PDA

View Full Version : MLB Economics



Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 03:47 PM
With the recent labor problems of the NFL, the question being thrown around is Will the NFL become the wreck that baseball is?

The following article is typical:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11640378/from/RS.1/

I agree with his assessment of the current financial climate in MLB but I do not believe that the NFL will allow themselves to fall into the rathole of no salarycap. They know better.

I particularly agree with this comment taken from the above article speaking of baseball:


the sport has a three-tiered economic structure.

On top are the teams that can pay to be good, led by the freest spenders of them all, the New York Yankees. Next is a middle level of teams that can, through highly competent scouting and superior minor league organizations, field highly competitive editions for a few years at a time until their young players get old enough to command enormous salaries that only the top-tier teams can afford. Cleveland was a prime example of such a team; for five or six years it was the cream of the American League crop until it had to bid adieu to all its stars and start again at the bottom.

Then there are the bottom feeders, the Tampa Bays and Kansas Citys of the game. They have no money, spend even less, and view a successful season as one in which they finish within ten games of .500 and anywhere other than dead last.

I'd say Castellini is trying to get the Reds from the bottom tier to the middle tier. That is as good as he can do in MLB's current economic system. That's all us Reds fans can hope for. Can we become the Cleveland Indians? What this author doesn't mention is that Cleveland does not have to compete with the money of the Cubs, Cardinals or even the Astros. So in our division we'll have to be better than the Twins or Indians in order to be equally as successful.

I do hope football does not lose it's economic parity because baseball is not what it once was (in the 70s) when it had parity.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 03:51 PM
baseball is not what it once was (in the 70s) when it had parity.Yep when the players belonged to the team forever and the Reds had the highest starting 8 payroll in MLB, not exactly parity if you were in Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, California, Houston or Dallas.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 03:56 PM
Yep when the players belonged to the team forever and the Reds had the highest starting 8 payroll in MLB, not exactly parity if you were in Cleveland, San Diego, Atlanta, California, Houston or Dallas.

The reason the Reds had a higher payroll than those other teams is because their lineup warranted it. If any of those other teams could have drafted and/or traded for the lineup of the BRM (like Bob Howsam did) they would gladly pay them as well. There was nothing economic to keep them from being successful.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 04:00 PM
There was nothing economic to keep them from being successful.Maybe not the Reds, but teams like the, Indians and Giants were struggling in the same enviroment and the A's were a damn good team that had to cut to the bone to get in the black, the Braves were ripe for the taking and Turner turned it around with his Super Station and dabbled in Free Agency, neither of those avenue were taken by the Reds and look were it got them... on the wrong end of an economic ladder.

M2
03-06-2006, 04:01 PM
The reason the Reds had a higher payroll than those other teams is because their lineup warranted it. If any of those other teams could have drafted and/or traded for the lineup of the BRM (like Bob Howsam did) they would gladly pay them as well. There was nothing economic to keep them from being successful.

No, it was because they had the gate sales and radio/marketing revenue to support it. There was no economic parity, the Reds were just a big market team at that time. The advent of local television money changed that.

BTW baseball is more competitive than it was in the 1970s and more competitive than the NFL. I'll take that wreck every day of the week.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 04:27 PM
No, it was because they had the gate sales and radio/marketing revenue to support it. There was no economic parity, the Reds were just a big market team at that time. The advent of local television money changed that.

BTW baseball is more competitive than it was in the 1970s and more competitive than the NFL. I'll take that wreck every day of the week.

Absolutely not. Gate sales had nothing to do with assembling that team. Nor did it assemble the team in Pittsburgh with Willie Stargell or the team in KC with George Brett. In fact when the Pirates of the 90s had "Willie Stargell" in Barry Bonds, they couldn't afford to keep him. Something sure changed in 20 years and it wasn't just Pittsburgh's attendance

The reason the Reds had the BRM was because of trades for the likes of George Foster and Billingham, Morgan and Geronimo. Drafting folks like Bench, Rose, Perez, Gullett and Lee May helped too. This was due to smarts and yeah maybe a little bit of luck, but money was not a major factor.

In the NFL teams like the Steelers and Packers can win year after year. That'll never happen to the Pirates and Brewers in MLB. The best they can hope for is to get into the "middle tier."

I'll believe baseball is equally as competitive as the NFL as soon as our payrolls are comparable. Right now the economic disparity does not support your stance

westofyou
03-06-2006, 04:30 PM
Absolutely not. Gate sales had nothing to do with assembling that team.Gate sales enabled the early 60's Reds to draft well in the first 2 drafts and the addition of Riverfront enabled the Reds to bankroll the extreme expansion the Dale group and Howsam performed on the organization, that includes buying more ML teams and not selling vets when they got expensive.

