Kansas Crimson

Back2Lawrence wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:11 am The disparity in payrolls is laughable. Especially in a closed-system.

I get why you say that.

But statistically, there is significantly more parity in baseball than you might expect given those disparities. The Yankees won their last World Series when you could count our Big 12 streak with rings on one hand, and the Dodgers have been spending like drunken sailors for 10+ years now and have as many trophies as the Royals in that time.

Capped leagues have their own massive parity hurdles (in the NBA, the cap system gives "lifestyle" markets an enormous leg up; in the NFL, the cap system more or less means that only a small handful of teams are realistically competitive in any given year, because you EITHER need an all-world QB you're paying like one, or you need a rookie deal guy).

I would say where baseball fails from a competitive standpoint isn't at the top of the game, but at the bottom. And I think blaming the Yankees and Dodgers for, like, the cheapness of the Pirates and Rockies and Reds and so on, is misplaced.

Rangers - 4th highest
Houston - 8th highest
Braves - 10th highest
Dodgers - 1st
Nationals - 7th
Red Sox - 1st
Astros - 17th
Cubs - 5th
Royals - 13th
Giants - 7th

Only once in the last 10 years was a payroll NOT in the top 15.
And a number of those 1-5 payrolls were 2 and 3 times more than teams towards the bottom.
Additionally, the top six teams in payroll over the past five years have averaged 91 wins.
Notice a pattern here?

To say that the NFL has a massive parity hurdle is absolutely hilarious on a thread talking about baseball but you know that.

...you just pointed out that the last ten World Series were won by nine different teams.

The last ten Super Bowls were won by six different teams. The last ten NBA Finals were won by seven different teams (which will be as true tonight as it is right now).

This is a blunt instrument, but I certainly don't think it suggests MLB is worse than the other two big leagues when it comes to competitiveness (to say nothing of EPL).

Football is, though, particularly problematic from this standpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... arterbacks

You have almost NO chance if you do not have either a HoF-or-close guy, OR an effectively-free guy who is at least good.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 12:05 pm ...you just pointed out that the last ten World Series were won by nine different teams.

Who all largely spent, for the most part, in the upper 1/4 of teams and, largely, had significantly higher payrolls of teams ( multiple times ) in the bottom half.

Spending more money to win does not equate to smart drafting and good team management to me.
At all.
It's not even close.

Yes, we are amongst an era of two of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game.
That's awesome.
We ( the Chiefs ) didn't buy our way there. We built our way there.

I'd also add - look at some of the teams who made it to the finals ( but lost ) and their quarterbacks. It shows you can certainly compete without the best of the best QBs but yes, the elite studs who will be top 2 at their positions do alter the course of championships.

Everyone had the chance to draft Mahomes - you could have traded picks to get there for sure.
Not everyone has the chance to buy a team like the Dodgers ( spare me with the YES they DO - you know how this works ).

Quickly back on topic though:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/403 ... -shortstop

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 12:53 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 12:05 pm ...you just pointed out that the last ten World Series were won by nine different teams.

Who all largely spent, for the most part, in the upper 1/4 of teams and, largely, had significantly higher payrolls of teams ( multiple times ) in the bottom half.

Ok.

So we would seem to agree, then, that teams from all different kinds of markets can spend the type of money it seems to take to compete for championships.

If the issue isn't can't (which it's not), then it's won't. And won't falls on, in my opinion, those ownership groups who choose not to join the hunt (but who still gladly collect ~$200mm/year in "central" revenue/revenue sharing).

The top six teams in payroll over the past five years have averaged 91 wins.

Mets, Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, Angels and Phillies are the only teams that have been in that top group more than 4 times.

Can you describe to me the sizes of those markets? Do you think there is any correlation?

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:01 pm The top six teams in payroll over the past five years have averaged 91 wins.

Mets, Yankees, Dodgers, Astros, Angels and Phillies are the only teams that have been in that top group more than 4 times.

Can you describe to me the sizes of those markets? Do you think there is any correlation?

I'm not at all arguing against the existence of a correlation between market size and payroll.

I am very much arguing that each and every team can, if it wants, carry payroll that supports competing. Meaning, NOT doing so is a choice, for which ownership should be held accountable.

Owners generally spend with revenue in mind.
Those teams you see highlighted have larger markets ( top 10 cities in terms of population ) so it's easier to make more revenue.

If the small market owner wanted to chance loosing money year after year on a team, certainly, they could.
And also i'm down with saying fuck off to likely most owners because of the hoards of money they possess.
But A. that's not how owners work. They didn't get to where they are by loosing money.
B. If small market owners started spending more money, I can guarantee the large market owners would then up their game too.

It's an unfair imbalance and most sports fans agree.

It's a juiced up version of why I kinda am grossed out by the KU basketball program lately.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:33 pm Owners generally spend with revenue in mind.
Those teams you see highlighted have larger markets ( top 10 cities in terms of population ) so it's easier to make more revenue.

If the small market owner wanted to chance loosing money year after year on a team, certainly, they could.
And also i'm down with saying fuck off to likely most owners because of the hoards of money they possess.
But A. that's not how owners work. They didn't get to where they are by loosing money.
B. If small market owners started spending more money, I can guarantee the large market owners would then up their game too.

