Sports
Related: About this forumWhy this Yankees fan is rooting hard for the Royals to win the WS
So that the stupid meme of how small market teams can't compete in MLB can be put to rest. It was bullshit. And the Royals's success shows that when you draft and develop talent, you can win in MLB. It's not the payroll.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)could it? 
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)I wonder what KC'S payroll is.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Dodgers have officially out spent Satan.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Or Kanye's? 
Auggie
(31,163 posts)it's shipped elsewhere for draft choices and prospective talent.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)What more do you want? Yankees and the Dodgers, both with massive payrolls, don't make the WS consistently. So, there's no correlation between payroll and winning the WS.
Auggie
(31,163 posts)There's a difference.
Since 1985 the Yankees have won 13 Division Titles (10 since the year 2000), 7 American League titles, earned 5 Wild Cards and won 5 World Series. That's competitive.
Dodgers have nine division titles since 1985, and have won the last three (2015, 2014, 2013) despite major injuries to their pitching staff. Those three divisional titles coincide with the purchase of the team by Guggenheim Baseball Management in 2012 and the subsequent $7 billion media contract they signed with Time-Warner soon after. Dodgers teams are flawed, but they stayed competitive thanks to that massive payroll.
And yes, this is the the second WS trip for K.C in two years, but also the second since 1985 (1985 was also their last Division title, and 2014 was their first trip to the playoffs in 29 years). That's not consistency. I'll factor front office incompetence, player injury and draft risk to be fair, but that's not enough to explain 29 years of playoff drought.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)Over those same 29 years, the Twins, Tigers, Indians, and White Sox made the playoffs multiple times. None of those team had any where near the Yankees payroll, and given the unbalanced schedule, the Royals play in their own division more so than outside it. There was hardly a big payroll team blocking them from making the playoffs.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Oh, right, the Royals are in the Series while the Dodgers are strolling down the 12th fairway.
Auggie
(31,163 posts)In 2011 they finished 71-91, 24 games out.
In 2012 they were 72-90, 16 games out.
Finally, in 2013, the finished above .500 at 86-76.
Greinke was a factor only in that his trade helped build the nucleus of this current team. Royals picked up Alcides Escobar and Lorenzo Cain, (among others) from Milwaukee.
Even with Greinke in 2010 the Royals'record was 67-95, 65-97 in 2009, 75-87 in 2008 and 69-93 in 2007.
My point is that the Royals, along with Cleveland and now probably Oakland, are going to endure long stretches of average or below average competitiveness in comparison to a few brief years of success because they're constantly tearing apart the club due to free agency. Yes, small market teams can be competitive and make it to the World Series, but not with lasting consistency.
Cleveland has some of the best young talent in all of baseball. They should have made the playoffs this year. Oakland has been competitive, off and on, over the last 20 years. It's KC's incompetence more than payroll that's kept them out of the playoffs.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)There's a certain level of mistakes in the front office on all teams (some more than others). Big market teams with lots of money to spend are better able to recover from mistakes than small market teams. The Yankees (or my Red Sox, or the Dodgers) can make poor trades or draft poorly and use their money to abandon big contracts (by trading players off and paying most of the salary, or just eating the money and spending good money on replacements) while smaller payroll teams have to be a lot smarter (and luckier) about who they draft and the free agents they bring in, because one or two big mistakes can cripple their team.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)First, MLB is a MONOPOLY, and if a group of 1% owners cannot make a profit under a union-lead collective bargaining agreement than tough shit.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and still make a profit than a team that brings in $100 million. No owner should have to lose money on their team to run it, but as long as there's a disparity in how much teams bring in, they'll be a disparity in how much each team can spend. Either that or they'll have to go to an NFL style system, which I'd prefer, but doesn't seem like it's ever going to happen.
If you have two teams with essentially equally competent management, one that can make a profit spending $200 million and the other that can only spend $80 million, how can you possibly believe that the big market team doesn't have an advantage? And for the big market teams, they can afford to spend more on their front office too, so if a small market team has good management, the big market team with poor management can afford to pay them more to move.
AND the big money team that wins the world series can afford to keep the players it wants to, the small market team often can't.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)These are monopoly businesses run by the 1%. David Glass owns the Royals. He made his money by being the CEO of Walmart.
This is the guy that you are crying for:
Glass created a controversy on 9 June 2006 by revoking the press credentials of two reporters who had earlier asked pointed questions to Royals management.[8] The harsh move to avoid criticism infuriated many within the press and led to a backlash of articles that extended far beyond the Kansas City sports community.[9]
Stop buying the owners propaganda bullshit. A $19 million payroll for any professional sports franchise is a fucking joke.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)
I didn't say ANYTHING about owners that don't invest in their own team. I did say that some owners CAN spend a lot more than others and still make a profit.
