$hame on You, MLB!
by ploni on Apr 1, 2008 7:09 PM EDT
Email
Print"Alex Rodriguez makes more this year than his hometown Florida Marlins."
-- Associated Press story, April 1, 2008
This is pathetic, a travesty, a continuing fraud, a mockery, a duplicity, and a deceit.
After steroids, HGH, PEDs, corked bats, Who-Knows-What-Else? and now this, it's time to seriously analyze my MLB loyalties.
This is a shame.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I suspect you'll reserve some of that disdain for the Marlins, who'll probably *profit* above its payroll figure by a mere $10-20M from revenue sharing and luxury tax proceeds.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a capitalist at heart. This is a business, and it should be run like one. But on the flip side, the Marlins have done this before. It's not an inability to spend. It's a plan. Only this one may not have a Beckett, Burnett, Penny, Pavano, and Willis in the hole...
MLB is a league.
A league is "a covenant or compact made between persons, parties, states, etc., for the promotion or maintenance of common interests or for mutual assistance or service."
The implied common interests of the MLB are competition and fair play.
Competition on the field means following the shared rules of the game. Competition off the field means fair business practices and procedures. But like much of American life these days, the "playing field" is skewed in favor of the wealthy, the mighty, and the politically connected (NOTE TO RYAN: The preceding is a statement pertinent to this discussion).
When "competition" includes the ability of one organization to purchase the services of one player who demands an annual salary more than what other organizations can afford to pay their entire teams, something is wrong.
MLB is no longer a league. Competition within it no longer exists. And its championship is a championship of the few and not of a league.
I agree with most of what you wrote, and I actually have very strong feelings about the lack of economic balance in baseball. But the Marlins in particular are (a) paying quite a bit less than they could afford if they wanted to, (b) pursuing a fairly reasonable long-term strategy, and (c) in a market that probably shouldn't have a big-league team. And A-Rod in particular is just being paid a ridiculous pile of money, such that nothing will really make sense in comparison.
by Jay on Apr 2, 2008 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
in a market that probably shouldn't have a big-league team
I have never received a satisfactory explanation for why Miami can heartily support an NFL team and an NBA team and struggle to support a baseball team. Count me of the group that says that no one in their right mind wants to watch a baseball game in that monstrosity they play in and if they built a new stadium, near the coast, with about 30,000 seats and nice views and a cool breeze every now and again they'd surpass most teams in baseball for attendance.
Of course, that assumes that they'll stop their schizophrenic winning and then playing AAA ball ways. Which may be locked in a chicken and egg struggle with the stadium at this point.
My understanding is that it's just a climate thing, combined with a total lack of baseball tradition in that town. Baseball generally is played in medium- to cold-weather towns in the warmest part of the year. If baseball were played in the Winter and Spring rather than Spring and Summer, I'm sure it would work better in Florida.
Makes you wonder why they don't start a Florida Winter League.
Or even an all-tropical baseball league that plays in the Winter as a direct competitor to MLB. I could see that being mildly popular, especially if it was very Hispanic-friendly, ie broadcasting games in Spanish, pursuing mostly Mexican free agents and Central American talent.
To bring over an idea you mentioned in another thread, I think moving the Marlins and Rays to New York and Trenton or Hartford or something is the best idea I've heard of what to do with them. Other than Portland, I can't think of a non-megalopolis city that really could support an MLB team and I worry that if you move the Marlins to San Antonio, for example, you'd end up with a similar problem vis a vis revenue and a cycle of losing.
Hey ploni, I got an idea. How about we just auction the championship off? The World Series rings would go to the highest bidder, that way we could eliminate all these needless games. Whattya think of dat?
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
Don't remind me. The '97 series broke all of our hearts and the '03 break my budget. It seemed like a good bet at the time. A guy thinking the Marlins would win the World Series because they play in Florida.
That was a weird series. The Yankees outscored the Marlins 21-17, and without any real blow-outs. They won twice, 6-1 both times, and then lost the other four games by a total of six runs.
You know Dellucci was on that Yankees team? Neither did I.
Game 1 - pinch runs for Giambi on 1B in the 9th, representing the tying run, left stranded.
Game 3 - pinch runs for Giambi on 2B in the 8th, Yankees lead 2-1 with two outs, left stranded. Replaces Karim Garcia in RF as part of a double-switch and catches a pop foul for an out on the next play. Comes up in the 9th with men on first and second, one out, Yankees up 3-1, and flies out to LF. Fields a single in the bottom of the 9th.
Game 4 - pinch runs for Posada on 1B in the 9th, Yankees down 3-1 with two outs and men on 1B and 3B. Scores the tying run on a Ruben Sierra triple. Again replaces Garcia in RF. With score tied in the 11th and none out, successfully sac-bunts runners to 2B and 3B, but the Yankees fail to score.
Game 6 - pinch hits for David Wells, who had to be removed in the second inning. Grounds out to end the inning and is replaced in the lineup by the next pitcher.
And I'll bet you he savors every tiny little role-player detail of that.
by Jay on Apr 4, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not sure the economic imbalance is any different than it was 50+ years ago.
