Do we want parity in baseball? If so, how do we get it?

[TwinsDr2021]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:13 PM, chpettit19 said:

First off, the 1.4 billion value has nothing to do with cash flow and a team's, or company in general, ability to spend money each year. The 1.4 billion has no weight whatsoever in their payrolls year to year. 

 

They are losing players they want to sign to larger contracts to big spending teams. Yes. 100%. The Twins didn't say "hey, we can afford Berrios and everyone else we want, but we'd rather have SWR and Martin for the future in hopes that they turn out to be good." They said "we can't afford Berrios at the number he wants and still be able to afford the players needed around him to contend so we should get the best guys we can to hopefully help in the future." The Twins didn't trade Johan Santana because they preferred that mess of prospects to having him. They traded him cuz they couldn't afford him. They didn't let Hunter walk because they preferred playing younger guys, they let him walk because they couldn't afford him when the Angels paid him twice the guaranteed money they'd offered him.

Expand  

I get cash flow, what I was saying is they could spend more money here even if they lost a little money at the time because it could help their bottom line later on. I have worked at companies that have spent more then they took in a year because it was going to bring in more money later. The rest I completely agree.

Did the Twins lose Berrios/Santana/Hunter (that is 3 guys in 16 years) because they couldn't afford him, or were unwilling to pay what the player wanted or what another team was willing to pay, that is a huge difference. I said back in the day I would love Hunter to be on the Twins, but if the Angels are willing to overpay him that much good luck, the Twins should be able to spend that money better, not sure they did. As for Santana again hated to see him go but they got a haul for him, not sure that haul worked out though, and for Berrios the Twins proved they could have afforded to sign him, I think that wasn't so much about money.

[chpettit19]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:23 PM, TwinsDr2021 said:

So 6-9, 7-9,6-10, 2-14, 4-11 to 10-7 and the super bowl is fast? OK Seems more like after a 6 run playoff out of 7 years, they rebuilt the team over a few year got the number 1 pick (QB, who then got hurt) and then he got healthy and the drafted an amazing WR, but sure I guess that could be considered fast.

Expand  

That's because of poor team management, that's the point here. They weren't "rebuilding" or tanking for higher draft picks. Cuz the guys they picked after that 6-9 team weren't even under contract anymore by the time last year rolled around. Actually, the guys drafted in the 7-9 year weren't there either. NFL teams tank for a season if there's a big time QB they want, but nobody is sitting around being bad on purpose for multiple years in an attempt to build through the draft because they only get those guys for 4 (or 5 for 1st round picks if the option is picked up) years. But since they have a cap and floor system there are free agents available on the market every year that every team has an equal shot at depending on how they manage their team since the NY teams can't just run up payrolls over 300 million if they want. It's what allows the Jaguars the opportunity to go out and spend a ton in free agency this last offseason and rebuild the majority of their team. 

That's the entire point here. The failures of the Bengals, Lions, Jets types in the NFL and the Wolves and Clippers types in the NBA is because they're poorly run teams. I think everyone agrees the A's and Guardians have been well run teams for a number of years, but they aren't able to do what the Dodgers and Yankees are. The front offices all do their jobs equally well with those 4 teams, but 2 of them have a significant advantage when it comes to team building because there's no cap. It's a gigantic advantage that you simply can't pretend doesn't matter. David Kahn passing on Steph Curry and allowing the Warriors to build a dynasty around him is because David Kahn was awful at his job, not because he couldn't afford Curry. That's the difference. I want equal playing field where it comes down to an organization's ability to strategize, scout, and spend their money wisely, not just having 4 times as much money to spend.

[TwinsDr2021]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:36 PM, chpettit19 said:

 

That's the entire point here. The failures of the Bengals, Lions, Jets types in the NFL and the Wolves and Clippers types in the NBA is because they're poorly run teams. I think everyone agrees the A's and Guardians have been well run teams for a number of years, but they aren't able to do what the Dodgers and Yankees are.

Expand  

I completely agree with this, could those teams do more, maybe, can they be the Dodgers absolutely not. Does limiting the Dodgers for example make MLB better? I think it would be same as now or worse. My point was some people are claiming other sports with their caps are doing better at parity and that just isn't true, unless the definition of parity is only what you said it was.

[chpettit19]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:35 PM, TwinsDr2021 said:

I get cash flow, what I was saying is they could spend more money here even if they lost a little money at the time because it could help their bottom line later on. I have worked at companies that have spent more then they took in a year because it was going to bring in more money later. The rest I completely agree.

Did the Twins lose Berrios/Santana/Hunter (that is 3 guys in 16 years) because they couldn't afford him, or were unwilling to pay what the player wanted or what another team was willing to pay, that is a huge difference. I said back in the day I would love Hunter to be on the Twins, but if the Angels are willing to overpay him that much good luck, the Twins should be able to spend that money better, not sure they did. As for Santana again hated to see him go but they got a haul for him, not sure that haul worked out though, and for Berrios the Twins proved they could have afforded to sign him, I think that wasn't so much about money.

