Jump to content

Should MLB allow the Skanks to buy World Series titles?


DocJJ

Recommended Posts

I'm assuming MLB is happy to let the Skanks spend $245 million on the 3 best available free agents, because if the Skanks get the the World Series, that translates into more revenue for the sport overall.

So, as a fan of baseball, should I be happy the Skanks go to the World Series, since that is in the best financial interests of the sport? Or should I continue to whine and moan about the intrinsic unfairness that allows the richest teams to buy up the best players and essentially buy World Series titles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'm assuming MLB is happy to let the Skanks spend $245 million on the 3 best available free agents, because if the Skanks get the the World Series, that translates into more revenue for the sport overall.

So, as a fan of baseball, should I be happy the Skanks go to the World Series, since that is in the best financial interests of the sport? Or should I continue to whine and moan about the intrinsic unfairness that allows the richest teams to buy up the best players and essentially buy World Series titles?

It doesn't really matter because there is clearly no indication that the teams want to change and definitely no motivation for the players union to make any significant changes to the current structure.

But I am there with you on whining and moaning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The financial structure in baseball is a mess, and the competitive disadvantage some teams are in is a farce, IMO. Could the Orioles be MORE competitive if they had been run better for the last 12 years? Of course. But even with a great baseball mind running the show, things really have to go almost perfectly for the O's to compete year in and year out. They cannot afford poor FA contracts, injuries to high priced players, or their top prospects to not pan out. The Yankees and Sox can afford for any of those things to happen, because they can just throw more money at any problems they have.

It is completely unfair that teams like the Twins, A's, etc have a better annual shot at the playoffs, with young, cheap teams, then teams like the O's and Rays do. Even if/when the O's finally put a 'good' young team on the field, there is a still a VERY good chance that they will finish 3rd in the division.

Baseball is extremely healthy financially, by all accounts, so this is unlikely to change in the remotely near future. It's a shame that half of the league has no hope, even 4 months BEFORE spring training opens, of legitimate contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a joke. But what can you do? :(

The only way changes will ever be considered is if they win the next 10 world series titles...that would show how completely messed up the current system is. Anddd I think if talent were more evenly distributed among teams, thus giving everyone an equal opportunity at competing, the sport would generate more revenue than just having the Yankees win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB essentially allows the Yankees to buy playoff spots, not WS titles.

There is enough randomness and luck (mainly in terms of who is healthy and who is on a hot streak) in the playoffs that even a team that has twice the payroll of every other team really wouldn't be expected to win. Their odds are the highest, but not higher than the combined odds of every other team, or even close to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is deffinately in MLB's best interest if the Yankees are involved in the playoffs every year. Both the market, as well as their following, are huge and everyone stands to make more money if Boston, New York, LA, and Chicago are involved in some way.

If this wasn't true, MLB wouldn't have a conniption over the ratings for every World Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MLB essentially allows the Yankees to buy playoff spots, not WS titles.

There is enough randomness and luck (mainly in terms of who is healthy and who is on a hot streak) in the playoffs that even a team that has twice the payroll of every other team really wouldn't be expected to win. Their odds are the highest, but not higher than the combined odds of every other team, or even close to it.

Which to me is why the argument (that is a favorite of Gammons) about how there is parity in baseball because of how many different WS winners there have been in the recent past is so bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is deffinately in MLB's best interest if the Yankees are involved in the playoffs every year. Both the market, as well as their following, are huge and everyone stands to make more money if Boston, New York, LA, and Chicago are involved in some way.

If this wasn't true, MLB wouldn't have a conniption over the ratings for every World Series.

Yet their playoffs can't get better ratings than a regular season NFL game between Minnesota and Green Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is: this buying of playoff spots only entices the second most financially viable team in the division to do pretty much exactly the same thing.

After the Red Sox, there is a HUGE falloff for franchise value and revenue in the division.

As much as the next few years excite me, I'm not looking forward to 5 years from now when Matt Wieters leaves, our pitching staff turns over, Jones might be in pinstripes, etc...

Well, that's worst case scenario, but considering how deep the Red Sox and Yankees pockets are, none of that would surprise me.

The big X factor here will be how well MASN fares once the Orioles start contending. Once the regular public starts watching consistently, more ad revenue will start pouring in (the bread and butter of owning a TV network).

Will the ratings for the Orioles be enough to significantly increase revenue to the point that the Orioles can begin to perpetuate competing years by extending their pending free agents?

Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but baseball is interesting when the Yanks are in the playoffs. There's always a story there, there's a villain, theres someone that people love and there's someone that people love to hate.

It's similar to the NFL...IMO, the NFL is at its best when the teams with the history and heritage are doing well. No one gives a crap about someone like the Panthers.

So while I hate to see the Yankees having a chance at winning a WS, it definitely keeps me more interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say it, but baseball is interesting when the Yanks are in the playoffs. There's always a story there, there's a villain, theres someone that people love and there's someone that people love to hate.

It's similar to the NFL...IMO, the NFL is at its best when the teams with the history and heritage are doing well. No one gives a crap about someone like the Panthers.

So while I hate to see the Yankees having a chance at winning a WS, it definitely keeps me more interested.

the NFL is more interesting throughout the entire season because of the heightened drama of having 10% of the games obviously, but also because you can watch Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder throw money at problems and still get nowhere. It is better to have a great front office than an owner will deeper pockets. If those two men and Mark Cuban had MLB teams, they would have a MUCH greater competitive advantage than they do in their own sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every time I hear sentiments like the one expressed in the post title, I can't help but remember that the Yankees represented the American League in the World Series 15 times in 18 seasons from 1947-64.

