Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: MLB Economics

  1. #1
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    MLB Economics

    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.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,885

    Re: MLB Economics

    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.

  4. #3
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    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.

  5. #4
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,885

    Re: MLB Economics

    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.

  6. #5
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,173

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray
    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.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  7. #6
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    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

  8. #7
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,885

    Re: MLB Economics

    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.

  9. #8
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    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.

  10. #9
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,038

    Re: MLB Economics

    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
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 03-06-2006 at 04:45 PM.

  11. #10
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,747

    Re: MLB Economics

    you can see the Reds attendance over the years here.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...N/attend.shtml

    it's actually pretty interesting.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun

  12. #11
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,885

    Re: MLB Economics

    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.

  13. #12
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by pedro
    you can see the Reds attendance over the years here.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/te...N/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.

  14. #13
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou
    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.
    It didn't.

    And yes you are hilarious...

  15. #14
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,885

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray
    It didn't.

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

  16. #15
    Please come again pedro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    portland, oregon
    Posts
    14,747

    Re: MLB Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray
    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.
    Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25