Jump to content

A Non-Cap Solution to the Evil Empire


Jagwar

Recommended Posts

Why not move another team into the NY market? The combined payroll of the Yankees and Mets is about $335 million. Why not divide that potential between 3, even 4 teams?

(I realize that the Yankees would scream bloody murder over something like this)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not move another team into the NY market? The combined payroll of the Yankees and Mets is about $335 million. Why not divide that potential between 3, even 4 teams?

(I realize that the Yankees would scream bloody murder over something like this)

Bear in mind that you would have a 3rd brand new stadium coming close to selling out so there would be good revenue for that third team and you wouldn't really split $335 among the three teams. It would likely be closer to about $475 million in payroll among the three teams.

While I think a team should be relocated from say Toronto or Oakland or Florida to Northern New Jersey, it doesn't complete the picture. There should be complete realignment according to general location like they do in hockey and basketball.

I would align the Eastern teams this way:

Northeast:

Boston Red Sox

New Jersey {Generals}

New York Mets

New York Yankees

Philadelphia Phillies

Southeast:

Atlanta Braves

Baltimore Orioles

Florida Marlins

Tampa Bay Rays

Washington Nationals

Solves a lot of issues about market size (location) and payroll disparity. It also does give a good clear dileneation between the North and South in those divisions.

You could have 3 divisions with 2 5 team sub-divisions in each. You play 14 games in your division but outside your sub-division. Within your sub-division, you would play each team 23 times.

The winner of each of the 6 sub-divisions goes to the playoffs plus four wild card teams. Those four wild card teams would have a best-of-three series to advance to the next round where we would have 8 teams remaining, seeded one through eight, regardless of league, solely based on record.

I'm just not sure if the schedule would be a nightmare to create with 5 teams in each subdivision. Every day, there would be teams playing out of subdivision.

That way, you would have a strong Market in the Northeast and a strong market in the Southwest but at least the teams within the placement of those markets would be competitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could put a team in northern New Jersey and likely a team in Connecticut and have five very successful, but much closer to the rest of the league in revenue, clubs.

The NNJ team draws from the Yankees and Mets, and might even take a small slice of Philly's market. The Connecticut team draws from the first two, but also draws from the Red Sox.

There's a lot of things that would need to be figured out, but if MLB really wanted to do it they could figure it out.

Which is why it will never happen :laughlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competition is the answer. Competition in markets, competition between leagues, competition for dollars and players.

If we can't get real competition, big-time revenue sharing (preferably based on market sizes and success in exploiting those markets) would be an ok bandaid.

If all we can get is another team in NY, that's a small step in the right direction.

It would be better if we got rid of all franchise movement restrictions. Even better if expansion got much easier. NYC would eventually end up with 4, 5, 6 major league teams.

It would be far better if teams had to pay for/buy their own stadiums so that governments don't get locked into $billion subsidies for specific teams, essentially crushing all hope of competition.

It would be wonderful if there were many independent baseball leagues at various levels of competition and market size. The market would decide how many teams a given area could support, and at what level(s), instead of Bud Selig. NYC would probably have a dozen or more pro teams spread across various leagues and levels, as London does in soccer.

There are lots of ways to begin to fix this mess, but few of them are likely given a government-backed monopoly that's rolling in cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Competition is the answer. Competition in markets, competition between leagues, competition for dollars and players.

If we can't get real competition, big-time revenue sharing (preferably based on market sizes and success in exploiting those markets) would be an ok bandaid.

If all we can get is another team in NY, that's a small step in the right direction.

It would be better if we got rid of all franchise movement restrictions. Even better if expansion got much easier. NYC would eventually end up with 4, 5, 6 major league teams.

It would be far better if teams had to pay for/buy their own stadiums so that governments don't get locked into $billion subsidies for specific teams, essentially crushing all hope of competition.

It would be wonderful if there were many independent baseball leagues at various levels of competition and market size. The market would decide how many teams a given area could support, and at what level(s), instead of Bud Selig. NYC would probably have a dozen or more pro teams spread across various leagues and levels, as London does in soccer.

There are lots of ways to begin to fix this mess, but few of them are likely given a government-backed monopoly that's rolling in cash.

How would NYC end up with 6 ML teams?

Even if you lift restrictions on team relocation, MLB would still need to approve and regulate the expansion of new teams. I don't expect MLB to expand the number of teams beyond 30 anytime soon.

If you assume that the ML maintains a constant number of teams (30), you would need franchises in other markets become willing to relocate to the NY area. Despite the size of this market, I don't see many potential franchises willing to pack up and move.

While it might be seem enticing to some franchises to tap into the NY/NJ market, they still wouldn't be guaranteed an equal market share. The Mets and Yankees have established fanbases for generations. The popularity of the Yankees in particular is attributed to a history of winning and historical prestige, not purely the size of the NY market. In other words, it will not be a slam dunk cash cow for any owner moving a team to Brooklyn or New Jersey.

You also have to consider the fact that many smaller market teams have recently built or are in the process of building brand new ballparks, paid in part or entirely by public funds (see Minnesota, Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc.). These franchises are likely under contract with either state or local governments to prevent sudden relocation. In other words, you can compel MLB to lift all of the restrictions you want but it won't accomplish anything. You say it would be better if these restrictions, didn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that they do and they will prove to be a major obstacle for relocation for the forseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would NYC end up with 6 ML teams?

