Baseball

[Shirley]

Full disclosure: I want every series in every sport to last all, in this case, 7 games, no matter who is playing.

I grew up a Yankees fan, but George Steinbrenner and Billy Martin cured me of that.

I only ever saw one game at Metropolitan Stadium in KC, the Athletics vs. the Yankees, August 26, 1961. I was so young I barely remember it, but we drove up from Wichita. There was lots of excitement because it was getting late in the season and Mickey Mantle was chasing Roger Maris to be the American League home run leader. Maris hit his 51st home run of the season that day, (I remember being disappointed because I was a huge Mickey Mantel fan.), on his way to breaking Babe Ruth's record with 61 homers that season.

I guess if I was only going to ever see one game at Metro, that wasn't a bad one to see. My dad bought me a blue Yankees batting helmet that I had and wore for years afterward. (Wish I still had it...)

One of my most vivid memories of the trip is driving thru KC on the way to the stadium. Of course, it was a hot summer evening, and there were hundreds of times more Black people than I had ever seen before hanging out on the front stoops of their "brownstones", for what seemed like miles, as we drove by. Of course, back then, Blacks knew their place, so I don't recall feeling intimidated, at all...

[KUTradition]

defense wins (or in this case loses, oof) championships

as one who has muffed a consequential fly ball myself, i kinda felt bad for Judge…for only a few seconds, because, fuck the yankees

[pdub]

Here's Soto immediately after the loss:

“I don’t know what’s the teams that are going to come after me... I don’t have any doors closed. I’m gonna be available for all 30 teams.”

Yea. Fuck that.

[jfish26]

Royals fans should be very encouraged by the message in the 3/$51mm Wacha extension - the other two choices (let him walk for nothing, or make a "qualifying offer" of 1/$21mm and get a ~40th pick when he signs elsewhere) would have been cheaper for ownership.

I, personally, would have gone the QO route anyway. But I'm not mad about this at all, except that I'm probably a 90th percentile Singer fan, and this portends a Singer-for-a-bat deal.

[pdub]

Dodgers sign Snell.
This league is stupid.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Dodgers sign Snell.
This league is stupid.

Yes?
That being the case, as I have said too often, it's "free market", so I feel owners who buy teams and chose not to /don't want to spend money to compete is stupid.
Sure, hate the game but maybe also hate the playa/s?

[pdub]

Yes, extremely wealthy people often suck.
Doesn't change anything about MLB.

[jfish26]

I guess this is sort of my point, though - Snell will be 32 next year. He has two great seasons to his name (his age 25 and 30 seasons). Those are the only seasons in his career that he's thrown 130+ innings.

Is it an advantage to be able to throw $182mm at him? Of course.

But it is highly inefficient spend, and not the sort of thing (IMO, of course) that should be cause for all that much concern.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I guess this is sort of my point, though - Snell will be 32 next year. He has two great seasons to his name (his age 25 and 30 seasons). Those are the only seasons in his career that he's thrown 130+ innings.

Is it an advantage to be able to throw $182mm at him? Of course.

But it is highly inefficient spend, and not the sort of thing (IMO, of course) that should be cause for all that much concern.

"Is it an advantage to be able to throw $182mm at him? Of course."
Name an owner/ownership group that can't throw $182 million at him. That's sort of been my point.

[jfish26]

I guess this is sort of my point, though - Snell will be 32 next year. He has two great seasons to his name (his age 25 and 30 seasons). Those are the only seasons in his career that he's thrown 130+ innings.

Is it an advantage to be able to throw $182mm at him? Of course.

But it is highly inefficient spend, and not the sort of thing (IMO, of course) that should be cause for all that much concern.

"Is it an advantage to be able to throw $182mm at him? Of course."
Name an owner/ownership group that can't throw $182 million at him. That's sort of been my point.

I agree with you. I also acknowledge that, while it is true that all teams are allowed to do this, not all teams are playing with anything like the same revenue streams.

[pdub]

Dodgers will end up making like 650 mill in revenue compared with 300ish from a Royals club…thus their owners have less risk in loosing any money if they spend.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

It's probably a very simple concept but I overthink things and I'm not smart enough to understand the possible (probable?) intricacies of it - breaking down the risk vs. reward concept in regards to revenue/s.

[jfish26]

Dodgers will end up making like 650 mill in revenue compared with 300ish from a Royals club…thus their owners have less risk in loosing any money if they spend.

That is true.