It had everything to do with keeping them together.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 04:37 PM
Gate sales enabled the early 60's Reds to draft well in the first 2 drafts and the addition of Riverfront enabled the Reds to bankroll the extreme expansion the Dale group and Howsam performed on the organization, that includes buying more ML teams and not selling vets when they got expensive.

It had everything to do with keeping them together.

Gate sales? From little Crosley Field? How hilarious. Do you really believe that?

They drafted well due to good scouting which is always a good thing but has little to do with money.

The examples go far past our Reds. The Royals and Pirates are other good examples.

The bottomline is anything Bob Howsam, the Dale Group or whoever did in the 60s and 70s could have been done for other teams as well. The opportunity was there. The opportunity is not there for the 2006 Reds to match income with the larger markets.

RedsManRick
03-06-2006, 04:37 PM
The difference however between the Yankees and Cardinals is a fundamental difference in market size and marketing opportunities that can never be bridged by actions taken by the Cardinals (arguably). The difference between the Cardinals and the Indians is the level of successful execution in the middle tier strategy.

I would actually define the tiers differently. However, in practice they overlap because of differences in the ability of management to execute. You can win at each tier if you execute well, but your chances of winning are vastly different. The potential win totals I suggest illustrate this point roughly.

Tier 1: Money. (potential win totals: 110-70)
Can sustain a successful team purely through spending at the major league level. The minors serve as a another source of capital through which major league talent can be acquired, but do not have in intrinsic value due to their salary costs difference. A failure in minor league development can be compensated for by increased spending at the major league level. However, even outright spending cannot produce success unless properly allocated.
Good: Yankees. Bad: Mets.

Tier 2: Strategy (potential win totals: 100-60)
Must use a talent cycling strategy to maintain a competitive roster while being profitable. By talent cycling, I means supplement established market-value players with under-priced young talent and then, once that young talent matures, replacing the existing market value talent with those players, and those players with new young talent. Sufficient player development and intelligent salary management allows such teams to be highly competitive in perpetuity, assuming that a base level of sucess and competent marketing strategies allow for a baseline of payroll support (approximately $55-60 million minimum in today's market). There are a select few markets which can support a Tier 1 team, namely NY, Boston, Chicago, and LA. That said, not all teams in those cities have yet been able/willing to take a tier 1 approach and opt for the safer Tier 2 instead.
Good: Cardinals, Braves. Bad. Reds, Orioles.

Tier 3: Hope (potential win totals: 90-50)
Cannot afford to field a successful team for longer than a year or two. Simply does not have the resources to maintain a sufficient talent base which allows the team to be successful. Unreasonable burden is placed on the minor leagues to provide not just suplementary talent, but the core talent on an ongoing basis. A sudden glut in successful development or single year payroll expenditures can lead to momentary success, but the team is doomed to fail long term because of a lack of financial support structures through marketing and the inherent process of players reaching their market cost. The A's and Twins of the mid 90's and the Devil Rays of 98-04 are good examples. The only way to escape this, and join tier 2 is through an extended period of successful player development which is capitalized on by intelligent management (see A's, Twins). The Devil Rays are on the precipice of this and could prove to be the next team to make the tier 2 leap if properly managed.
Good: Marlins. Bad: Royals

pedro
03-06-2006, 04:40 PM
you can see the Reds attendance over the years here.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/attend.shtml

it's actually pretty interesting.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 04:42 PM
Gate sales? From little Crosley Field? How hilarious. Do you really believe that?Why yes I do, in fact look at the revenue generated by the increase in attendance from 1961 to 1963 and tell me that it didn't matter in hiring McGlaughlin or drafting Bench and Carbo at #1, the fact is the Reds made hay three times in "little Crosley Field" in the late 30's early 40's 56 and 57 and again in 61, 62 and 63.

But hey don't believe me.... I'm hilarious.:rolleyes:

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 04:45 PM
you can see the Reds attendance over the years here.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CIN/attend.shtml

it's actually pretty interesting.

That is pretty interesting and it sure doesn't support a statement of gate sales supporting their success in later years. Heck in 1966 just as the draft was about to begin, they averaged 9 thousand a game. At no time in the 60s were they in the top 50% of NL teams in attendance.

