Royals

[NewtonHawk11]

Sparko, I've followed some of your Royals posts. This is what I see.

Matheny sucks.
Matheny is incompetent.
Q is a cheap hire who is learning on the job (True)
Q is a terrible manager.
Q is grossly ineffective.

Without going into every post, I don't see a lot about Dayton Moore, JJ or even Sherman. In baseball, you need to look at the front office before the day-to-day coaching staff. They're there to manage, they don't do a whole lot of coaching because almost all of these guys have their own personal coaches that they use in the offseason and the season is just about staying available every day.

[jfish26]

At the end of the day, there simply is NO evidence that the Royals put nearly enough emphasis on getting on base, and keeping the other team from getting on base.

We're 40 years (and counting) into the Golden Age of KU Basketball, and what Larry, Roy and Bill did/have done is fairly simple: get good shots on offense, limit good shots on defense.

Same concept.

And everyone gets it in baseball, except the Royals.

[NewtonHawk11]

At the end of the day, there simply is NO evidence that the Royals put nearly enough emphasis on getting on base, and keeping the other team from getting on base.

We're 40 years (and counting) into the Golden Age of KU Basketball, and what Larry, Roy and Bill did/have done is fairly simple: get good shots on offense, limit good shots on defense.

Same concept.

And everyone gets it in baseball, except the Royals.

The one time that did happen, they won pennants.

[jfish26]

At the end of the day, there simply is NO evidence that the Royals put nearly enough emphasis on getting on base, and keeping the other team from getting on base.

We're 40 years (and counting) into the Golden Age of KU Basketball, and what Larry, Roy and Bill did/have done is fairly simple: get good shots on offense, limit good shots on defense.

Same concept.

And everyone gets it in baseball, except the Royals.

The one time that did happen, they won pennants.

That also happened before the "rich teams aren't ALSO smart, thank god" window (call it the Dodgers window), and the "we're smart, wait we can ALSO spend money?" window (call it the Padres window) closed.

It's even HARDER to do it now than in the early 2010s, is my point.

[NewtonHawk11]

This is nearly impossible, but MLB needs a salary cap. Every other sports league has a small-market team who has had success by winning it all in the last decade.

NFL - Chiefs
NBA - Bucks among others
NHL - Blues and others

[twocoach]

This is nearly impossible, but MLB needs a salary cap. Every other sports league has a small-market team who has had success by winning it all in the last decade.

NFL - Chiefs
NBA - Bucks among others
NHL - Blues and others

The Royals 2015 World Series title was within the last decade even if their last few seasons has made it feel like it was much longer ago.

[jfish26]

This is nearly impossible, but MLB needs a salary cap. Every other sports league has a small-market team who has had success by winning it all in the last decade.

NFL - Chiefs
NBA - Bucks among others
NHL - Blues and others

I'm not personally in favor of a salary cap, because it would almost certainly be used to funnel money away from the players and to the owners. I think there's a lot baseball could do, structurally, to promote a more level playing field (without resorting to a salary cap).

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I give you Royals fans credit. You're very loyal.
I have not attended nor watched a single Cubs or White Sox game this season and I can't guess/tell you close to what their current records are. Just don't care.
Kind of sucks because Baseball is typically something I enjoy watching/following.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on......

[pdub]

This is nearly impossible, but MLB needs a salary cap. Every other sports league has a small-market team who has had success by winning it all in the last decade.

NFL - Chiefs
NBA - Bucks among others
NHL - Blues and others

Yes.
It's a huge reason why I dislike baseball.
You shouldn't be able to spend 6x the amount of another team on players.

At least have a lower luxury tax cap ( say 200 million ? ) and maybe tax that in two tiers.

[jfish26]

This is nearly impossible, but MLB needs a salary cap. Every other sports league has a small-market team who has had success by winning it all in the last decade.

NFL - Chiefs
NBA - Bucks among others
NHL - Blues and others

Yes.
It's a huge reason why I dislike baseball.
You shouldn't be able to spend 6x the amount of another team on players.

At least have a lower luxury tax cap ( say 200 million ? ) and maybe tax that in two tiers.

I think that soft caps have the same (just slower-burn) issue as hard caps. They result in the owners hoarding money.

