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

[Sports Guy]

12 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

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.  

 

Yea, I think people are blowing out of proportion the amount of money being spent on these things by small and big market teams. This stuff doesn’t cost much money in the grand scheme of things. 

These teams have similar numbers of scouts, tech, etc..I doubt the teams that are going all in on this stuff see much of a difference in expenditures of it.

 

[Frobby]

1 hour 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.

If you have both money and a well run organization, you have an advantage.  

The Dodgers have been to the playoffs 10 years in a row.  They’ve won their division 9 of the last 10 years; the only time they didn’t, they won 106 games.   

The Yankees have been to the playoffs 6 years in a row, and 23 of the last 27 years.

The Rays have been to the playoffs 4 years in a row, but before that they had a 5 year drought including 3 straight losing seasons.   

I don’t think anyone can realistically say that money is irrelevant to success in MLB.  It’s just not the only factor.   


 

[Moose Milligan]

3 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Yea, I think people are blowing out of proportion the amount of money being spent on these things by small and big market teams. This stuff doesn’t cost much money in the grand scheme of things. 

These teams have similar numbers of scouts, tech, etc..I doubt the teams that are going all in on this stuff see much of a difference in expenditures of it.

 

Right.  I think the only thing I could think of in regards to how much these teams could spend is, like, on the amount of Rapsodo/Trackman machines in the entire organization.  Do the Dodgers have multiple machines at all levels of their system where a team like Tampa has three or four?  It'd allow the Dodgers to gather more information for more players faster.  

But that's a little over the top and ridiculous.  Like you said, there's only so much return you can get.

[Sports Guy]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

If you have both money and a well run organization, you have an advantage.  

The Dodgers have been to the playoffs 10 years in a row.  They’ve won their division 9 of the last 10 years; the only time they didn’t, they won 106 games.   

The Yankees have been to the playoffs 6 years in a row, and 23 of the last 27 years.

The Rays have been to the playoffs 4 years in a row, but before that they had a 5 year drought including 3 straight losing seasons.   

I don’t think anyone can realistically say that money is irrelevant to success in MLB.  It’s just not the only factor.   


 

No one has said it’s irrelevant. 

[24fps]

1 hour ago, sevastras said:

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. 

I think this is  more on point.  The Mets have the top payroll at 5X that of the Orioles (number 29 out of 30) yet the O's 2023 record is considerably better than the Mets and in a tougher division to boot.  So the so far unnamed teams are framing the rigorous use of analytics and player development by teams like the Orioles as an issue of "fairness" and MLB appears to be listening.

This doesn't look like the traditional and familiar argument about gross differences in revenue which have been effectively glossed over my MLB but an attack on intelligent business practices that evidently certain teams don't want to be obligated to adopt.  That this approach hasn't been dismissed out of hand by MLB I find to be extremely disturbing.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, 24fps said:

I think this is  more on point.  The Mets have the top payroll at 5X that of the Orioles (number 29 out of 30) yet the O's 2023 record is considerably better than the Mets and in a tougher division to boot.  So the so far unnamed teams are framing the rigorous use of analytics and player development by teams like the Orioles as an issue of "fairness" and MLB appears to be listening.

This doesn't look like the traditional and familiar argument about gross differences in revenue which have been effectively glossed over my MLB but an attack on intelligent business practices that evidently certain teams don't want to be obligated to adopt.  That this approach hasn't been dismissed out of hand by MLB I find to be extremely disturbing.

I think Reinsdorf has a disproportion amount of influence and he's pushing for it.

I also think enough teams, to include the top markets, would push back on this.

I doubt anything comes of it.

[24fps]

24 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think Reinsdorf has a disproportion amount of influence and he's pushing for it.

I also think enough teams, to include the top markets, would push back on this.

I doubt anything comes of it.

I hope you're right that nothing comes of it, but consider this and we can use the CWS as an example even though we don't know for sure that Jerry Reinsdorf is one of the complainers.

This season's payroll hit for the White Sox's rotation is $49.1 mil.  it is $14 mil for Baltimore, $12.2 mil for Pittsburgh and $15.6 mil for Miami.  CWS #3 starter Lance Lynn alone costs more than each of those team's total rotation and the White Sox's rotation also costs more than Baltimore, Miami and Pittsburgh combined and with less success.  You can therefore argue from results that a lot of existing starting pitcher contracts are excessive and you would be right although we all know that it's not that simple. 

I believe that increased use of analytics and player development will exert downward pressure on player salaries (especially pitchers) over time. That is a short term disadvantage to teams currently holding multi-year contracts and a longer-term disadvantage to teams accustomed to using money as a bludgeon.  Adopting a new approach also adds a different kind of uncertainty to large revenue teams that takes them out of their existing comfort zone when it comes to risk evaluation - again a short-term problem for competent management.  Of course all of these issues are surmountable as we're seeing from the more progressive teams, but nobody likes to be forced to do something they don't want to do, especially if they can legislate their way out of the problem.  And because that's often a successful strategy, I'm a little less confident than you that nothing will come of it.  Nothing should have come of it in the first place.

 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, 24fps said:

I believe that increased use of analytics and player development will exert downward pressure on player salaries (especially pitchers) over time. That is a short term disadvantage to teams currently holding multi-year contracts and a longer-term disadvantage to teams accustomed to using money as a bludgeon.  Adopting a new approach also adds a different kind of uncertainty to large revenue teams that takes them out of their existing comfort zone when it comes to risk evaluation - again a short-term problem for competent management.

 

I agree that we will continue to see a trend of fewer long term deals for older players but I'm not sure it's going to become more pronounced than it already is.  I am sure the Yankees knew the Judge deal is likely to end up badly and yet here they are.

I do think you will continue to see more young players extended which I think is good for the game.

[NCRaven]

Shifting money to players in their prime vs. players past their prime has to be a good thing.  It's a trend that's been going on for some time.  Sucks to be an older player that was too young too benefit under the old model and is now too old to benefit from the new model though.

[SemperFi]

The NFL has embraced parity because it was in their best interest, MLB never really has because their model is very different.  Look at what "parity" did to mens college basketball and tv ratings last year (down15% YOY-and an all time low).  Privately MLB is terrifed of something like a Rays/Pirates WS.  Ownership and union dynamics are also different, the MLPA is no lackey like the NFLPA.

I think ancillary spend limits are  really about nothing, in every sport I have been involved in there are cost cutting savings advanced every year in the name of parity, it's generally the smaller revenue teams.  If it makes sense it's enacted, something like this not so much so.

The miracle is that the Elias got JA to sign off on an advanced analytical department, although I'm sure it was a deal braker for him.  When I was with the Orioles in ST analytics was Dan and Buck listening to the sound of contact off the bat and Milt May taking batting notes on an envelope....