In 2014, the Yankees made $508 million in revenue, the Houston Astros made $175 million. The Yankees were able to spend $203 million ON PLAYERS ALONE (not even the highest payroll that year), while the Astros spent $44 million. Could the Astros have spent more? Absolutely. Could the Astros try to compete with the Yankees in a bidding war for one individual player? Maybe, but they'd have to want that player more than the Yankees did, because no matter how much they offered. the Yankees could always afford to offer more if they wanted to. Could the Astros field the same lineup the Yankees do? Not a chance. If the Astros were stuck paying Arod and Sabathia $46 million for 2016 and 2017, they'd be fucked. They Yankees aren't. That's the advantage the big market teams have. They can afford to overpay players to make sure they get them, and if the players don't work out, they can afford a quality replacement, or to pay them to go away.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/
By the way, your $19 million number is from 1996 (where they were the 5th lowest spending team in baseball). That year, the yankees payroll was ONLY $61 million (highest in the league). All of the teams that made the playoffs were in the top 14 in payroll. The Royals revenue was $43 million that year and after expenses, their operating income (after expenses) was $4.7 million. The Yankees revenue was $133 million and their operating income was $38 million. If you have a player go down or underperform, or if you need to add players at the trade deadline, it's a lot easier to replace them when you have $38 million to play with than if you have $4.7 million to play with. The idea that having more money isn't a significant advantage is total bullshit, and you know it. Kansas City and Houston already have to start planning for what happens when their players come up for a contract, but they Yankees can afford to resign any and all players they choose to.
http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1996/Income_Expenses.asp
http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1996/Payroll.asp
Auggie
(31,163 posts)Oakland has 820 and Cleveland 795. Eight of those years the Yankees surpassed Oakland in wins versus seven for Cleveland. The proof is in the numbers.
I think both clubs (Oakland and Cleveland) have done pretty well over ten years considering the budgets their GMs have to work with. But as hughee99 points out downthread, neither can afford to take risks as the Yankees, and now Dodgers, can. And they certainly can't think long-term when their top talent reaches free agency.
BTW, Cleveland had a lot of holes in the lineup this year. With injuries and down years by Santana, Bourne and Kluber, and not much bench depth, they struggled for months. No way they were a playoff team -- not even close.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)over 10 seasons. Which works out to 11 more wins per season on average out of 162 games. To me, that's not statistically significant to show that having the highest payroll makes you any more competitive.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)Yavin4
(35,437 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)They account for ALL the world series wins over that span. Only 4 teams made the WS that averaged in the bottom 12, but only 2 of those teams were in the bottom 12 the year they made the world series ( Rockies in 07 and Rays in 08). Both of those teams had payroll increases the following two years in an attempt to keep it's talent and make it back to the WS, but none were able to even get beyond the Division series (Tampa lost 3, the Rockies lost 1) since that WS appearance, and when their stars contracts ran out, they couldn't afford to keep them.
As far as 11 wins go, of all the playoff teams this year would have missed the playoffs with 11 fewer wins except the Cards, who would have been the WC play in game, and the Royals (who won their division by 12 games) and even that may have depended on who they lost those 11 games to.
Keep in mind, this is comparing the Yankees to Oakland, which is an exceptionally well run team that does a great job of developing it's own talent, getting the most of the players they have and making savvy trades. Even the most well run team is basically starting 11 games back at the start of the season.
11 wins is more than 10% of a teams win total, even for a team that wins 100 games, or in other terms, it's the difference between hitting .300 and .270.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)your hypothesis.
Also, in MLB, given the multiple revenue streams from network TV contracts, ticket sales, merchandise, etc. All teams should be able to run a competitive franchise over that span with a $100 million payroll.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)WITH A $100 million payroll? Unless I'm mistaken, aren't you currently in the process of arguing that since you believe the 10% difference between the Yankees and A's win totals isn't statistically significant, the payroll difference doesn't matter?
How about this for making my case...
More than 85% of the playoff teams over the last decade would have missed the playoffs with 11 fewer wins. Many of the ones who would have made it anyway would have done so because their own division was so shitty they won by more than 11 games, but if they had lost some of those 11 to the second place team, they would have missed the playoffs too.
I'm frankly starting to think we're not arguing the same thing here. Are you arguing that having the ability to spend more money isn't an advantage, or are you arguing that any team can spend a lot more money, and the "small market" teams are just pocketing all this revenue?
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)Payroll advantage does not prevent teams from making the playoffs. Small market teams like the Pirates, the A's, the Royals, etc. compete in divisions without big payroll teams. You make the playoffs by winning your division. The A's have been competitive because they are good at running their franchise. The Pirates and Royals, until recently, were not competitive because of poor management. The Yankees' payroll in no way prevented the Pirates from making the playoffs year after year.