They did have quite a radio network at that time but it was not nearly as lucrative as it is today.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 04:49 PM
Why yes I do, in fact look at the revenue generated by the increase in attendance from 1961 to 1963 and tell me that it didn't matter in hiring McGlaughlin or drafting Bench and Carbo at #1, the fact is the Reds made hay three times in "little Crosley Field" in the late 30's early 40's 56 and 57 and again in 61, 62 and 63.

But hey don't believe me.... I'm hilarious.:rolleyes:

It didn't.

And yes you are hilarious...:jump:

westofyou
03-06-2006, 04:50 PM
It didn't.

And yes you are hilarious...:jump:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36856

pedro
03-06-2006, 04:50 PM
That is pretty interesting and it sure doesn't support a statement of gate sales supporting their success in later years. Heck in 1966 just as the draft was about to begin, they averaged 9 thousand a game. At no time in the 60s were they in the top 50% of NL teams in attendance.

They did have quite a radio network at that time but it was not nearly as lucrative as it is today.

It's hard to say w/out actually knowing what their annual budgets actually were but it conceivable that a large bump in attendance such as the Reds achieved in 1965 could have put a lot of extra money into the coffers.

It would be interseting to know what the "break even" point was for the Reds during those years (in terms of attendance). Certainly it was much less than it is now.

Chip R
03-06-2006, 05:05 PM
That is pretty interesting and it sure doesn't support a statement of gate sales supporting their success in later years. Heck in 1966 just as the draft was about to begin, they averaged 9 thousand a game. At no time in the 60s were they in the top 50% of NL teams in attendance.

They did have quite a radio network at that time but it was not nearly as lucrative as it is today.

Whether the gate sales were the reason for the success - and I would agree that the scouting had a lot to do with that - is debatable. However, the gate sales was a primary reason they could afford to keep guys like Rose and Bench and Perez. If they didn't have enough revenue - which gate sales was the primary revenue producer - they would have traded those guys off like the As did.

The A's scouted well and were successful but they eventually traded away all their good players because they couldn't afford them. Why couldn't they afford them? Because they didn't draw well. Now the Yankees could draw 500K a year and they still would get tons of revenue from their local TV deal. That is how the Reds can compete with teams like StL and ATL. Their TV deals aren't outrageously better than the Reds'. They just draw more.

M2
03-06-2006, 05:35 PM
It had everything to do with keeping them together.

Exactly. It also helped the Reds retain a scouting armada into the 1980s while other clubs had made drastic cutbacks and counted on the league scouing pool.


I'll believe baseball is equally as competitive as the NFL as soon as our payrolls are comparable. Right now the economic disparity does not support your stance.

Yeah, my stance is only supported by the actual data of how many teams have been competitive and how competitive each league actually is. So go ahead and believe whatever fiction it is that most pleases you. MLB is more competitive than the NFL and it's more competitive today than it was 30 years ago.

When you can show me a well-run MLB team that hasn't been able to compete, I'll start listening to your sob story.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 07:19 PM
Let's assume for a moment that you are right and the couple thousand a game increase in attendance played a significant role in the team's success in the following decade. This proves my point beautifully.

Improving attendance a couple thousand is something any team in the league could have done, thus it was a level playing field. This sort of avenue to success was possible for any major league team. That's not the case today. The Reds cannot set up a cable network like MSG or YES or WTBS or WGN. They can't sell 100 luxury boxes for over $100K. A commercial on Fpxsports Ohio sells beer to 500,000 people in southern Ohio while the same commercial has a market of 8 million in NY City.

Sure any team could and should try to increase attendance. That would benefit any team but the profit centers inherent in larger cities are not available to the smaller ones hence the out of whack economic playing field

pedro
03-06-2006, 07:30 PM
Let's assume for a moment that you are right and the couple thousand a game increase in attendance played a significant role in the team's success in the following decade. This proves my point beautifully.

Improving attendance a couple thousand is something any team in the league could have done, thus it was a level playing field. This sort of avenue to success was possible for any major league team. That's not the case today. The Reds cannot set up a cable network like MSG or YES or WTBS or WGN. They can't sell 100 luxury boxes for over $100K. A commercial on Fpxsports Ohio sells beer to 500,000 people in southern Ohio while the same commercial has a market of 8 million in NY City.

