MLB wants to limit spending for teams on non players??!?

[spiritof66]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

So since the White Sox do a poor job of leveraging their market they shouldn't be grouped into the teams that have a large market and can leverage it?

That raises a level of complexity that I'm very interested in, but I'm not sure anyone else is.

If you're trying to determine the relative value of franchises, as Forbes and others do, your point is correct (at least, what I think you're saying is correct): you have to look at a team's potential revenues. You would assume that the MLB team or teams you're looking at would be run competently, would market itself well in both its metro area and more broadly, and would be willing to exploit all sources of talent insofar as its resources permit. As I said in an earlier post, a potential buyer of a sports franchise -- or of any business -- will look at the team's revenues, but what he. she or it really want to get a handle on is what those revenues will be if the team is run capably by the brilliant ownership and management team that the bidder would bring in. While there are various labels that can be attached to those hypothetical revenues, depending in what slice you're looking at, I use the simple term potential revenues. I've done some work to try to figure out MLB teams' relative potential revenues, but I gave up -- too many cities and franchises I don't know enough about. But despite that ignorance, I think the right way to look at franchises' relative value is to look at the factors that affect potential revenues, either positively (like the generations of Cardinal fans in a vast geographical area) or negatively (like the Angels' unappealing ballpark).  

It's not correct IMO to assess teams' potential revenues just by comparing the populations of their metro areas and by assuming that every team has an equivalent ability to turn its metro area's population into dollars . Let's go back to the White Sox. Yeah, Chicago is a very large (but shrinking) metropolitan market (#3 in the country though far, far behind #2). But it's shared by two teams. Improving the way the team is operated or performs on the field won't change the facts that the Sox play second fiddle to the Cubs, that their fan base has been smaller and less monied than the Cubs' for decades, that their ability to draw fans from beyond Chicagoland is limited by teams in MiIwaukee, St. Louis, Minnesota and Detroit (my cousin in Iowa was a WS fan until the Twins arrived), and that they will continue to have an unappealing ballpark for a few decades. Some of these value- and revenue-diminishing characteristics can't be overcome for many, many years, if ever.

At the same time, I agree that the WS ought to be seen as ranking higher than 24th in potential revenues and value. (Of course, those reported number may be way off.) I think of the Pale Hose as a middle-tier team in terms of potential revenues and value. (Forbes ranks them as #15 this year.)

You also have to consider what started this conversation: we weren't talking about how much teams are intrinsically worth or how their revenues might be enhanced by additional managerial talent or ownership investment (or, in the WS's case, a less offensive and polarizing owner), but  how teams -- and specifically the WS -- view their own financial capacity and willingness to spend money relative to their competitors. If the revenue figures we have are close enough to be meaningful, Jerry Reinsdorf  sees the WS as among the bottom third of MLB teams in revenues. He may think he is doing or can do better than 24th, but I doubt he believes he's done a terrible job and has utterly failed to take advantage of Chicago's huge population in generating fan interest and dollars, even if the truth is that he has.
https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2023/05/03/Franchises/chicago-white-sox-jerry-reinsdorf.aspx   So when it comes to spending generally, and spending on analytics specifically, Reinsdorf likely views the Sox as a low-revenue team, not as a big-market team. It's not surprising a tea that sees itself that way wouldn't spend much on analytics. It doesn't make sense to me that the White Sox's perspectives on spending or on proposals for spending caps or limits would be that of a high-revenue team just because they play in a very large city. 

[24fps]

It may be that the discussion is now off on a tangent...

Here are a few more quotes from the Athletic article:
 

Quote

 

Major League Baseball and high-ranking club officials have discussed limiting how much teams can spend in areas other than player salaries, such as technology, player development, scouting and health, multiple people briefed on such discussions told The Athletic.

...

A league spokesperson said MLB’s focus has been on technology vendors, rather than staffing.

...

But multiple officials who have been briefed on or participated in some of these conversations said the thinking extends to personnel, as well. At least some clubs would enjoy seeing caps on spending in any area that can influence on-field success, player salaries or otherwise.

 

To my reading, the article taken as a whole remains confusing, but it looks to me like MLB is trying to mandate competitive balance while also retaining the status quo -a fool's errand if there ever was one.  Analytics intelligently interpreted and applied is the edge poorer teams need to compete with big payroll teams and we are seeing that in practice this season.  That MLB suddenly sees this as a crisis doesn't bode well for teams like the Orioles who have adopted this strategy IMO.  It will be interesting if we ever get to see the rationale behind this newfound "crisis" but I'm not holding my breath.