It is also true that the Dodgers' operating expenses (even aside from player payroll) are much higher than the Royals'. And that the Dodgers' owners paid double for the Dodgers what the Royals' owners paid for the Royals. And that the Dodgers paid something like $88mm in luxury tax for their 2024 roster (such that their roster actually cost close to $430mm).

Industry estimates suggest MLB central revenue/team - revenue from local TV revenue sharing as well as luxury tax distribution and national TV and advertising deals - is around $200mm. That means that each team is taking in ~$200mm before selling a ticket or a jersey or an in-stadium ad.

And yet only 1/3 of the clubs last year had payrolls over $200mm. And about 1/3 of clubs had payrolls below $150mm.

That is why I will agree that big revenue clubs have a marginal advantage...but why I absolutely will not agree that an even bigger handout to owners is an appropriate response to that marginal advantage.

Not when there are at least ten ownership groups out there who spend less than 75% of their central revenue on players.

If 1/3 of the league won't even spend 75% of their central revenue on players, then I can't be convinced that the smaller-market owners need protection against the larger-market ones.

[pdub]

I can guarantee you the Dodgers, even with all that you mentioned, have another 200-300 million to play with more than the Royals - which is why they spend more on their players.

It's not rocket science.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I can guarantee you the Dodgers, even with all that you mentioned, have another 200-300 million to play with more than the Royals - which is why they spend more on their players.

It's not rocket science.

I'm trying to understand the concepts here. Maybe I am confused and over simplifying things when I say I thought MLB owners are free to spend whatever they want on their players. Are they not?

[pdub]

I’m super wealthy.
I want to make money off my investments.
I don’t want to risk loosing money.

If I’m making a lot of money on an investment I can put more money into that investment. If I’m making a moderate amount of money I will likely not risk a lot for a non guaranteed return.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I’m super wealthy.
I want to make money off my investments.
I don’t want to risk loosing money.

If I’m making a lot of money on an investment I can put more money into that investment. If I’m making a moderate amount of money I will likely not risk a lot for a non guaranteed return.

Yes.

Or......
I'm super wealthy.
I can afford to lose whatever I put in to my investment.
I know the risks going in and it won't change my life and the people I support lives one iota if I were to lose everything I put in.
If I am losing a lot of money on an investment I can sell that investment. Sure, maybe/probably at a loss but I am not forced to keep it. If I am losing a moderate amount of money I might/would possibly risk a little more for a non guaranteed return if it doesn't change my life for the worse - and as long as I am enjoying being an owner.

I am confident that not a single owner wants to lose money on their investment, but if they were to lose money - they of course wouldn't be happy, but they would continue to live their lives happily ever after.

All that being said, as I have said before, I don't feel you are wrong at all for the way you feel. I feel the system is broken too but as I have also said, the rules are the rules and the owners know the "rules". They are free to spend as little or as much as they can/would like to.
Yeah, it probably wouldn't be too cool for fans of other teams if it was approved (probably not) and Elon Musk bought the the Royals, put 10 billion in to a new stadium, and paid 10 billion in salaries.
So.... Should there be a cap on owners and ownership groups net worth? Not going to happen.
Bottom line, an owner/group can be worth 5 billion and put 4 billion of it in to his/her/their team and and an owner/group can be worth 25 billion and only put 2.5 billion in to his/her/their team.
That's on the owners.
Right?

[pdub]

Then every super rich person should donate 66 percent of their property/possessions/holdings, right now, to good causes.

It isn’t going to happen.
You can blame the owners all day and night—but as you can see, it’s not changing.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Then every super rich person should donate 66 percent of their property/possessions/holdings, right now, to good causes.

It isn’t going to happen.
You can blame the owners all day and night—but as you can see, it’s not changing.

I don't disagree with your first sentence. Like you said, it isn't going to happen.
Like I think we both feel - the system is broken - but it is what it is and it's not changing anytime soon.

On a semi related note. Had some interesting conversations with some sports people on Thanksgiving.
A lot more than just Baseball is broken. I know, take it to the F The NCAA thread.
Here's the (actually A) thing, a lot of people are making a lot of money in sports - because sports are broken. Money is the root of all (or a lot of) evil. That's never going to change no matter how many changes are and are not made in sports.

[jfish26]

Then every super rich person should donate 66 percent of their property/possessions/holdings, right now, to good causes.

It isn’t going to happen.
You can blame the owners all day and night—but as you can see, it’s not changing.

A good start would be for taxpayers to quit subsidizing billionaire owners (by way of everything from stadium handouts to tax breaks to the antitrust exemption baseball enjoys).

Owning a baseball team should cost what it costs.