Sure any team could and should try to increase attendance. That would benefit any team but the profit centers inherent in larger cities are not available to the smaller ones hence the out of whack economic playing field


I think the thing that is striking to me is the wild fluctuations in attendance throughout the 60's. While the pattern does appear to flow with trends in the Reds seasonal records the difference was often a couple of hundred thousand fans from year to year. Without knowing what the baseline attendance figure was that would make the Reds break even, it is impossible to know what the impact to the bottom line was and therefore whether or not the gains in attendance, while relatively small in modern terms, really did help the Reds finance the signings that helped lead to success in the 70's.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 07:54 PM
The A's scouted well and were successful but they eventually traded away all their good players because they couldn't afford them. Why couldn't they afford them? Because they didn't draw well. Now the Yankees could draw 500K a year and they still would get tons of revenue from their local TV deal. That is how the Reds can compete with teams like StL and ATL. Their TV deals aren't outrageously better than the Reds'. They just draw more.

Drawing well is always a good thing, but the difference between then and now is much more than attendance. Now money comes from luxury boxes, cable TV deals, stadium deals etc.

My guess is St Louis and Atl make more money than the Reds on sources other than ticket sales and related revenues but I am not privy to those details.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 08:01 PM
Yeah, my stance is only supported by the actual data of how many teams have been competitive and how competitive each league actually is. So go ahead and believe whatever fiction it is that most pleases you. MLB is more competitive than the NFL and it's more competitive today than it was 30 years ago.

When you can show me a well-run MLB team that hasn't been able to compete, I'll start listening to your sob story.

My fiction is the disparity in ML payrolls and revenue. Care to give me evidence to the contrary?

The evidence supports the article I started this thread with.

Take a team like the Cleveland Indians. A few years back they were selling out every game and were contending year in and year out for the AL pennant. But as is the case with teams in tier 2 they could not afford their payroll and were forced to tear it down and rebuild again.

Oakland is another well run team. But they cannot keep their star players due to economics. They let go of folks like Tejada, McGwire, Giambi and Hudson just to name a few because they cannot afford them. As a result they still have not won a playoff series in decades.

M2
03-06-2006, 08:14 PM
Let's assume for a moment that you are right and the couple thousand a game increase in attendance played a significant role in the team's success in the following decade. This proves my point beautifully.

Improving attendance a couple thousand is something any team in the league could have done, thus it was a level playing field. This sort of avenue to success was possible for any major league team. That's not the case today. The Reds cannot set up a cable network like MSG or YES or WTBS or WGN. They can't sell 100 luxury boxes for over $100K. A commercial on Fpxsports Ohio sells beer to 500,000 people in southern Ohio while the same commercial has a market of 8 million in NY City.

Sure any team could and should try to increase attendance. That would benefit any team but the profit centers inherent in larger cities are not available to the smaller ones hence the out of whack economic playing field

Actually it wasn't possible for every major league team because a lot of clubs were playing in cities that had been ravaged by white flight. Also, fans during that era also showed a distinct distaste for struggling expansion franchises. The system was so closed that it could take a decade before an expansion team had any chance of showing some competitive mettle. Fans just weren't interested in clubs that had no way of bringing in talented major league players.

Plus, fans in San Francisco didn't show up even when they had winning teams and fans in Atlanta didn't show up even when Hank Aaron was chasing Babe Ruth.

The Reds also owned a massive radio territory, stretching deep into the south, into Atlantic states and solidly into the midwest. It was something a club like Cleveland, hemmed in by the Pirates and Reds, could never match. Geographic radio reach in those days was the local TV money of the modern era.

Just because you don't know what the inequities of the time were doesn't mean they didn't exist. The Reds had a shiny, new park built for them and one of the biggest radio networks in the game. That meant cash and lots of it. The system favored the Reds in those days and the BRM got to spin its wheels for five seasons before winning a championship because it was a big market club.

As far as complaining about New York goes, it's been the largest city in the nation for pretty much the country's entire history. Get used to it.

M2
03-06-2006, 08:35 PM
My fiction is the disparity in ML payrolls and revenue. Care to give me evidence to the contrary?

Do you care about payrolls or how competitive the league actually is? Because they aren't the same thing and you need to stop pretending they are.

14 of 32 NFL teams last year lost the equivalent of 100 or more games in baseball. Only one team in MLB lost that many.


Take a team like the Cleveland Indians. A few years back they were selling out every game and were contending year in and year out for the AL pennant. But as is the case with teams in tier 2 they could not afford their payroll and were forced to tear it down and rebuild again.

No, it was a case of they ran out of young talent to keep the ball rolling. If they'd have kept Brian Giles and Richie Sexson and developed some more talent to go with them, then the club wouldn't have had to take a step back. The Indians drew 3 million-plus as long as they kept winning divisions. Fans and money didn't desert the Indians causing the club to slide. The club took a slide and then the fans (and their money) took a walk.