The Yankees and Red Sox have always been able to hoard the talent because they've always had more revenue than other teams.
The only difference between now and 50 years ago is that everyone discusses it and the numbers just look sooo much more different. $100M vs $10M looks a lot worse than $10M vs $1M, but it still is only a factor of 10.
Aaah talonk - they didn't have free agency 50 years ago, so economic imbalance really wasn't an issue. It has become more and more of an issue as the FA bidding process has evolved. In fact since the whole dollars for talent process is not matured yet it has allowed teams like Cleveland and Minnesota to stay competitive by exploiting market niches. That is smaller market/dollar teams have beaten the New York/Boston bullies by shrewdly exploiting their younger pre-free agent players and focusing on player development. Now even morons like Cashman and Steinbrenner are realizing that player development coupled with big dollar FA signings is the way to best capitalize on their competitive advantages. The days of the Indians kicking the crap outta bloated payroll teams like the Yankees may be coming to an end – assuming that ML baseball fails to implement a salary cap any time in the near future.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
I know they didn't have free agency back then ... come on, you know me better than that.
Back then it was strictly up to the minor leagues to provide you with talent. Guess which teams had the most minor league teams? The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals and Dodgers. Remember, this in the timeframe when there were leagues all the way down to Class D. D for criminy's sake!!
And how did such teams pay for the excess teams? Yes, you got it, economic imbalance. Those teams had an economic advantage, so they could field more teams, hire more scouts to scour the cornfields for players, and get this .... offer bigger bonuses than the teams such as the Tribe who did not have the same revenue streams. Sure every now then a team like the Tribe got a Feller, but the Yankees got Mantle, Berra, DiMaggio, Whitey Ford, etc .... You can't tell me there wasn't economic imbalances back then, because there were.
Let's just say for arguments sake the Yankees had a factor of ten more revenue than the Tribe back then. They had $1M while the Tribe only had $0.1M to play with. That buys a lot of extra scouts, minor league squads, etc to develop said talent. The only difference between then and now is that the payrolls, revenues are publicly known (and that is debatable too). Fifty years ago, no one cared about the revenue disparity because it wasn't publicized.
But 50 years ago attendance fueled baseball economics - not TV, not cable, not merchandizing. And in 1948 Cleveland set the attendance record, not New York, not LA and not Boston. Believe it or not the Indians brought in the most money that year.
Pay-rolls back then were peanuts. It was huge news when Andy Messersmith signed a 3 year $1M contract in '75 - huge. Even with inflation that's still peanuts.
Minor league and scouting costs - now I'm speculating here, but I think I'm pretty close - were probably less than 10% of the operating budget. But even if were a higher percentage the Yankees and Red Sox did not have anywhere near the competitive advantage they have now. Hell, Steinbrenner was damn near broke 3 years after he - and his partners - bought the Yankees. No, I'm sorry talonk, you've got some good points but you're missing how the dynamic has changed. Operating costs - facility costs, administrative costs etc - have roughly paralleled inflation. Player salaries have far outstripped inflation. The income differential has a quantum effect, it's not just the multiple difference that's key, it's the total number of dollars.
I don't have the time right now to elaborate - this work thing keeps interfering with baseball - but let me just say that looking at percentage differences blinds you to the real advantages the big market teams have. Sure the Yankees operating budget might have been twice what the Indians budget was in '58 (I doubt it, but let's assume that for your argument) but it wouldda been $12M vs $6M - peanuts even considering inflation.
No the economic advantages the big clubs have now is much greater than it was 50 years ago. If I get time later I'll elaborate.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
Look I am not denying the economic imbalance is there today, and it is more pronounced than it was 50 years ago. But there was economic imbalance then as well. It just wasn't publicized like today.
While attendance did drive the economics back then rather than TV, remember the tickets were pretty cheap as well. If the Tribe had the most revenue in 48, it probably wasn't by much since tickets were so cheap back then.
My main point is that this economic imbalance is not just a now thing, it has always been there in one form or another.
OK, now we can agree. And I know you get it. It's just that the magnitude is so much greater. It just frosts my balls is all.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
I'm not sure if this is the right reply slot. Surely the economic imbalance of today impacts the game, no one is saying otherwise.
However, it's not correct to say that it was free agency that has ushered the era into existence. Look, if the Yankees wanted to pay three times as much for a player than Kansas City would, the lack of free agency didn't keep him in KC. Generally it meant that the Athletics would trade him to the Yankees, and the A's got to recoup some of the value that now goes to the player. Maybe free agency makes it a little easier. So yeah, there was the difference in minor league budgets, but don't think that free agency prevented a poor team from pretty much selling a star to a big money team.
The differences in payroll may have increased, but Zimbalist also has suggested that the talent pool is narrower than it used to be, meaning the production difference between the top dollar players and, let's say, Michaels and Delluci, is not as large as it used to be.
Still, Chuck's got a point that the huge dollars going into NY, Boston, and LA seems to be increasing the gap. But I don't think we should look at the 50-60's as a golden age of equality and balance.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