[Moose Milligan]

They can blow competitive balance out their ass and across the room. 
 

Seriously, no one cares.  The way sports leagues talk about “competitive balance” they act like they’d love nothing more of all their teams went .500 every year because that would automatically mean that more fans would be interested since their team was in the thick of things. 
 

[24fps]

1 hour ago, Moose Milligan said:

They can blow competitive balance out their ass and across the room. 
 

Seriously, no one cares.  The way sports leagues talk about “competitive balance” they act like they’d love nothing more of all their teams went .500 every year because that would automatically mean that more fans would be interested since their team was in the thick of things. 
 

40% into the season, the Rays, Twins , Pirates and Diamondbacks are leading their respective divisions and the Marlins, Brewers and Orioles are in line for WC spots.  That looks like actual competitive balance to me yet suddenly MLB and certain unnamed owners feel the need to discuss regulating the methodology that allows those teams to compete on a budget.  As an Orioles fan, I care very much that MLB doesn't get in the way of the current strategy which the Athletic article seems to imply.

[Moose Milligan]

7 hours ago, 24fps said:

40% into the season, the Rays, Twins , Pirates and Diamondbacks are leading their respective divisions and the Marlins, Brewers and Orioles are in line for WC spots.  That looks like actual competitive balance to me yet suddenly MLB and certain unnamed owners feel the need to discuss regulating the methodology that allows those teams to compete on a budget.  As an Orioles fan, I care very much that MLB doesn't get in the way of the current strategy which the Athletic article seems to imply.

As an Orioles fan that was born in late ‘81, this team has been crap for most of my life. 
 

But I’ve never not once thought “Gee, I wish MLB would do something to level the playing field so the Orioles would have a better chance to win games.”  No, my thoughts have been more like “Damn, that Glenn Davis trade sure did suck,” or “Wow, that Chris Davis contract was a mistake,” or “How old is Peter Angelos again? What do you mean he’s going to let his sons run the team?.”

In other words, the Orioles have always been the source of their own problems and whenever they’ve been able get out of their own way and win games it’s been fantastic.  But the things they’ve been able to do to get on track at times over the years have been their own doing, too. 
 
MLB’s competitive balance is just fine.  This whole thing is stupid. 

[Sports Guy]

There are tons of new teams and small market teams in the playoffs all the time.

This idea that it’s not balanced is bs. It may not be in terms of revenue but there are plenty of ways for teams to be able to compete with the big spenders and we see proof of it every year.

Making smart decisions and having a well run organization can quickly make up for a lack of money.

 

 

[SemperFi]

12 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

They can blow competitive balance out their ass and across the room. 
 

Seriously, no one cares.  The way sports leagues talk about “competitive balance” they act like they’d love nothing more of all their teams went .500 every year because that would automatically mean that more fans would be interested since their team was in the thick of things. 
 

MLB walks a fine line, they do want healthy balance BUT their major sources of income (tv/attendance) is tied to large markets teams and those franchises have inordinate sway in MLB.

I worked for the minority owner of a small market team (who owned another sports franchise), he told me MLB's financial model is driven by the top 5-7 markets and it's not going to change unless there is a another model that drives more revenue.  That was roughly 10 years ago, if anything revenue and power is more concentrated.   

I am under no illusion the Orioles as a smaller market can contend every year but am hoping they have windows of opportunity like this.

 

[osfan83]

13 hours ago, 24fps said:

It may be that the discussion is now off on a tangent...

Here are a few more quotes from the Athletic article:
 

To my reading, the article taken as a whole remains confusing, but it looks to me like MLB is trying to mandate competitive balance while also retaining the status quo -a fool's errand if there ever was one.  Analytics intelligently interpreted and applied is the edge poorer teams need to compete with big payroll teams and we are seeing that in practice this season.  That MLB suddenly sees this as a crisis doesn't bode well for teams like the Orioles who have adopted this strategy IMO.  It will be interesting if we ever get to see the rationale behind this newfound "crisis" but I'm not holding my breath.

I disagree. I don't think small revenue teams have any edge in analytics. Large market teams spend more on analytics and probably have more experts on payroll to interpret and action against the data.  

[osfan83]

13 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

They can blow competitive balance out their ass and across the room. 
 

Seriously, no one cares.  The way sports leagues talk about “competitive balance” they act like they’d love nothing more of all their teams went .500 every year because that would automatically mean that more fans would be interested since their team was in the thick of things. 
 