Expand  

Who says they haven't been spending more money here or there and having seasons they lose money? They lost money in 2020 for sure, and likely lost money last year and this year. The Dodgers lost money in 2020, but haven't lost money in any other season for the last decade I'd bet. All while spending almost triple what the Twins do. I don't get how you don't see that as an advantage and how that leads to teams like the Twins literally not being able to afford guys.

They lost that trio (I didn't list the entirity of players they lost over the last 16 years, don't be like that) because they couldn't afford them while also building a competitive team around them. Which equals not being able to afford them. Yes, they could've signed Hunter to twice the contract they offered, but then they'd have had to lose other guys to fit him in their budget. The Angels didn't "overpay him" just because the Twins didn't go higher than $45M. That's a false connection. Hunter had WARs of 3.5, 5.3, 3, 3.6, and 5.4 during that contract. They absolutely didn't "overpay him." And the Santana return was pretty universally pegged as being disappointing. Even before all the prospects failed. And, again, the point is they HAD to trade him because they couldn't afford him, but the Mets could. That's the entire point here that you're trying to dance around without just admitting that the financial disparity in teams is what leads to these decisions.

[chpettit19]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:44 PM, TwinsDr2021 said:

I completely agree with this, could those teams do more, maybe, can they be the Dodgers absolutely not. Does limiting the Dodgers for example make MLB better? I think it would be same as now or worse. My point was some people are claiming other sports with their caps are doing better at parity and that just isn't true, unless the definition of parity is only what you said it was.

Expand  

I think I explained the parity I was looking for pretty clearly, and then you chose to disagree with my comment which is what lead us here. I'm not suggesting just limiting the Dodgers, but raising the abilities of other teams. There would still be terribly run teams that struggle, and well run teams that can form dynasties. But it'd be based on owner and FO abilities, not deeper pockets. That's what I want. No equal results, just equal opportunity.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've advocated for a long time that local TV revenue should be shared the same way gate revenue is shared. This has a few effects that I believe improves the sport drastically:

1. Division competitors who play one another a lot receive extra parity. No longer will Tampa be forced to run 40% or less of the Yankees or Red Sox payroll. When they play each other, Tampa gets 50% of the gates in those games.

2. This retains some large market imbalance, which is probably a good thing. The Yankees are simply more popular than the Orioles, having them spend more money is probably the right decision for the sport as a whole. But it closes the gap between large markets and small markets considerably, which is necessary.

3. Doing this would allow the sport to aggressively pursue both a salary cap and floor. Fix the cap and floor as a percentage of total revenue, just like they do in other sports. In this scenario, the floor and cap would still be far apart from one another - say $125m floor and a $250m cap - but that gulf still pales in comparison to what we see right now, which is $60m payrolls going against $275m payrolls.

[Mike Sixel]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:57 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I've advocated for a long time that local TV revenue should be shared the same way gate revenue is shared. This has a few effects that I believe improves the sport drastically:

1. Division competitors who play one another a lot receive extra parity. No longer will Tampa be forced to run 40% or less of the Yankees or Red Sox payroll. When they play each other, Tampa gets 50% of the gates in those games.

2. This retains some large market imbalance, which is probably a good thing. The Yankees are simply more popular than the Orioles, having them spend more money is probably the right decision for the sport as a whole. But it closes the gap between large markets and small markets considerably, which is necessary.

3. Doing this would allow the sport to aggressively pursue both a salary cap and floor. Fix the cap and floor as a percentage of total revenue, just like they do in other sports. In this scenario, the floor and cap would still be far apart from one another - say $125m floor and a $250m cap - but that gulf still pales in comparison to what we see right now, which is $60m payrolls going against $275m payrolls.

Expand  

The floor is tough, without A LOT more free agents. Look at the Twins this coming year....and all the other teams under 125MM. How could they even all get to the floor w/o paying bad players a lot of money? I mean, rookies make so little money, it is hard to see how a rebuilding team can get there. I agree, there should be a floor, but I'm not sure it is realistic w/o a lot more free agents that are actually good.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  On 9/27/2022 at 4:27 PM, Mike Sixel said:

The floor is tough, without A LOT more free agents. Look at the Twins this coming year....and all the other teams under 125MM. How could they even all get to the floor w/o paying bad players a lot of money? I mean, rookies make so little money, it is hard to see how a rebuilding team can get there. I agree, there should be a floor, but I'm not sure it is realistic w/o a lot more free agents that are actually good.

Expand  

I'd like to see younger players get paid a lot more faster at the expense of massive guaranteed contracts to 30 year old free agents but yes, as currently configured a floor that high could pose a problem.

[DJL44]

  On 9/27/2022 at 3:57 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I've advocated for a long time that local TV revenue should be shared the same way gate revenue is shared. This has a few effects that I believe improves the sport drastically:

Expand  

I would flip-flop it.