Yeah, they lost Manny and Thome as free agents, but I live in Boston which over the past decade has lost Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe and Johnny Damon to free agency. Are the Red Sox now a small market franchise too?


Oakland is another well run team. But they cannot keep their star players due to economics. They let go of folks like Tejada, McGwire, Giambi and Hudson just to name a few because they cannot afford them. As a result they still have not won a playoff series in decades.

I doubt you'll hear Oakland's front office complain too much about the system. They've figured out how to make it work for them. Meanwhile the past five World Series have been won by Arizona, Anaheim, Florida, Boston and Chicago. That's two first-ever championships, two for the first time in nearly a century and one by a club that has never been fiscally successful. They beat one club that made its first Series appearance ever, one that made its first appearance since 1962, one that made its first appearance since 1987 and the Yankees (twice). Yeah, the system's a total wreck.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 08:55 PM
That is how the Reds can compete with teams like StL and ATL. Their TV deals aren't outrageously better than the Reds'. They just draw more.

I wish I had more recent data to give you but in 2001 MLB had to open their books to Congress:

http://www.mlb.com/mlb/hearings/downloads/overview.pdf

This showed quite a discrepancy of local operating revenue:

Atlanta: $159mill
St Louis:$135mill
Cin $52mill

This does not increase gate revenue from attendance. Even if the Reds increase their gate this local operating revenue will never be made up.

westofyou
03-06-2006, 09:03 PM
Even if the Reds increase their gate this local operating revenue will never be made up.

So even though you don't have the data, the above is an absolute?

Ok....

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 09:05 PM
Do you care about payrolls or how competitive the league actually is? Because they aren't the same thing and you need to stop pretending they are.

14 of 32 NFL teams last year lost the equivalent of 100 or more games in baseball. Only one team in MLB lost that many.

They are related. I know your head's so far stuck in the sand on this I can't dig you out but I'll try once more. There's no way the Devil Rays can compete with the Yankees if NY is out spending them 10:1.


No, it was a case of they ran out of young talent to keep the ball rolling. If they'd have kept Brian Giles and Richie Sexson and developed some more talent to go with them, then the club wouldn't have had to take a step back. The Indians drew 3 million-plus as long as they kept winning divisions. Fans and money didn't desert the Indians causing the club to slide. The club took a slide and then the fans (and their money) took a walk.

Yeah, they lost Manny and Thome as free agents, but I live in Boston which over the past decade has lost Roger Clemens, Mo Vaughn, Pedro Martinez, Derek Lowe and Johnny Damon to free agency. Are the Red Sox now a small market franchise too?

You're making my point once again. If the Indians were the Red Sox and the Yankees they wouldn't have to trade their stars when the young talent starts drying up. It's tough to produce guys like Joe Carter, Albert Belle, Jim Thome and Bartolo Colon year after year. If you are the Yankees you don't have to. On a smaller scale if you are the Astros you can spend $18mill on Roger Clemens and another chunk on Andy Pettitte.


I doubt you'll hear Oakland's front office complain too much about the system. They've figured out how to make it work for them. Meanwhile the past five World Series have been won by Arizona, Anaheim, Florida, Boston and Chicago. That's two first-ever championships, two for the first time in nearly a century and one by a club that has never been fiscally successful. They beat one club that made its first Series appearance ever, one that made its first appearance since 1962, one that made its first appearance since 1987 and the Yankees (twice). Yeah, the system's a total wreck.

It's a huge struggle for Oakland and yes they deal with it as well as any small market team and they have very little to show for it.

Here's to the NFL! Please settle your labor contract lest you become the wreck that is MLB.

Sea Ray
03-06-2006, 09:07 PM
So even though you don't have the data, the above is an absolute?

Ok....

Exactly. The numbers I gave have nothing to do with gate

IslandRed
03-06-2006, 10:11 PM
Sea Ray, I'll go along with you as far as saying there's a relationship between revenue/payroll and winning.

But the relationship between brains and winning is stronger. Much stronger. I don't believe there's such a thing as a team that cannot succeed, cannot compete. Things change. Cleveland was so the epitome of sad-sack that they were the obvious choice for Major League, Atlanta was a joke, San Diego seemed to exist only to be the punching bag of the Giants and Dodgers. Tampa Bay? There's not a thing about them people weren't saying about Seattle 15 years ago -- bad stadium, bad ownership, a market that doesn't care about baseball, mistake giving them an expansion team, blah blah blah.

