Quote:
Originally Posted by thephuse
I doubt even small franchises cant afford to keep their marquee players.. KC managed to hold on to Sweeney for most his career.. even despite his constant injuries
Teams like the Twins also held on to Santana(altho it was a bargain deal) and i have no doubt that they'll hold on to Torii.....
|
As for Sweeney, he is a second tier player always was. So KC keeps one player and can't afford to keep anyone but rookies and you find that fair? You think that team will EVER have a chance to contend?
Yes, if they spend money they may, however, people want to point to how the players don't set their salaries and baseball is a business.
Baseball is a business with each team being a subsidiary. Each owner owns the team hoping to make a profit. If you pay players more than comes in you lose money, if you field only rookies you lose money, if you try to balance you lose money because the fan base doesn't show if you are out of it in May. Then you have to cut salaries and fewer fans come and the downward spiral begins.
Quote:
I dont understand quite how the A's system works.. They cant afford to keep 2 or their "big 3" pitchers, or Tejada and Giambi, but the money they gave to Chavez and LOAIZA! seem to say otherwise..
|
They just have a very stupid GM. He maybe good at developing talent but he doesn't know how to handle his budget.
Quote:
As for letting Damon go because it was too expensive is really a load of phooey.. b/c he was the catalyst to the Boston offense... He was so integral to their number one ranked offense, and they couldnt give him what they offered to now hated Renteria just one year ago?.. I really feel that Damon felt slighted that they didnt feel that he was as valuable as Renteria.. and Furcal's deal only cemented his thoughts on his value.. I really doubt the extra million or so in his contract was from the monetary need that he needed.. It was about respect..
|
That may be. Or it may be the fact he didn't want to be in Boston and ownership knew this and made token offers just to appease the fans. Living in Cleveland I know how that goes.
Quote:
And true, small market teams can now spend a little more due to revenue sharing.. and you dont think that people wont go to see a game if the team builds it up like the Yankees?... I mean if the Royals put out a team that featured big names and gave themselve a chance, all the baseball fans in the are wont show up?.. Big markets?.. a baseball stadium can hold only so many people.. its not as if Steinbrenner's the richest owner in baseball.. besides.. the last few teams to win have all be small budget teams neways
|
Again, baseball is a business, no owner can afford to keep losing millions every year.
And no stadiums are a VERY small part of the Yankee income. Try their tv sports network, radio deals, merchandise sales, and so on. No other city can compete with the revenue they bring in.
Small market teams pretty much rely solely on small local tv and radio deals, and stadium income. There is never going to be a way for them, to draw the revenue in to keep their all-stars or big named players.
The White Sox was not a small budget team #9 in spending..... the BoSox had the #2 payroll, when they won...... Fla. in 2003 was in the upper half.... in 2002 Anaheim was in the top 10..... 2001 Anaheim was in the top 10.
In the last 5 years only Fla. (and have since traded away the team), Min (because of their farm system and the fact noone else in the AL Central was spending either), Oak (because of pitching that they have since had to sell) and San Diego (and that was because of a very very weak NL West) have been the only 4 teams not in the top 10 in payroll.
Meanwhile, teams like the Colorado, Cincy, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, KC, Texas, Mil., Pit., are showing losses and cannot afford to compete. Then there are a few teams just stupid with their money, but that's because they have to overpay to get players to play there. And then they mortgage away a big part of their future because they cannot afford the player's salary and the needed parts to contend (Phi. and Balt. come to mind).
K.C., Cincy.,Pit., Cleve., are TREMENDOUS baseball towns but if they can't compete the fan base erodes as they are now. Cleve.'s is coming back but for how long?
If this system continues you'll have 26 farm teams and a base of the same 6-7 in the playoffs every year, while one may get lucky for a year.
Eventually you will kill baseball in those towns. ALready dead in Miami, and they've won 2 WS in less than 10 years but are losing money and cannot afford to stay there.
Balt. is getting shut up money as Wash. eats into their fan base. once that money is gone Balt. is going to be in serious trouble. Toronto is mortgaging alot this season and it wouldn't surprise me to see a firesale at the end of next season if they don't go anywhere, because they can't afford to keep the payroll.
Owners in the 90's overpaid for teams and the values on most are going to start dropping like rocks. (Esp. once Las Vegas has a team.)
So the system needs fixed before it's too late if it isn't already.
It's easy to love the Yankees or be a front runner and laugh at the other teams. But how would you feel if your hometown team never has a chance to compete, loses money every year so the farm system starts dying and you aren't even producing good rookies. That's what fans in most of baseball are looking at.
Eventually those fans will stop buying tickets altogether and the sport will be moving teams every season. Meanwhile, tax payers get the shaft because they are blackmailed into building new stadiums (which, I think that trend is just about over.)
So yeah if you are a Yankees fan or a Bosox fan or a fan of a team that can afford to spend it must be nice. The rest of baseball is dying.
It's very sad.