Even if you lift restrictions on team relocation, MLB would still need to approve and regulate the expansion of new teams. I don't expect MLB to expand the number of teams beyond 30 anytime soon.

If you assume that the ML maintains a constant number of teams (30), you would need franchises in other markets become willing to relocate to the NY area. Despite the size of this market, I don't see many potential franchises willing to pack up and move.

While it might be seem enticing to some franchises to tap into the NY/NJ market, they still wouldn't be guaranteed an equal market share. The Mets and Yankees have established fanbases for generations. The popularity of the Yankees in particular is attributed to a history of winning and historical prestige, not purely the size of the NY market. In other words, it will not be a slam dunk cash cow for any owner moving a team to Brooklyn or New Jersey.

You also have to consider the fact that many smaller market teams have recently built or are in the process of building brand new ballparks, paid in part or entirely by public funds (see Minnesota, Florida, Washington, Pittsburgh, etc.). These franchises are likely under contract with either state or local governments to prevent sudden relocation. In other words, you can compel MLB to lift all of the restrictions you want but it won't accomplish anything. You say it would be better if these restrictions, didn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that they do and they will prove to be a major obstacle for relocation for the forseeable future.

This is a long-term plan. Wouldn't happen overnight. My thoughts are that you'd eventually have 50 or 60 teams in the majors, with dozens more independent teams in the high minors, many more in independent lower minors.

The only reason 30 teams seems to be a magic number right now is that is roughly the number of cities that can sorta, kinda compete with teams from New York, Chicago, and and LA (with two teams there each, operating under the current rules) without looking completely foolish. If markets were allowed to naturally fill themselves with as many teams as they could support there's no reason you couldn't have 50 or 60 or more viable teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long-term plan. Wouldn't happen overnight. My thoughts are that you'd eventually have 50 or 60 teams in the majors, with dozens more independent teams in the high minors, many more in independent lower minors.

The only reason 30 teams seems to be a magic number right now is that is roughly the number of cities that can sorta, kinda compete with teams from New York, Chicago, and and LA (with two teams there each, operating under the current rules) without looking completely foolish. If markets were allowed to naturally fill themselves with as many teams as they could support there's no reason you couldn't have 50 or 60 or more viable teams.

I think 30 teams is a magic number because it suits the postseason. If MLB were to double the number of teams, they would need to play two championship games every season, probably leading to two separate leagues with two separate champsions that would not compete against each other. This seems to be ultimately what you advocate and while I find it to be intriguing and creative, I think it will only lead to dilution.

Since I'm not an Orioles fan, I can't quite empathize with the disdain for the Yankees nearly as much. However, even as a Marlins fan, I find no appeal with any of these "radical" solutions (including the salary cap). I suppose there are certain reforms than can be made but there is no earthshattering restructuring of MLB that I see myself supporting at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting new stadiums built in Yankee country would be a serious obstacle imo. I also don't see many leaving the great Yankees for some expansion team or likely mediocre team that moved from elsewhere.

You put a stadium close to home with cheaper prices and still showing the same product, you'll draw crowds. You might get a lot of "I like the Yankees best" at first, but over time you'll gain the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You put a stadium close to home with cheaper prices and still showing the same product, you'll draw crowds. You might get a lot of "I like the Yankees best" at first, but over time you'll gain the fans.

Again, that's the first problem.

Yeah, you draw crowds, but I don't think you're really hurting the Yanks much because not many people are going to stop going to Yanks games or watching them on TV due to this solution imo. Another issue is TV ratings would likely be very low given the market imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You put a stadium close to home with cheaper prices and still showing the same product, you'll draw crowds. You might get a lot of "I like the Yankees best" at first, but over time you'll gain the fans.

Yep they would have almost instantaneous access to the top players. Who doesn't like a team with good players and a winning record? Assuming good management of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep they would have almost instantaneous access to the top players. Who doesn't like a team with good players and a winning record? Assuming good management of course.

I don't think their revenue would be all that great, at least in the beginning.

So if the Nats signed some top players and were good would you start rooting for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



  • Posts

    • 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      
    • The same thing happened in San Francisco when Roman was there.   They had one truly great season with Kaepernick, and then nothing.   Not that I'm comparing Lamar to Kaepernick, but at their best under Roman, they are pretty similar. I don't know if they are using this system because they think Lamar can't handle a more complex system, or because Roman is stuck using the same stuff over and over.    Roman needs to be gone regardless of what happens with Lamar.  They need to get rid of Ricard and start running a real pro-style offense.   
    • I guess I’ve reached the point of the off-season where I’m at do we really need to add a bat?  Stowers and Vavra spent the last 1/3 of the season up. Westburg is ready. Cowser could be ready are June.    Is Brantley, Voit, or Mancini worth even a one year deal?  I could see us rolling with what we have, figuring out what we have, and signing a vet depth bat like Jesus Aguilar to a milb deal with a ST invite. If we need a bat, we can always get a rental at the deadline. 
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...