For the first time in nine years, the New York Yankees won the World Series in 2009. What does that mean, besides a November trip down the Canyon of Heroes? It means another winter of discontent for the baseball world, where every Bob Costas disciple comes out of the woodwork to complain that baseball resembles Saudia Arabia, where the rich live in golden palaces and the poor rummage through dumpsters to try and feed their family.
What I always find fascinating about this type of hand ringing is that it only, only takes place when the Yankees win. A few years ago, when the Red Sox rolled over the Rockies with a payroll that more than doubled their friends from Colorado, no one even made a peep. We didn't hear cries for salary caps or "floating realignment" and no one ran to the Tampa Bay Rays to ask them how they felt being in the same division with the high priced team from Boston. In fact, all the way through 2008, the year the Yankees actually missed the playoffs, all you heard was that baseball was experiencing a kind of renaissance. Ratings were good, attendance was up, and people were actually logging in on the Internet to watch the boys of summer.
A year later, nothing seems to have changed except the world champions, but now, instead of birds chirping and Bud Selig singing arias, everyone is predicting the demise of the sport.
Before everyone gets too carried away screaming that baseball doesn't provide the same type of parity as the other sports, let's look at some facts. In the last 30 years, more than 20 different teams have won championships, which is more than any other sport (NFL, NBA, NHL) in America. Also, let's not forget that baseball, by its own choice, has the stingiest playoff roster of all the other sports. In the NBA, eight teams in each conference make the playoffs, which is the same for the NHL. The NFL is a bit more selective, allowing six teams in, but, out of 30 MBL teams, only eight total make the playoffs per year. If baseball were to have decided to add two more playoff teams per league in 1999, here is how the playoff tallies would have added up for AL and NL teams: ]
AL
New York Yankees - 10
Boston Red Sox - 9
Tampa Bay Rays - 1
Baltimore Orioles - 0
Toronto Blue Jays - 2
Cleveland Indians - 5
Chicago White Sox - 7
Minnesota Twins - 7
Detroit Tigers - 3
Kansas City Royals - 0
Texas Rangers - 2
Seattle Mariners - 5
Anaheim Angels - 7
Oakland Athletics - 8
NL
New York Mets - 5
Philadelphia Phillies - 6
Florida Marlins - 3
Atlanta Braves - 7
Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos - 0
Chicago Cubs - 5
Houston Astros - 8
Cincinnati Reds - 1
Milwaukee Brewers - 1
Pittsburgh Pirates - 0
St. Louis Cardinals - 7
Los Angeles Dodgers - 6
San Francisco Giants - 7
Arizona Diamondbacks - 5
San Diego Padres - 3
Colorado Rockies - 2
Couple of things that jump out at me from that list: if the sport had expanded its playoffs, only four teams total in the last 10 years would not have made the playoffs, and only three teams would have had a single appearance. The rest of the teams all would have made the playoffs multiples times. Another thing is how successful supposedly small market teams, like the Twins and Diamondbacks, have been almost every bit as successful putting themselves in playoff position as larger market teams like the Mets, Phillies, Angels, and White Sox. Obviously, the Yankees and the Red Sox would dominate the playoff scenario if it were expanded, but so would the Braves, A's, and Giants. And, in this projection, there is no way to predict how teams would have reacted to being in a playoff hunt all season long.
Then, there are "market size" issues. Take a look at this article from a few years back by Al Streit, where he shows the market size of each team. I found it to be absolutely fascinating in a number of ways. First, there are obviously teams crying small market that actually exist in perfectly equitable markets in which to generate revenue. I'll give the Nationals a pass right now because, as a relocated team that had to suffer through a few year of having Jim Bowden as its GM, one can't expect them to immediately spend money. They are building from the ground up, and that is the appropriate thing to do.
However, what, exactly, is Baltimore's excuse for failure?
In terms of market size, the Orioles have a larger base from which to draw than the Red Sox, yet the Sox field a winner every year and the Orioles are lumped in as one of the "have nots" in baseball. How is that fair? How is that about "market" and not about terrible ownership and shotty decision making? Simply put, the Orioles, if run effectively, should be a team that competes against the Yankees and Red Sox every year.
The other team that really seems to be undercutting its fans are the Oakland Athletics. Granted, the A's have to share their marketplace with the Giants, and one could make the claim that the Bay area of California isn't solid enough to support two teams, but why have the Giants been able to field a team with a decent payroll and the A's consistently sell "Moneyball" as their only way to compete? Again, would better management and ownership have a chance to turn the A's into a franchise that can compete, payroll wise, in the AL West each year?
Another couple of obvious observations is that Major League Baseball seems to have completely missed the boat when it expanded into Tampa Bay. The Rays ownership has been extremely vocal and crying "foul" about having to compete against the Yankees and the Red Sox, but they find themselves in a market that is only above the Pirates in terms of possible fans. Yet, that isn't the biggest factor in the team's inability to generate revenue. What remains a larger hurdle, in my opinion, is that Tampa has notoriously been the retirement home for Northeasteners who are already avid Yankee, Red Sox, Mets, and even Phillies fans. There isn't a large base of unattached fans in which to draw from.
Plus, even if you were capable to siphoning some fans, how in the world can you expect to entice them to come to Tropicana Field? On television, the place plays like a dungeon, without the charm. I can't imagine being a Floridian, with all the possible opportunities for recreation that comes with being in a warm-weather climate all year long, trudging out to depressing Tropicana Field on a June afternoon to watch Rays, Tigers play inside that dome.