I definitely agree that baseball needs to be much more like the NFL, competitively. From my point of view, you can get toward that goal in other ways, such as (for example) earmarking revenue-sharing money to assist smaller-market teams to sign homegrown players, allowing the trading of draft picks, rewarding competitiveness (and discouraging tanking) by awarding draft picks for improving records (and reducing incentives to tear everything down), etc.

There are lots of things you can do, in my opinion, to improve competitiveness without imposing hard spending limits. I would suggest also that hard spending limits TAKE AWAY from a small-market team's ability to compete for talent; money is the great equalizer. Look at the NBA, where there are much more punitive spending rules, which have resulted in players largely choosing teams by geography/media market.

[pdub]

"I definitely agree that baseball needs to be much more like the NFL"

The NFL has a salary cap.
The average salary in MLB is 4.5 million per year.
The players will be OK.

The salary cap is for the fans. And fan interest, with competitive sports, would in theory drive the revenue up, to raise the salary cap. It's how the NFL works.

[jfish26]

"I definitely agree that baseball needs to be much more like the NFL"

The NFL has a salary cap.
The average salary in MLB is 4.5 million per year.
The players will be OK.

The salary cap is for the fans. And fan interest, with competitive sports, would in theory drive the revenue up, to raise the salary cap. It's how the NFL works.

Why barber the quote like that? I meant what I said, which included "competitively."

I do not agree that salary caps are for fans. They are very obviously for owners. There are lots and lots and lots of things the sport could do to be more like the NFL, competitively, without effecting a cash grab by the owners.

[pdub]

"I do not agree that salary caps are for fans"

59% of 11,500 sports fans disagree with you ( are you in favor of a salary cap system in the MLB ).

So, while yes, salary caps are for the owners, they are also for the fans, to prevent teams to be able to spend 6x the amount of others which is the opposite of parity. I would also agree that there should be a salary cap floor as well ( which also exists in the NFL ).

https://theathletic.com/3070913/2022/01 ... l-in-2022/

[jfish26]

"I do not agree that salary caps are for fans"

59% of 11,500 sports fans disagree with you ( are you in favor of a salary cap system in the MLB ).

So, while yes, salary caps are for the owners, they are also for the fans, to prevent teams to be able to spend 6x the amount of others which is the opposite of parity. I would also agree that there should be a salary cap floor as well ( which also exists in the NFL ).

https://theathletic.com/3070913/2022/01 ... l-in-2022/

Saying salary caps are for fans is not the same thing as saying fans are for salary caps.

The owners have done a masterful job (I'd argue discussions on this topic are clear evidence) of directing fans' anger toward the rich players, all while obscuring the significantly-more-massive growth in the owners' wealth (which generally has grown at a MUCH faster pace than payroll).

Baseball would be a LOT better if something like half the teams were not non-competitive on an annual basis. But I don't think salary caps/floors are the right way to get there - and they're certainly not the only way.

[pdub]

Fans want salary caps.
They think salary caps will help the situation.
Therefore, in their mind, salary caps are for the fans.
The fans aren't thinking, oh well, how can we help the owners. They are thinking how can we mitigate the ever increasing gap between the team salaries of the haves and have nots.

Mind you, this 59 percent is from an audience who is already sports savvy.

Just because you think you know better than 59 percent of fans does not make you correct.
In a sense, you are essentially saying this group of already savvy fans, who pay for a online sports site, who are actively participating in MLB surveys, don't understand the intricacies of the player/owner dynamic and are being duped while you are not.
Maybe, juuuuust maybe, they think a salary cap would work, and maaayyyyybe juuuuust maybe, could be right!

[jfish26]

Fans want salary caps.
They think salary caps will help the situation.
Therefore, in their mind, salary caps are for the fans.
The fans aren't thinking, oh well, how can we help the owners. They are thinking how can we mitigate the ever increasing gap between the team salaries of the haves and have nots.

Mind you, this 59 percent is from an audience who is already sports savvy.

Just because you think you know better than 59 percent of fans does not make you correct.