It's an unfair imbalance and most sports fans agree.

It's a juiced up version of why I kinda am grossed out by the KU basketball program lately.

I think you are being too easy on the owners. Who not only choose how much they spend individually, but also (by way of the commissioner's office and Major League Baseball) how much they spend as a group; you think it's good for the SPORT that they've progressively cut the minor leagues in half and half again over the last ten years?

It's a lovely trick they've played, convincing people that the owners simply MUST not absorb operating losses.

This isn't the world of 50 or even 20 years ago; the overwhelming majority of ownership groups are either/both (1) structured to optimize for debt and losses ANYWAY, by design, or (2) cartoonishly in the money on the equity side of their clubs.

The Royals revenue in 2023 was 260 million dollars.
There are teams spending more than that revenue on just their players this season.
I don't think you can just assume that owners will be OK with operating a club at loss.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jun 17, 2024 3:22 pm The Royals revenue in 2023 was 260 million dollars.
There are teams spending more than that revenue on just their players this season.
I don't think you can just assume that owners will be OK with operating a club at loss.

Depends what "OK with" means.

I do not assume that owners generally WANT to operate at a loss. I do, however, assume that owners have the financial position to operate at a loss in any given year or period of years. If there are any places where that is not the case, there will be a line of eager prospective purchasers dozens long, ready to relieve the afflicted owner of his burden.

And so I give NO credence to the suggestion that there is something inherently wrong with operating losses, as if the fact of an operating loss means something is broken.

I think that, on the balance, owners picking operating profit and loss as the measuring stick for the financial and operational health of a franchise is cynical and disingenuous, at best. And yet it's a very effective strategy (and it will continue until cities and taxpayers/fans say "no," which doesn't appear to be near on the horizon).

Baseball needs a cap for its own good. Saw a stat where the Yankees have been above .500 the last 32 years or so. Their whole development process was other team's stars. Killing the joy.

Sparko wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 8:53 am Baseball needs a cap for its own good. Saw a stat where the Yankees have been above .500 the last 32 years or so. Their whole development process was other team's stars. Killing the joy.

I'm with you in spirit. I do not think that a windfall to the owners is the way to achieve the goal.

There should be something like a hard cap every year which is set by the average of the top 5 spending teams and then a soft cap which is set by the average spent by all the teams. Something like that.

The hard cap you can't go over.
The soft cap there's a luxury tax that goes directly to every other team and can only be spent on players.
Something along those lines.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:15 am There should be something like a hard cap every year which is set by the average of the top 5 spending teams and then a soft cap which is set by the average spent by all the teams. Something like that.

The hard cap you can't go over.
The soft cap there's a luxury tax that goes directly to every other team and can only be spent on players.
Something along those lines.

All of which the owners would love, but the players would not agree to without a floor (and a much more transparent split as between the owners and the players). Each of which the owners would not agree to.

I think the levers to be pulled are in the draft and pre-free-agency areas.

Reward non-playoff teams (with draft picks, or improved positioning or odds) for spending.

Earmark revenue-sharing dollars specifically for teams to extend players who accrued their first full year of service time with that team.

Basically, use moving pieces in the talent acquisition and development pipeline to make it easier for non-playoff teams to improve the product on the field, BUT condition that help on those teams TRYING.

I'd also be fine with a floor...but there should never be a team outspending the total revenue of another. Never ever ever.

There shouldn't be teams who get to ( and you'll come in with your BUT THE OWNERS CAN SPEND THAT ) spend 7x more than another team.

The largest gap in the NFL in player spend was a 9% difference. Not a 700% difference.
For me to care about the sport, it needs to be closer to that.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2024 9:31 am I'd also be fine with a floor...but there should never be a team outspending the total revenue of another. Never ever ever.

There shouldn't be teams who get to ( and you'll come in with your BUT THE OWNERS CAN SPEND THAT ) spend 7x more than another team.

The largest gap in the NFL in player spend was a 9% difference. Not a 700% difference.
For me to care about the sport, it needs to be closer to that.

But the dirty little (open) secret is that spending at the very VERY top (in other words, the spending that takes you from, like, the 5-8th range to the top-3) has proven to be highly inefficient.

And not even very impactful on competitiveness, especially with the postseason field being expanded so aggressively; the Dodgers and Yankees have one one combined title in the last 15 years, and right this second, there are only 4-5 teams that are conclusively out of it, which is a massive improvement for the health of the game (although it does give rise to another issue, which is an extremely tight trade market that gives rich teams a huge advantage).

So, I still would focus not on eliminating jumbo spenders, but further discouraging it (as we do) by way of an aggressive tax at the top, AND (using tax money, for example) finding new ways to reward teams for trying to move up the table (as it were).

I would also strongly consider a reverse tax. If, over some reference period (call it three years), you carry payroll that is not at least [85]% of the corresponding period's per-team central revenue, then your revenue-sharing cut should be impacted negatively.

It's a problem that some teams are spending 7x what other teams are spending. I think you MUST work on both ends of that disparity.