The Yankees' payroll is an outlier payroll. A better analysis would be to look at the average payroll size per division, and then per league. A record of 87-75 may make you a division winner or a WC team in a given year.
Second, see my earlier post where the owner of the Royals cut his payroll from $41 million down to $19 million and pocketed the savings. Given the aggregate revenue of the major professional sports franchises, NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL, no team should have a payroll that small. None.
Final point, maybe some markets don't deserve a MLB franchise. Oakland, for example, cannot support the Raiders, a team in a league with a strict salary cap. So, even when there's a salary cap in place, the city cannot support it.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Their revenue was $43 million, and while their payroll was only $19 million, their expenses were $38 million. The year before this, in 1995, the Royals LOST $6.9 million as their operating expenses were $42 million and their revenues were $35 million. At BEST, breaking even, the Royals could have spent $23.7 million on players, which is still about 1/3 of what the Yankees spent on payroll.
http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1996/Income_Expenses.asp
Yes, the Yankees payroll doesn't prevent the Pirates from making the playoffs, because they're in different leagues, but the Pirates and their $88 million dollar payroll in 2015 had to compete with the Cards and their $120 million dollar payroll and the Cubs with their $119 million dollar payroll.
The Royals and their $113 million 2015 payroll still had to compete with the Tigers $173 million payroll. Now, the Tigers had a crappy year this year, but a team that can afford to spend that much will have an easier time fixing their problems than teams that can't. Perhaps they'll go out and sign some of KC's free agents that KC can't afford to keep.
Teams with less money to spend have to run their teams better than the big market teams do, like the A's do, because they don't have the option to fix their issues by spending money on free agents or taking on big, long-term contracts in trades.
None of this is to say a small market (small revenue) team can't be competitive or that a big market team will spend their money wisely, but big market teams have a significant advantage and can afford to make more mistakes than small market teams and still be competitive. What are the chances the Dodgers would be incapable of matching someone else's offer for Kershaw? What are the chances the Astros can match anyone else's offer for Dallas Keuchel? If Keuchel continues to pitch well stays, it will be for the "hometown discount", not because the Astros were the highest bidder.
I agree that some markets can't support their franchises, but the NFL fixed this situation through revenue sharing so that the Raiders and the Cowboys BOTH got a check from the league office to cover their salary cap so they can both spend the same amount on players. MLB doesn't do this, although they do have a half-assed luxury tax system, which is inadequate to provide a level playing field and is sometimes abused by small market teams whose owners pocket what they can rather than trying to improve the team.
Yavin4
(35,437 posts)You keep saying that big market teams can fix their mistakes through Free Agency. What you miss is that players, in the prime of their career, are under control of the team that drafted him for 6 years. Yes, a big market team like the Cubs can throw a ton of money at David Price. However, Price will be 30 years old, and his skills will be in decline throughout the life of that contract.
Meanwhile, teams like the Rays re-stock their farm system by acquiring young, in their prime talent, from the Tigers when they traded Price.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Franklin hit .158 last year in 44 major league games. Drew Smyly is 8-3 in 19 starts over the last two years for the Rays. Those are your "young players in their prime". You're trading away a known quantity for potential that may or may not materialize. Do you consider that an adequate replacement for a pitcher who went 22-9 with an ERA under 2.50 over the same period?
Yes. Players who start in the majors will play some of their best baseball on their rookie contracts, but players who start in the majors early (20-22), like Trout, Harper, Felix Hernandez and Kershaw hit FA in their prime. KC made a good trade on Greinke before he went FA and did get some players who turned out very good in return, but Grienke has had some great years since going FA as well. Also, you can only do this IF you draft well and develop talent. Most people drafted never make the pros. Small market teams that develop stars can get good, cheap production out of them but then lose them in the middle of their prime and have to go back to the crapshoot of trying to draft and develop their own talent. Big market teams can afford to keep those players if they want, while still making other free agent decisions.
Were the 2009 Yankees so good because they they developed their own talent? Yes, Jeter, Rivera, Posada and Cano were homegrown, but Arod, Teixeira, Burnett, Sabathia and Damon cost close to $100 million and all came from other teams. Fewer than 10 teams had a total payroll of $100 million, but the Yankees were able to pay their top FIVE players $106 million dollars. Is that because they were smarter? Better at scouting? Better at player development? Or just because they had an assload more money than most other teams. By comparison, their 2009 WS opponent, the Phillies (not a small market either) had a TOTAL payroll of $113 million.
By the way, you do realize you're on the DU and arguing that having more money is NOT an advantage, right?
StevieM
(10,500 posts)
marmar
(77,073 posts)...... I hated the Yankees, and it was always easy to get cheap seats in awful Shea Stadium.