Now, if you're rich and stupid, you can still feign competitiveness (e.g. Mets, Orioles). If you're poor and stupid, you're the Royals. But stupid isn't getting anyone anywhere regardless of payroll. If a team is well-run, it has a chance.

From the Reds' perspective, we need to become a smart team before we start griping about where we are in the economic pecking order.

M2
03-06-2006, 10:51 PM
They are related. I know your head's so far stuck in the sand on this I can't dig you out but I'll try once more. There's no way the Devil Rays can compete with the Yankees if NY is out spending them 10:1.

The Yankees wouldn't outspend them by that much if the D-Rays weren't a run-by-monkeys franchise. They only outspent the White Sox by 2.77:1. It was 3.13:1 when the Marlins beat them in 2003. Tampa Bay's got 2.6 million people in its metropolitan statistical area. It's bigger than Cleveland and it'll be bigger than St. Louis before long. It's not a tiny market. It's potential television market (the Gulf Coast of Florida) is a boom market in fact.


You're making my point once again. If the Indians were the Red Sox and the Yankees they wouldn't have to trade their stars when the young talent starts drying up. It's tough to produce guys like Joe Carter, Albert Belle, Jim Thome and Bartolo Colon year after year. If you are the Yankees you don't have to. On a smaller scale if you are the Astros you can spend $18mill on Roger Clemens and another chunk on Andy Pettitte.

Wow you don't read so well. The Red Sox have lost more major free agents than the Indians over the past decade. And the Astros are not a big spending team. At no point in the past decade have they been in the top 10 in payroll and yet, somehow, they plucked two starters from the Yankees.

The Yankees are always the exception. They've always been the exception. There's never been a time since the 1920s where the Yankees didn't have a financial advantage over the rest of the teams in the league. Like I said earlier, New York is huge, get used to it.


It's a huge struggle for Oakland and yes they deal with it as well as any small market team and they have very little to show for it.

Here's to the NFL! Please settle your labor contract lest you become the wreck that is MLB.

I'd be cool with the Reds averaging 94 wins a year for the past seven seasons and being set up to compete for the rest of the decade. In fact I'd take a double helping of that, thank you very much.

And if you like the NFL so much and think baseball is such a wreck, then go find yourself an NFL board and leave baseball to baseball fans.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 09:52 AM
And if you like the NFL so much and think baseball is such a wreck, then go find yourself an NFL board and leave baseball to baseball fans.

I love the game of baseball once the game starts but baseball has let money screw up their wonderful game.

You're welcome to your opinion that baseball's economic system is fine and that it gives all teams (sans the NY Yankees) an equal oportunity to compete and writers like the one I quoted in this thread are off base. (I could post a bunch more like his.) But I'm going to live in the real world, thank you.

There is no question our Reds have been horribly mismanaged and that has a lot to do with their present position. But they're at an economic disadvantage too and they can never hope to dominate for an extended period of time like the Braves do. The best we can hope for is to compete and if we're lucky enough to put a great season together, be prepared to go through a dismantle and rebuild process like the Twins and Marlins did in the 90s. The days of the 70s where we saw sustained success from markets like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Kansas City are over and that's a knock on baseball's system.

westofyou
03-07-2006, 09:55 AM
I love the game of baseball once the game starts but baseball has let money screw up their wonderful game.

“Professional baseball is on the wane. Salaries must come down or the interest of the public must be increased in some way.”

Al Spalding 1877

M2
03-07-2006, 10:27 AM
You're welcome to your opinion that baseball's economic system is fine and that it gives all teams (sans the NY Yankees) an equal oportunity to compete and writers like the one I quoted in this thread are off base. (I could post a bunch more like his.) But I'm going to live in the real world, thank you.

Umm, have you noticed that the league is rolling in cash these days? Or did you ever perhaps go back and recognize that the game became more competitive with the advent of free agency? If you were anywhere near the real world, then you'd at least recognize that there's been a revolving door of World Series winners this century and that baseball runs an awfully competitive enterprise.

I'm not saying the system couldn't be improved (e.g. with revenue sharing), but teams of all stripes do compete in the current system. It's an inarguable fact.


There is no question our Reds have been horribly mismanaged and that has a lot to do with their present position. But they're at an economic disadvantage too and they can never hope to dominate for an extended period of time like the Braves do. The best we can hope for is to compete and if we're lucky enough to put a great season together, be prepared to go through a dismantle and rebuild process like the Twins and Marlins did in the 90s. The days of the 70s where we saw sustained success from markets like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Kansas City are over and that's a knock on baseball's system.