Share all the media money (TV, radio, streaming) into a national pool. That's money the league creates by putting a franchise in a media market.

Don't share any gate money at all. This will incentivize teams to get people into the stadium. I don't care if they do it by winning like the Yankees and Dodgers or with a circus show like the Savannah Bananas.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  On 9/27/2022 at 5:43 PM, DJL44 said:

I would flip-flop it.

Share all the media money (TV, radio, streaming) into a national pool. That's money the league creates by putting a franchise in a media market.

Don't share any gate money at all. This will incentivize teams to get people into the stadium. I don't care if they do it by winning like the Yankees and Dodgers or with a circus show like the Savannah Bananas.

Expand  

Baseball could have maybe pulled this off 20 years ago but hard to see owners doing that now. TV revenue is just too big now. For the owners to pass anything, they need 24 owners to agree. I think they could convince 24 owners of more revenue sharing but hard to see that happening with a single pool of revenue.

[DJL44]

  On 9/28/2022 at 1:39 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

Baseball could have maybe pulled this off 20 years ago but hard to see owners doing that now. TV revenue is just too big now. For the owners to pass anything, they need 24 owners to agree. I think they could convince 24 owners of more revenue sharing but hard to see that happening with a single pool of revenue.

Expand  

I think the looming cable bust might provide an opportunity

[nicksaviking]

There won't be parity until the league starts noticing lower revenues because too many fans have decided to tune out.

And by that time, it will probably be too late to save the sport.

[baul0010]

I don't think there could be parity.  You would need everyone to have matching payrolls and for parity sake...Falvey and Levine would need to be in charge of every team.  Without them making the same poor decisions for all teams we can't have parity.   If the playing field was equal, teams with the better front offices would then be the problem.

[nicksaviking]

  On 9/28/2022 at 6:30 PM, baul0010 said:

I don't think there could be parity.  You would need everyone to have matching payrolls and for parity sake...Falvey and Levine would need to be in charge of every team.  Without them making the same poor decisions for all teams we can't have parity.   If the playing field was equal, teams with the better front offices would then be the problem.

Expand  

Um right, that's the argument. Take the money out of the equation and the best run teams have the advantage as opposed to the best financed teams.

[baul0010]

  On 9/28/2022 at 6:52 PM, nicksaviking said:

Um right, that's the argument. Take the money out of the equation and the best run teams have the advantage as opposed to the best financed teams.

Expand  

Just because they are the best financed doesn't mean they aren't the best run.  I have my doubts Falvey and Levine would be very successful running the Yankees.  The Dodgers always have their big money players but are always pulling pitchers and players out of nowhere.  The Twins don't ever seem to have that problem.

[nicksaviking]

  On 9/28/2022 at 10:01 PM, baul0010 said:

Just because they are the best financed doesn't mean they aren't the best run.  I have my doubts Falvey and Levine would be very successful running the Yankees.  The Dodgers always have their big money players but are always pulling pitchers and players out of nowhere.  The Twins don't ever seem to have that problem.

Expand  

*****Moderator Note**********

I know many are unhappy and want to throw shade at any and everything Twins with every breath they take, but stay on topic. This particular topic has absolutely nothing to do with Falvey and Lavine. Vent somewhere more relevant.

[Mike Sixel]

  On 9/28/2022 at 10:01 PM, baul0010 said:

Just because they are the best financed doesn't mean they aren't the best run.  I have my doubts Falvey and Levine would be very successful running the Yankees.  The Dodgers always have their big money players but are always pulling pitchers and players out of nowhere.  The Twins don't ever seem to have that problem.

Expand  

 

[DJL44]

Now that Seattle and Philly have made the playoffs every team has made it to the postseason in the last decade. The longest drought belongs to the Tigers and Angels at 8 seasons.

[Riverbrian]

There are many things that baseball needs to change in order to be healthy in the future. 

One of those many things needed: Hope in Pittsburgh.

Market size doesn't seem to be a factor in the NFL and NHL. Baseball needs to find a way to eliminate market size competitive advantages so there is hope in Pittsburgh. 

 

[ashbury]

  On 10/4/2022 at 4:36 PM, Riverbrian said:

There are many things that baseball needs to change in order to be healthy in the future. 

One of those many things needed: Hope in Pittsburgh.

Market size doesn't seem to be a factor in the NFL and NHL. Baseball needs to find a way to eliminate market size competitive advantages so there is hope in Pittsburgh. 

 

Expand  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193534/franchise-value-of-national-football-league-teams-in-2010/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193637/franchise-value-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

Compare the top-versus-bottom franchise values in NFL versus MLB.  It's not socialism versus free enterprise, it's enlightened self-interest on the part of the NFL to spread the wealth a bit, and big money continues to want in on that.  Hope sells.

None of this happened overnight.  The NFL ate baseball's lunch bit by bit during the past 60 years.