Competitive balance means the Yankees should not be able to go to the playoffs every year while Pitt, Balt, Oak, Mil, go 3 times every 20 years. 

[osfan83]

50 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

There are tons of new teams and small market teams in the playoffs all the time.

This idea that it’s not balanced is bs. It may not be in terms of revenue but there are plenty of ways for teams to be able to compete with the big spenders and we see proof of it every year.

Making smart decisions and having a well run organization can quickly make up for a lack of money.

 

 

From 2000- 2022 add up how many times the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox have been to the playoffs against the Pirates, O's, Mil. Sure poor management plays a role, but don't kid yourself. The Yankees Sox and Dodgers could have idiots in the front office and still make the playoffs most of the time. 

[Sports Guy]

14 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

From 2000- 2022 add up how many times the Dodgers/Yankees/Red Sox have been to the playoffs against the Pirates, O's, Mil. Sure poor management plays a role, but don't kid yourself. The Yankees Sox and Dodgers could have idiots in the front office and still make the playoffs most of the time. 

Sure, although the Dodgers are a brilliant org either way.

But there are a lot of teams that make the playoffs every year. Plenty of teams get in.

The Pirates and the Os, until recently, have been 2 of the poorest run organizations in sports, money or not.

When you are stupid and do stupid things over and over again, you aren’t going to win.

The advantage the Yankees have is that they can mask their stupidity with money.

That being said, I’m talking about competitive balance, not revenue differences. The revenue differences are  huge but we have different WS winners every year and lots of different teams are always in the playoffs.

Teams like the Mets and Angels enjoy revenue streams a lot of teams don’t and they can’t win.

[osfan83]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Sure, although the Dodgers are a brilliant org either way.

But there are a lot of teams that make the playoffs every year. Plenty of teams get in.

The Pirates and the Os, until recently, have been 2 of the poorest run organizations in sports, money or not.

When you are stupid and do stupid things over and over again, you aren’t going to win.

The advantage the Yankees have is that they can mask their stupidity with money.

That being said, I’m talking about competitive balance, not revenue differences. The revenue differences are  huge but we have different WS winners every year and lots of different teams are always in the playoffs.

Teams like the Mets and Angels enjoy revenue streams a lot of teams don’t and they can’t win.

I don't look at WS winners. I believe the playoffs can be a crap shoot. Any team can beat any other team in a best of 7. It's hard to get lucky over 162 games. And yes, teams like the Mets and Angels have done poorly despite their advantages. If those teams were in small markets they would probably have been 60 wins teams quite often. 

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

I don't look at WS winners. I believe the playoffs can be a crap shoot. Any team can beat any other team in a best of 7. It's hard to get lucky over 162 games. And yes, teams like the Mets and Angels have done poorly despite their advantages. If those teams were in small markets they would probably have been 60 wins teams quite often. 

Ok but even just looking at playoff teams. They are all making it. Hell, KC went to 2 straight WS. 
 

The revenue differences allow for a greater margin for error but that revenues usually cause a lot of error to lessen that margin.

[Moose Milligan]

1 hour ago, SemperFi said:

MLB walks a fine line, they do want healthy balance BUT their major sources of income (tv/attendance) is tied to large markets teams and those franchises have inordinate sway in MLB.

I worked for the minority owner of a small market team (who owned another sports franchise), he told me MLB's financial model is driven by the top 5-7 markets and it's not going to change unless there is a another model that drives more revenue.  That was roughly 10 years ago, if anything revenue and power is more concentrated.   

I am under no illusion the Orioles as a smaller market can contend every year but am hoping they have windows of opportunity like this.

 

Sure, I don't disagree that large market teams have an advantage and sway with the MLB.

I believe a smaller market team like the Orioles can contend every year, the Rays have been doing it for awhile.  And in the years that they don't compete, they rebound pretty quickly.

The difference is that the Orioles can't afford to make mistakes whereas a team like the Yankees can just spend more to cover up whatever mistake they've made.  

That said, we're not really talking about sources of income here, we're talking about MLB putting a cap on how much an ML team can spend on front offices, analytics teams and technology.  I suppose income discrepancy can be a factor here, but I don't know how much better results you can get from a Rapsodo pitching machine if you've got more money to spend.  I suppose you can hire a team of more analysts to crunch data and have researchers trying to figure what the next big trend will be.  

 

[sevastras]

Before Elias, there wasn’t much being spent in these areas and now there is and we are seeing the fruits of the labor. If the WS or Rockies don’t want to spend on that stuff then don’t dictate others have to spend less. I doubt we are talking about $10s of millions here.