In fact, my bet would be that the Rays would probably have more luck drawing fans from what appears in the article to be a smaller market in Orlando, yet it seems to be a better sports town in general, and is a more centrally located Florida city. I also think baseball, in the next few years, should think considerably about some other markets, like Portland (perhaps future home of the A's) or Charlotte (Rays) for relocation. Portland would already seem to be a viable baseball city and Charlotte is a growing metropolis. Instead of allowing teams to stay where they are not succeeding, why not send them to places where revenue and interest might be more pronunced?
The last thing I take from this article is that ownership has as much or more to do with success than anything else. The Angels are listed as being in a market that shares nearly 17 million potential fans with the Dodgers. Yet, before Art Mareno bought the team, the Angels were never considered one of the "big boys" in terms of payroll. Now, they consistently have one of the top payrolls in the sport.
On the flip side, the Dodgers should be nearly on par with the Yankees, yet its owner, with his marital problems and penny-pinching ideas on business, has been reluctant to actually push the payroll envelope.
The Cardinals are technically in a smaller market than the Indians, yet consistently produce a competitive payroll. The same could be said of the Twins as opposed to the Marlins or the Diamondbacks. And the Blue Jays would also seem to have more revenue streams available then they currently let on.
While we are on the subject of payroll, another interesting take on team spending could be found on The Biz of Baseball . The article is yet another indictment of baseball's low revenue teams screaming that they "just can't compete." The crux of the article is simple to digest: the teams that receive the highest amount of revenue sharing are also the most profitable. What does that mean? I think it is simple: these teams, which produce low payroll and non-competitive teams each year, are taking the profits they make from ticket sales and revenue sharing and either pocketing the money or putting the money into non-baseball related functions, such as paying down debt.
That's exactly what the Pirates, the poster child for small market teams, has been doing for years, and as the article points out, it would seem quite clear that, despite ownership's insistance that paying down debt will "help the team in the future," it is far more likely that paying down the debt is a necessary step in making the team more valuable for when they eventually decide to sell.
The Marlins are another team that really jump out at you, simply because ownership always complains that it can't keep its main players because of salary constraints. Yet, this year, when pressure was finally applied by MLB and the players' union, the Marlins anti'd up and paid Josh Johnson and Dan Uggla and will eventually pay Hanley Ramirez. Why were they able to do that? It's because, as the article shows, the Marlins have been extremely profitable.
So, while everyone cried foul on the Yankees, the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, and A's are allowed to take their money, line their own pockets, collect a profit, and blame the large market teams for their inability to compete.
Am I missing something here?
Facts have a funny way of getting in between people and their beliefs and, as such, are usually discarded. So many people have bought into the haves/have nots debate in baseball that they most likely would be unwilling to admit that the MAJOR problem for the MLB is not the high spending clubs but the clubs who all but tank each year in order to bleed one more cent out of the stone.
Look, money obviously matters. The Yankees and Red Sox and the like have a lot of recources to retain top players and plug yearly holes with other top talent.
But, the luxury tax has worked as a salary cap for almost all of baseball except for the Yankees, who have even adhered more to a budget these past two years than they had previously. And, what the articles mentioned above show is that there are a myriad of with many of these teams that go beyond simple market size.
If baseball is serious about closing the gap somewhat, there are a few things I believe it can do: raise the amount required on the luxury tax. Right now, I believe it stands at about 40 percent on the amount above the current level ($170 million, I believe). Raise that to 50 percent or maybe even 55 percent. Trust me, even the Yankees will start cutting payroll if that kind of money is required.
Demand a "floor" in baseball, which could be a compromise for the players' union which would allow them to agree to a more tightly controlled luxury tax (which could easily act like a salary cap, without actually calling it one). Ensure that teams have to spend at least $60 to $65 million per year, which would seem to be more in keeping with the actual revenue sharing structure.
Disperse some of the luxury tax money to low-income teams, seriously consider relocating low-income teams to more profitable areas and encourage owners unwilling or unable to support a franchise to sell to interested parties capable to producing a profitable winner. Also, revamp the way in which teams can acquire foreign players.
Finally, add a wild card to each league (just one) and have the two wild card teams play a best of three series with the three division winners waiting for the outcome. That would add more teams to the playoff race without destroying the credibility of the division races.
I also would not be completely adverse to realignment in some capacity, as long as it made sense and kept in tact natural rivalries. The Yankees and Red Sox, despite both being top spending teams, must be kept in the same division. The same for the Dodgers and the Giants, the Cubs and the Cardinals, even the Mets and the Phillies, which is becoming an interesting and nasty rivalry.
The truth is, much of the whining recently simply stems from Yankee hatred. Baseball remains profitable and is by far America's second most popular sport, right behind the NFL. Coming in to spring training, a majority of teams have a chance to earn a birth in the playoffs this year. Look at each division and ask, which teams' fan bases believe that the playoffs are attainable? Here would be my list, per division:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Rays
AL Central
Twins
White Sox
Tigers
AL West
Angels
Mariners
Rangers
NL East
Phillies
Braves
Mets
Marlins
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Brewers
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
By my count, that is 21 of 30 teams that come into the season with the "belief" that things could fall their way, and that is considering the miniscule amount of squads that end up being allowed to play into October. You would be hard pressed to convince me that any other sport could do much better than 21 of 30 teams, even with significantly more playoff spots opened.
Baseball is never going to adopt a "hard" salary cap, and a "floating realignment" scheme ranks as one of the dumbest baseball ideas ever broached, right up their along with Disco Night at Comiskey Park and The Mitchell Report. Parity can be achieved and smaller market teams can have success. Baseball just needs to be smart about how it approaches the problem, and begin to demand that owners spend to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment