Fangraphs: Why a Mid-Market Team Can't Sign Players to Long Contracts

[Tryptamine]

The Cardinals are not a team that should ever be noted as mid market. They're usually the highest payroll in the NL Central, draw 3M+ annually and just signed a $1B TV deal. Despite all of this MLB still gives them a free draft pick annually. It really makes zero sense.

[Stotle]

The Cardinals are not a team that should ever be noted as mid market. They're usually the highest payroll in the NL Central, draw 3M+ annually and just signed a $1B TV deal. Despite all of this MLB still gives them a free draft pick annually. It really makes zero sense.

I hear this a lot from Cubs fans. I think there is a difference between not being mid-market and operating in a highly successful manner as a mid-market.

What Cubs fans want is for STL to be kicked out of mid-market status because they have been successful enough to leverage their market and reach to the utmost. If the Cardinals weren't a successful organization Cubs fans wouldn't complain. Their payroll is on par with Baltimore's. I don't see the injustice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tryptamine]

I hear this a lot from Cubs fans. I think there is a difference between not being mid-market and operating in a highly successful manner as a mid-market.

What Cubs fans want is for STL to be kicked out of mid-market status because they have been successful enough to leverage their market and reach to the utmost. If the Cardinals weren't a successful organization Cubs fans wouldn't complain. Their payroll is on par with Baltimore's. I don't see the injustice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have the highest payroll in the division, the second most WS in all of baseball, just signed a $1B TV deal and draw more than 3M fans annually. This is the kid of nonsense that would call Green Bay a mid market team in football when in reality their national fan base is absolutely enormous.

[Stotle]

They have the highest payroll in the division, the second most WS in all of baseball, just signed a $1B TV deal and draw more than 3M fans annually. This is the kid of nonsense that would call Green Bay a mid market team in football when in reality their national fan base is absolutely enormous.

None of what you mentioned has anything to do with market size or built in advantages teams in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc. have over others. It's sour grapes and would not be an issue if the team was not the Cardinals and your team was not the Cubs.

[Machado13]

Baseball really needs a salary cap.

I know it won't happen but every other professional sports league does. As usual, baseball is always last to the table because of "tradition" aka good ole boy network

[Crazysilver03]

Baseball really needs a salary cap.

I know it won't happen but every other professional sports league does. As usual, baseball is always last to the table because of "tradition" aka good ole boy network

I dont ever see it happening now. It would basically limit the money players could make and the Players Association would never allow it. Or it will be set so ridiculously high (like the luxury tax) that it barely effects any teams.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

[Machado13]

I dont ever see it happening now. It would basically limit the money players could make and the Players Association would never allow it. Or it will be set so ridiculously high (like the luxury tax) that it barely effects any teams.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Yeah I know lol.

Thing is the luxury tax is not deterring the heavy spenders. Yankees and dodgers still do whatever they feel like.

I do not know what the solution is but they need to figure something out. It's just not healthy for game when you have the usual suspects in the playoffs.

Soon the royals will lose their guys and Detroit will buy everyone. Same scenario in other divisions.

Don't know solution but they need to figure it out.

[hoosiers]

The main things I didn't like about the article were (1) it had nothing but limited anecdotal support, (2) the valid points it made are pretty obvious to everyone, and (3) the Cardinals don't really follow the approach he suggested (avoiding extensions of players through age 33).

The other thing is, having a good team isn't just a matter of what strategy a team follows, it's a matter of execution. The Cardinals are flat out better at drafting and development than most teams. Lots of teams try to emulate their approach, but they simply aren't as good at the execution.

It is poorly written with little real evidence to justify the recommended thoughts.

I have said for some time that I thought the Orioles (or most mid-market teams) would have legit WS aspirations when about nine of the top 15 players were pre-FA - in other words, there had to be a strong, young, cheap core in place. And that the Orioles as a mid-market should NOT operate as a mini-large market, but as a large small market team - one that re-cycled even key players when their cost benefit started to diminish - usually around two years before FA. IMO, the small market teams operate with an admirable efficiency and limit large, costly, long term mistakes.

As for the Cardinals, they are a well run team, but as I have posted often, they have operated in a very, very weak division with awful Cubs teams for most of the past 25 years and the same for the Pirates, Brewers, Astros and other teams in their division. No team has had an easier path to the post-season either as division winners or wild card teams. IMO, it's not close. The Cards have a strong draft/development system, have let their key guys go for draft picks and repeatedly sign quality, non-high profile free agents, no doubt, but their success is largely a function of their division. If they had to placate fans for not reaching the playoffs for a five or eight year span, they might operate differently and make mistakes associated with mid-market teams.

[abbott]

Jones, Markakis, Hardy, BRob. All got extended contracts. Of those only Jones seems to be a smart move. (Keep pitching aside)

1 out of 4 is not good.

I also don't consider the the Orioles mid market. THey are a small market team with a small RSN payout.

[allquixotic]

By the logic of this article, we shouldn't have extended Adam Jones.

He's had good years and bad years. He'll have a bunch of mediocre years thrown in there. He's not going to be the AL MVP every year. The point of the article was that we could get exactly the same performance - some good years, some bad years, and a lot of mediocre - with far less money if we lived on the cheap.

Is the article right? I don't know. I'm not smart enough to say. But it at least sounds plausible. Unless you're re-signing a player who, through your crystal ball, you're absolutely certain they're going to become an all-time baseball legend, like Mo, in general it's a losing proposition.