And what did Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Kansas City (and Los Angeles and Philly for that matter) have in common in the 1970s? That's right, new ballparks that got them out of areas of urban decay and that generated big revenues for those clubs. The system worked for them and against teams like the Red Sox, Cubs and Tigers, who were shackled to older parks in inner cities. Oh how the worm turns. What you're complaining about isn't a return to a fair system, it's a return to a system which favors the Reds.

Change is a part of sports these days. The New England Patriots and Pittsburgh Steelers are excellent examples of a teams that plan for and manage their turnover in the NFL. EVERY team in MLB faces the same task. The Yankees don't sit on the same guys every season ad infinitum. They churn their roster as much as anyone.

The A's have had seven years of sustained success. The Twins have been a contender five years running. Milwaukee and San Diego are on the wax as well. Seattle went from almost contracted to one of the top grossing franchises in the current system. St. Louis has built itself into a major player. San Francisco, a traditionally poor baseball market, has turned itself around over the past decade (building its own ballpark to boot). Cleveland's already had one sustained run in the current system and is now starting up what looks to be its second.

I'll say it again, show me a team that's getting things right that can't compete and I'll start listening to your sob story. I don't see one team that even sort of fits that description. The Reds, Pirates, D-Rays, Orioles, Rockies, Royals and Tigers are where they are because they've been run poorly. Heck, four of those teams come from good-sized markets. The Florida Marlins, whose plight you bemoan, come from a HUGE market.


I love the game of baseball once the game starts but baseball has let money screw up their wonderful game.

You clearly don't history and, as WOY noted, you're totally parroting it.

registerthis
03-07-2006, 10:41 AM
If a balanced salary structure is all that is needed to maintain "parity" and competitiveness, then there is no sound, rational explanation for the horrid play of the AZ Cardinals and Bengals for the better part of the last decade.

Having money helps, to be sure, but a smartly-run franchise is significantly more important. The Orioles and Tigers are picture-perfect examples of pitifully-run teams who squander money and don't draft or plan well. The results are self-evident.

Is it harder for smaller market teams to compete with the "big boys"? Of course. But running a professional franchise should never be easy. The ones that have figured this out--the As, Marlins and Twins of the world--are perenially successful. The Cincinnatis and Pittsburghs are floundering. Clearly, a payroll disparity is not the source of the problem here.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 10:50 AM
If a balanced salary structure is all that is needed to maintain "parity" and competitiveness, then there is no sound, rational explanation for the horrid play of the AZ Cardinals and Bengals for the better part of the last decade.



It's not all that's needed. The horrid play of the Cardinals and Bengals is clearly due to poor ownership, not a lopsided economic playing field. Simple enough, huh?

westofyou
03-07-2006, 10:50 AM
then there is no sound, rational explanation for the horrid play of the AZ Cardinals

There is NO excuse for the Cardinals, NO franchise has squaundered more and never paid off like they did.

Exhibit A: The Cardinals were the 1st NFL team in Chicago, but because they never secured a home park the Bears (and a superior ownere) stole their thunder, on to St Louis and Jim Hart and Don Coryell, don't blink they and the "New NFL" marched on to mediocrity and also to Arizona.... the one constant of stinkitude is the owner... Bidwell family since the the begining IIRC and in that span

All-time postseason record: 3 - 5

And prep school for all the Bidwell family members.

That pretty much mirrors a century of baseball ownership problems.

Bad management, stagnant family ownership, poor player decisions... a constant of bad baseball since everyone complained that the Chicago White Stockings made too much money in the 1880's and then the Giants in the Deadball Era and then the Yankees and then the Dodgers and then the Yankees again.

registerthis
03-07-2006, 11:04 AM
It's not all that's needed. The horrid play of the Cardinals and Bengals is clearly due to poor ownership, not a lopsided economic playing field.

I'd say you've got it.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 11:20 AM
I wish I had more recent data to give you but in 2001 MLB had to open their books to Congress:

http://www.mlb.com/mlb/hearings/downloads/overview.pdf

This showed quite a discrepancy of local operating revenue:

Atlanta: $159mill
St Louis:$135mill
Cin $52mill

This does not increase gate revenue from attendance. Even if the Reds increase their gate this local operating revenue will never be made up.