What makes me correct isn't that I think I'm right, it's that the owners think I'm right. They tell you this by their obvious, open lust for a salary cap. That lust doesn't come from their love of the game, that's for sure.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping the Royals (or any other organization) from having a $200mm or $300mm payroll; just a desire not to spend the money. So I'd focus on things that reward owners for putting a competitive team on the field - that reward owners for spending.

[pdub]

Yes, in an ideal world, the Royals, and other small market owners, would spend more.
But their revenue stream is maxed out to a point compared to a larger market - so if they want their team to be profitable - they have limits ( in an even more ideal world, those owners don't care if they hemorrhage money ).
So then those larger markets would spend more to be more competitive and the gap would grow ( or remain as is ).

So sure, the players would make more.
But i'd argue the players do fine for themselves. The average salary again is over 4 million a season.
The point here is not to double MLB players salaries but to minimize the advantages certain teams have.

Hence why a salary cap and floor makes sense.
And why a number of fans agree.
But maybe those duped fans who think that can't quite see everything as brightly and brilliantly as you.

[jfish26]

Yes, in an ideal world, the Royals, and other small market owners, would spend more.
But their revenue stream is maxed out to a point compared to a larger market - so if they want their team to be profitable - they have limits ( in an even more ideal world, those owners don't care if they hemorrhage money ).
So then those larger markets would spend more to be more competitive and the gap would grow ( or remain as is ).

So sure, the players would make more.
But i'd argue the players do fine for themselves. The average salary again is over 4 million a season.
The point here is not to double MLB players salaries but to minimize the advantages certain teams have.

Hence why a salary cap and floor makes sense.
And why a number of fans agree.
But maybe those duped fans who think that can't quite see everything as brightly and brilliantly as you.

I just fundamentally disagree with the owners’ talking points you’re adopting, around revenue streams being maxed out etc. The “poor billionaire” talking points.

If I understand correctly, each team gets something well north of $100mm annually from central revenue (national TV and advertising deals) alone. That’s $100mm+ in revenue before a dime comes in from ticket sales, merch, concessions, local TV/ad deals, and so on.

So I don’t think it’s remotely close to accurate that operating margins do not obviously support payrolls well above what the Royals or other “small market” clubs are carrying.

And more fundamentally, it is simply owner-driven talking-point nonsense to suggest that an owner should not be expected to sustain operating losses. Not when the value of the asset keeps growing at such a pace. If you spent $1b on an asset worth $1.5b, you can very very very much suffer seven or eight digit operating losses as part of your business plan.

So, I just don’t for a second buy what the owners are selling here. I strongly believe that that the competitive disparities in baseball absolutely can and absolutely should be addressed in ways OTHER THAN letting the owners lock even more money out of the system.

[pdub]

In the ideal world, suddenly payrolls double, owners are all spending 300 million dollars a year, and the salary cap is 330 and the floor is 260. Or something of the sort. I'm fine with that.

Just make up the numbers, whatever. Whatever money you want JFish. Owners spending a lot more on average, whatever number makes you happy.

That still doesn't prevent team A from spending a lot more money than team B. As much as they see fit.

In this case, smaller market owners tend to spend less than larger ones.
The estimated revenue of the Royals was 260 million in 2022. The Yankees were nearly triple that.
So it makes sense that the Yankees might spend more than the Royals.

The whole point is to prevent team A from being able to buy the best talent available while team B has to figure out how to trade good players at the right time to hope to get guys on the cheap.

[jfish26]

In the ideal world, suddenly payrolls double, owners are all spending 300 million dollars a year, and the salary cap is 330 and the floor is 260. Or something of the sort. I'm fine with that.

Just make up the numbers, whatever. Whatever money you want JFish. Owners spending a lot more on average, whatever number makes you happy.

That still doesn't prevent team A from spending a lot more money than team B. As much as they see fit.

In this case, smaller market owners tend to spend less than larger ones.
The estimated revenue of the Royals was 260 million in 2022. The Yankees were nearly triple that.
So it makes sense that the Yankees might spend more than the Royals.

The whole point is to prevent team A from being able to buy the best talent available while team B has to figure out how to trade good players at the right time to hope to get guys on the cheap.

I agree with you 100%. I’m just not ready to solve the problem by simply letting the owners off the hook for wanting to be cheap.