The rub of it isn't that the player will have bad years. The rub is that, for a team that has less ability to absorb large monetary losses on players who fail, a bad investment is really, really painful, and can break the team's bank for years. For a team that is rolling in dough, they can laugh it off and do it again, even, without hardly caring. The rich teams with huge markets can afford to take bigger risks. If we take those risks, randomness all but ensures that eventually we are going to get bitten - bad - with a poor investment that ends up dragging down the team. Teams with larger markets can make the exact same mistakes on the exact same type of bust, but not suffer the same consequences we do.

Thus, yes, we should not have signed Adam Jones. That's what the article's author would have to say, anyway, to remain consistent with their position.

And I'm slightly inclined to agree, since basically anyone with a smile on their face can be a team's morale "captain". We're paying him to produce, not smile, and he doesn't produce at a level that is worth what we're paying -- at least, not on any sort of consistent basis. He still chases the breaking ball like he always has. That hole in his swing separates him very distinctly from the top tier of players, but we're paying him top dollar.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Cardinals are not a team that should ever be noted as mid market. They're usually the highest payroll in the NL Central, draw 3M+ annually and just signed a $1B TV deal. Despite all of this MLB still gives them a free draft pick annually. It really makes zero sense.

I don't really have a problem rewarding teams who have done an excellent job in exploiting a small market. Giving St. Louis a draft pick because of their market makes a heck of a lot more sense than giving one to Miami because they've razed and burned their franchise over and over to the point where their fanbase won't support a team with a brand new stadium in a huge population area. Or the Cubs, who've been the popular team in a huge city for 100+ years yet have been less successful than much smaller market teams. Reward success, not how poorly you can exploit your market.

[DrungoHazewood]

He's had good years and bad years. He'll have a bunch of mediocre years thrown in there. He's not going to be the AL MVP every year. The point of the article was that we could get exactly the same performance - some good years, some bad years, and a lot of mediocre - with far less money if we lived on the cheap.

Is the article right? I don't know. I'm not smart enough to say. But it at least sounds plausible. Unless you're re-signing a player who, through your crystal ball, you're absolutely certain they're going to become an all-time baseball legend, like Mo, in general it's a losing proposition.

The rub of it isn't that the player will have bad years. The rub is that, for a team that has less ability to absorb large monetary losses on players who fail, a bad investment is really, really painful, and can break the team's bank for years. For a team that is rolling in dough, they can laugh it off and do it again, even, without hardly caring. The rich teams with huge markets can afford to take bigger risks. If we take those risks, randomness all but ensures that eventually we are going to get bitten - bad - with a poor investment that ends up dragging down the team. Teams with larger markets can make the exact same mistakes on the exact same type of bust, but not suffer the same consequences we do.

Thus, yes, we should not have signed Adam Jones. That's what the article's author would have to say, anyway, to remain consistent with their position.

And I'm slightly inclined to agree, since basically anyone with a smile on their face can be a team's morale "captain". We're paying him to produce, not smile, and he doesn't produce at a level that is worth what we're paying -- at least, not on any sort of consistent basis. He still chases the breaking ball like he always has. That hole in his swing separates him very distinctly from the top tier of players, but we're paying him top dollar.

Is this supposed to be ironic? Jones signed his extension for 2013-18. By the end of '15 he'll have been paid $35M and will have been worth about 14 or 15 wins, or between $98M and $105M. He's been worth more in the first three years of his deal than the entire deal is paying him. It's a massive value, and I don't see any reason to think he's on the verge of a big fall. Jones has been worth 3+ wins each of the last five seasons. The idea that the O's could have let him go to free agency and simply and easily found $100M in value for $35M elsewhere seems pretty ludicrous to me.

Oh... top dollar? The last year of Jones' deal is $17M. The biggest contracts in baseball are now $30M or so. Jones deal is paying for 2 or 2.5 wins a year.

[brooksfrankjim]

I'm so sick of the narrative that we are small or mid market. We control the tv rights of 2 teams that are in a large market. Angelos has a franchise and RSN that combined are worth nearly 2 billion. Angelos and his minions promote the narrative because it serves his purpose to spend less. The Nats have a payroll 50 million more than us. That is absurd, especially given we control the RSN.

It is time for the media to call out Angelos on this.

[Stotle]

I don't really have a problem rewarding teams who have done an excellent job in exploiting a small market. Giving St. Louis a draft pick because of their market makes a heck of a lot more sense than giving one to Miami because they've razed and burned their franchise over and over to the point where their fanbase won't support a team with a brand new stadium in a huge population area. Or the Cubs, who've been the popular team in a huge city for 100+ years yet have been less successful than much smaller market teams. Reward success, not how poorly you can exploit your market.

Bingo bango bop.

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm so sick of the narrative that we are small or mid market. We control the tv rights of 2 teams that are in a large market. Angelos has a franchise and RSN that combined are worth nearly 2 billion. Angelos and his minions promote the narrative because it serves his purpose to spend less. The Nats have a payroll 50 million more than us. That is absurd, especially given we control the RSN.

It is time for the media to call out Angelos on this.

Whether or not you like it, the Washington metro area has more than twice as many households as Baltimore, and is surely more wealthy. Yes, the O's have a temporary advantage in the RSN situation with MASN, but in the end Baltimore is about the same market size as Nashville and Sacramento.