I actually had different figures from either 2000 or 2001. Every other column was 2001 but the revenues said 2000 so I may have just messed that up. Not sure where I got that but I'll keep looking. Anyway, the figures I had were


Local revenues Gate receipts Attendance
ATL $19.988M $62.141M 2,823,530
StL $11.905M $67.084M 3,109,578
CIN $7.861M $32.102M 1,879,757

Now that was before the last CBA so figures have changed somewhat since then. But still, while there was a significant difference between ATL's local revenues and CIN's there wasn't a whole lot of difference between Stl's and CIN's. But look at the gate receipts. ATL's is almost double the Reds and StL's is over twice as much. The revenue is just local radio and TV and doesn't include any national TV revenues.


Here are Forbes' numbers from the 2004 season.
http://tinyurl.com/7h85c




Revenues Gate receipts Attendance
ATL $162M $44M 2,322,565
StL $151M $73M 3,048,427
CIN $127M $46M 2,287,250

These figures are with revenue sharing. Now figure each team gets the same amount in national TV revenue, internet revenue, merchandise sales, etc. Still, ATL has a significant difference from CIN's local revenues. Pretty much the same in gate receipts and the attendence figures show why. Now look at the difference with StL and ATL. ATL had $11M more in revenues but StL blows them away in attendence. More than likely in the near future the Reds are always going to have significantly less revenue than ATL. It's going to be tough to increase our radio and TV deals to their level. But to play on their level financially, the Reds are going to have to depend on getting people to come out to the ballpark and watch them play. History has shown here that the best way to do that is to put a winning team on the field.

TRF
03-07-2006, 02:39 PM
What was the Yankees payroll in 2003?
What was the Marlins payroll in 2003?

When was the last time the Yankees won the WS?

How many different winners of the Super Bowl have their been in the last 6 years? 10 years? 15 years? Yeah the NFL has parity.

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 02:49 PM
Local revenues Gate receipts Attendance
ATL $19.988M $62.141M 2,823,530
StL $11.905M $67.084M 3,109,578
CIN $7.861M $32.102M 1,879,757




Here are Forbes' numbers from the 2004 season.
http://tinyurl.com/7h85c




Revenues Gate receipts Attendance
ATL $162M $44M 2,322,565
StL $151M $73M 3,048,427
CIN $127M $46M 2,287,250

These figures are with revenue sharing. Now figure each team gets the same amount in national TV revenue, internet revenue, merchandise sales, etc. Still, ATL has a significant difference from CIN's local revenues. Pretty much the same in gate receipts and the attendence figures show why. Now look at the difference with StL and ATL. ATL had $11M more in revenues but StL blows them away in attendence. More than likely in the near future the Reds are always going to have significantly less revenue than ATL. It's going to be tough to increase our radio and TV deals to their level. But to play on their level financially, the Reds are going to have to depend on getting people to come out to the ballpark and watch them play. History has shown here that the best way to do that is to put a winning team on the field.

Yeah the local revenues you state looks like cable TV deals. The Braves have a special relationship with their local cable station so their money shows up under another heading as your second table shows.

I totally agree that the Reds best way to compete is to sell seats and put a winning team on the field but as your numbers suggest they'll never live up to the numbers Atl has due to the extensive income they enjoy from "other local revenue".

Sea Ray
03-07-2006, 03:02 PM
Interesting article from Forbes, Chip. I wonder where they got the number of $183million that Carl Lindner paid in 1999 to buy the team. That's higher than any figure I've seen written locally. This seems more like it from a local paper:


In March, three members of the ownership group put 51.5 percent of the team for sale. Lindner decided in the summer he would also give up part of his controlling share, about 37 percent, and his CEO title. Lindner purchased the controlling share from former Reds owner Marge Schott for $67 million in 1999.

Considering the entire 70% block that Castellini bought which includes much more than Carl's shares went for a total of $270mill I seriously doubt whether Carl ever had $183mill tied up in his shares.

Chip R
03-07-2006, 03:10 PM
Yeah, Sea Ray, I'm not sure how they came up with those numbers either. I can't say whether they are right or wrong but as we know, there are several ways you can calculate worth and cost and all that jazz.

IslandRed
03-07-2006, 03:24 PM
I think the $183 million figure is meant to reflect the total value of the team, not that Lindner's share specifically was worth that. As your blurb showed, Sea Ray, Lindner paid nowhere near that. I'd guess they calculated the team value simply by extrapolating the figures of Lindner's purchase ($67 million, slightly less than 37%). Which is odd, as it implies Lindner did not have to pay a premium to get the controlling shares. I imagine Castellini did.