Of course, that's when only one team from each league made the playoffs, and it's often romanticized as the golden age of baseball.

That was the environment that greeted the Orioles when Baltimore welcomed an American League franchise in 1954, and it made victory all the more sweeter when the Birds managed to claw their way to the top.

I imagine we'll feel much the same way when the inevitible cycle of change finally turns our way.

Or, as Jimmy Cliff sings it, "the harder they come, the harder they fall". The 2009 Yankees ain't won no championship yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • BTV guesses Pablo's two years to go worth about 6% more than Mullins three years to go, though up around $35-40mm much of their ranges overlap. It guesses the four years of Trevor Rogers are the closest precise match for Mullins straight up, and Jesus Luzardo's four years would get you about 75% of the way to fair Mullins value. It's interesting the gap between Seth Johnson and Chayce McDermott in Tony's rankings - the Rays let Johnson go to get Jose Siri as a re-seed of the Kiermaier type player.    Mullins and Pablo make for an interesting debate how a Genuine CF and Pretty Good Pitcher contrast for run prevention. Since everyone's a hedge fund manager, I'm sure all are trying to squeeze each other for that 2%.    I bet Sig and Oz Ocampo got on well back in the day. Putting more eggs in 2 years of Pablo Lopez when you are subtracting Mullins from those rosters feels like a lot of faith for me in a Good not Great pitcher.    If we want to play the innings games with Lopez, he's had intermittent shoulder strains and before 2022's 180, 110 was his previous high.     That's not necessarily damning - pitchers are being intentionally trained to strain their mechanisms and if they tap out around 140-ish innings, just get another Driveline Student of the Week. But I wouldn't expect Pablo Lopez in 2023 to be much more effective than a bullpen day in October if he completed 32 starts and needed to go in Game 2.     Also true of Taillon, Manaea, etc, but at least there Mullins helping the Club finish sixth or better in the league, no sure thing even with both those talents.
    • Haskin is one of these weird guys whose good OBP is largely driven by getting hit by pitches.   Last year he had 43 walks, 24 HBP.  He also was HBP 20 times in 2021.   Seems like we always have a couple of these guys. 
    • Lowther is the only guy that I would say has little chance to rebound back onto the list unless he shows back up a new pitcher next spring.  All of the guys that dropped off are still interesting and worth following, but they have things they need to improve on and prove next year. I'll probably end up going out to 75 again so you'll see some of these guys in that 31-50 range.
    • Pinto was real close to being at the end of the list along with Rhodes and Armbruester. Pinto's size, his mediocre fastball (91-93), and the fact a lot of  his swing and miss were on chases on the slider or split change makes me want to see him prove it against Double-A pitching.  I was too aggressive with his ranking last year for sure.  Rhodes almost made it, but I just don't see the carrying tool that will allow him to be a starter. He's similar to Haskin and I just prefer Haskin a bit more because he's started to get to his game power a bit while Rhodes has never really shown game power. Rhodes does have better plate discipline and is a good defender on the corners with better speed than Haskin, but Haskin has performed ok at a higher level so he gets the nod for me. Saying that, they are very similar profile guys.
    • The MLB Network had a writer covering the Marlins on the other day and she mentioned Mullins for Lopez and seemed to indicate the Marlins may have to add someone else. I wonder if that is an even trade or if we have to add someone. It seems to me that trading for a young pitcher and signing a veteran would be the best use of our resources.
    • Asking here as honestly have no clue, is the Fan Cost Index sensitive to StubHub, Seatgeek, etc?     My guess is it uses the Clubs List Price, but like everything else in the world that's just the starting point of a negotiation. Now that the team is better and the kiddo old enough, will probably get back more next season, but know I'm behind on the most efficient consumer practices for any given day.     The Yard won't be as full as it'll get in a few years, so imagining surge pricing will only be taking baby steps in 2023.
    • I don't think we really disagree about much. There is wide array of ticket prices. And I think even Fan Price Index shows the Orioles being particularly fair, and if I recall correctly their family of four number for 2022 was $156 You're reading my comments as if they were directed at the Orioles. They were not. Nor were they a criticism, as much as an identification of one of the factors that is feeding the decline of generational popularity in baseball. Many of us have a love for the game. For me that love was cemented by two things. My Dad taking me to the ballpark as a kid... and my Little League experience as a kid.  Affordability was a big part of that. When I was a kid we didn't have two nickles to rub together. My father worked two jobs to make ends meet. Mom delivered newspapers to keep us ahead of the bills. But we could still afford to go to 33rd St a couple times a year... Saw Mark Belanger hit a home run...  that was a rare feat.. and I had a ratty old mitt and some fish-heads to play Little League with. I found old deposit bottles in the woods and took 'em to the 7-11 to buy baseball cards. That's where I fell in love with the game. Eventually my father built a very successful business. and we didn't have to worry about that kind of thing.. But I kept my love for the game that was built in those early experiences. Baseball was once literally the cost of a matinee movie...  stands were packed... all the time... but slowly.. generationally.. this has changed... the last generation to FULLY embrace baseball were boomers...  I guess there's a part of me that thinks selling out every game ...and families embracing is early might change the trajectory baseball is on... wishful thinking maybe      
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...