24 AM on October 20, 2005
This reasoning is just a bit too simplistic for my liking. If New York's size and wealth can support three teams, then the Giants and Dodgers would still be there. The Braves would still be in Boston, and the A's would be in Philly. It obviously takes more than personal income stats to support a team. Having an owner dedicated to do everything in his power to produce a quality team is equally important. By the way, the list shows some measurement of personal income. A lot of the personal income in the New York/Boston corridor (including fabulously wealthy Connecticut) belongs to multi-millionaires and billionaires. A good percentage of the population have no more disposable income then the (apparently) less wealthy cities. Also, keep in mind that the COST of living in NY, Boston, CT etc. is much, much higher than most of the rest of the baseball areas. I think the statistics in this article should be taken with a grain of salt.
posted by drevl at 10:00 AM on October 20, 2005
This reasoning is just a bit too simplistic for my liking. If New York's size and wealth can support three teams, then the Giants and Dodgers would still be there. The Braves would still be in Boston, and the A's would be in Philly. Or they'd be winning where they are now...not exactly cow towns, are they?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:05 AM on October 20, 2005
Great point LBB. Makes dedicated owners even more important.
posted by drevl at 10:45 AM on October 20, 2005
The 49ers are probably still paying for Steve Young. Which is the fault of a myopic ownership, not the salary cap. Everybody plays by the same rules. Some teams sacrifice future results for opportunity now. There's nothing wrong with the decision, especially if you win.
posted by yerfatma at 11:58 AM on October 20, 2005
Two points here. 1. The niners haven't been screwed by the salary cap and neither have the Raiders. The niners have been screwed by having that piece of shit York running the team instead of Eddie "mob boss" D. The niners have been hiding behind the salary cap excuse. Nobody wants to play for them, because they have a crappy owner and a worse front office. Can you think of one intellegent football move they have made in the last five years? The Raiders have not been screwed by the cap either - they have been able to pony up for the players they want every off-season (even when the "experts" thought they had no money to spend). I vaguely remember them ponying up for Moss, Jordan, and Burgess this past offseason. Not only are you comments biased, they are wrong. In the salary cap era the teams that win cannot afford to make big personnal mistakes, of which the niner and raiders have made plenty. 2. Drevl, while you make some excellent points on NY and Boston not being able to support multiple teams, I have to disagree with you on your cost of living point. Have you ever been to California? I think we invented the ridiculous cost of living standards. Ny and Boston are catching up to SF with the absurdity in cost, but still have a ways to go.
posted by bigrobbieb at 12:28 PM on October 20, 2005
You are so right, bigrob. I bow to Calif whan it comes to cost of living silliness.
posted by drevl at 12:51 PM on October 20, 2005
That is why I and many others moved out of Cali.
posted by bigrobbieb at 01:39 PM on October 20, 2005
Hey about the cost of living thing in CT- Yeah our state is wealthier than most, but not by any means is it wealthy- like all the reports say. In fact, we have a dangerously weak job market, not to mention our sub base, and coast guard academy might leave, and we dont have any large companies. Besides this, towards Danbury, all the prices skyrocket, bacause people from NYC go there to live, away from the "Big City". But besides all this, Hartford, our state capital is one of the poorest major cities in CT. (3rd overall I believe). So, not by any stretch is our state as well off as you are lead to believe. Justr thought I would tell you haow thins are- Kendall
posted by redsoxrgay at 02:08 PM on October 20, 2005
Which is the fault of a myopic ownership, not the salary cap. Everybody plays by the same rules. Some teams sacrifice future results for opportunity now. That (Steve young) decision was made prior to the salary cap. Not to mention it was a joke. What personnel mistakes have the niners made? I agree with your comments on the raiders only thing I'm saying is they have an owner all though he's a jerk he would have spent more on the team if he was allowed. I can't think of personnel mistakes the niners have made recently except constantly having to let people go. Oh and let me guess the patriots organization is so great right try selling that to TY Law and others who have jumped ship after all those wins. Case in point ARod was willing to cut his salary to play for Boston or the Yankees he wanted to go to a team that had a chance to win. That is a huge advantage the patriots have over the 49ers. You may think my comments are biased and false but you cannot tell me that nobody wants to play for them just because of the ownership. Two names for you Al Davis and George Steinbrenner. Please also show me where my comments are biased. My point is the niners used to be great and they still would be if they could spend their money the way they want to. Some owners care more then others. They are willing to spend more and there should never be a rule telling anyone in this country what they can do with their money.
posted by jtrluva at 02:11 PM on October 20, 2005
The salary cap doesn't kill teams. Stupid ownership and management kills teams.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 02:44 PM on October 20, 2005
My point exactly, redsoxrgay. Per the table in the posting, the NY/Boston corador has high personal wealth, but the bulk of that wealth rests with a shitload of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Us average folks don't have any more money to support sports than the folks in other parts of the country.
posted by drevl at 02:47 PM on October 20, 2005
I don't think it's any coincidence that when Eddie D an Carmen Policy were in place the team was winning and players would accept significantly less money to come and play for the Niners, and what was always described as a "first class organization." Since York took the team over have you ever once heard anything about the niners described as "first class." The bottom line is in the NFL the salary cap creates a fair market for both buyers and sellers. The Niners have overspent for average talent for the last five years. If you need a specific example look no further than this offseason when they gave Jennings that ridiculous contract. They paid top dollar for an average tackle - not exactly a guy who is going to be a franchise cornerstone. They draft Smith instead of dealing the pick and now have a franchise QB for Eli Manning money and minus the skill sets. No the future doesn't look bright in SF and it's due to bad management.
posted by bigrobbieb at 06:46 PM on October 20, 2005
Never in my life have I seen the first line of the second paragraph of an article ring so very, very true.