Small markets can pull it together for a limited window especially with a new stadium. We saw Cleveland do this in the 90s. I expect Milwaukee's situation is similar.Originally Posted by MattyHo4Life
Even though Milwaukee is in their hey day, they don't compare to St louis. Case in point, both teams have FA slugging 1B. One is likely to re-sign him the other not so much.
My point is MLB should not lump St Louis in with the likes of Milwaukee
Absolutely. I'd rather see a salary cap too but since that ain't happenin', I'll take this
really? last I heard, the Cardinals offered Pujols 22Mil per year and the Brewers offered Fielder 20Mil per year. Neither player seems any closer to resigning with their team. I guess I'm not sure which team you think is likely to resign their 1B and the other not so much.
I think Pujols is much more likely to stay of course I could be wrong. There's more to it than dollars such as yrs and other considerations
It seems like StL has been a blueprint for small market success for the last 10-15 years. (Heck, probably longer than that). They have pretty much had a decent (if not contending team) during that entire period, and that's why they have such a great fan following and that's why they can give out big contracts.
Why should they be penalized for their success? This is not about welfare, it's helping the smaller markets be more competitive. It's also not about giving inept teams like the Cubs and the recent version of the Astros extra picks in order to increase parity.
If you were going to pull StL off the 13 small market list, who would you add?
In any event, the impact of this competitive balance lottery is going to be almost zero, IMO..
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Cincy has Columbus about 1.5 hours away. The Columbus area alone is roughly 2 million people. And people will complain that most of the Columbus people are Indians fans.. Well, that's the Reds fault for pretty much sucking since 1999 (with the exception of last year). The Reds marketing in Columbus is pretty much non-existent as well. I hear a few radio ads per year (usually for college night). That's it.
John Allen and Carl Lindner decided to pursue the strategy of keeping payroll cut to the bone, getting bad TV deals, bad attendence and then just sitting back and letting the revenue sharing money guarantee them a profit. I'm sure that made Carl a lot of money, but it also cost the team a lot of fans.
The team got a roughly 10% attendence increase this year. I think that's encouraging. Cast and Walt need to put a winning team on the field and try to get people to care about the Reds again.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Call it what you want but this whole lottery pick idea is all about welfare. If they're going to do this it should be largely based on revenue and that will penalize teams that do a good job of marketing their product.
The way the NFL does things like their draft and waiver system is all about welfare too
The part I don't like about how they do this is if you are a large market team but you have lousy revenues, you get a pick. Small market team, good or bad, get one no matter what which is OK by me.
If I were commisioner, I'd base it solely on market size. If you have a big market but can't make a go of it, then you're a bad business person so sell the darn team.
Does anyone know how they determine "market"? I found this from Arbitron that ranks radio market size. It's probably a decent approximation. http://www.arbitron.com/home/mm001050.asp
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
The Brewers really don't, nor never had a bigger payroll than most teams. They have actually had very similar payrolls to the Reds. The Cardinals on the other hand, have consistently had payrolls similar to big market teams.
Here is how the Reds, Brewers, Cards and Giants payrolls have looked since 2000:
Code:Reds Brewers Cards Giants $44 $35 $63 $53 $48 $43 $78 $63 $45 $50 $74 $78 $59 $40 $83 $82 $46 $27 $83 $82 $61 $39 $92 $90 $60 $57 $88 $90 $68 $70 $90 $90 $74 $80 $99 $76 $73 $80 $88 $82 $76 $90 $94 $96 $80 $83 $109 $118
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
So the Cardinals, a small/mid market team has a payroll comparable to a big market team. How does the payroll change the size of the market?
You compared the payrolls of the teams since 2000. However, the current Cardinals owners took over in 1996. If you look at the Cardinals payroll prior to 1996, you will probably see a payroll similar to that of Milwaukee and Cincinnati. St. Louis hasn't suddenly become a larger market, the owners are just running the club differently than some other clubs and has had success within the last 15 years.
The Cardinals were a top ten payroll team in the 80's, when the elder Busch was running things. For a brief time, when his son started running the team in the 90's, the payroll dropped significantly, you are correct, and they new owners in '96 brought the team back to their original payroll levels.
The Cardinals have always been one of the wealthiest organizations in baseball from the beginning. They were the NL version of the Yankees for decades. Technically, St. Louis is a mid market city, but because of it's history and logistics, it always will be a big market team, and be able to spend like one.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
The Cardinals payroll in 2004 was comparable to the Reds payroll this year-$83 million, where it increased to 92 million the next year. What happened in 2004? The Cardinals signed Albert to that long contract that is only ending now. It's the success that the Cardinals had with Albert that led to them increasing payroll from 83 million to now 110 million. I don't think Albert was the only reason for the success, but they wouldn't have had it without him. It's something the Reds should consider as they face the decision to extend Votto. I simply think the Cardinals shouldn't be treated as a team that needs any help from the lottery.
That's a very good point. One thing I will give the Cardinal ownership credit for, is that they understand that winning leads to more revenue which leads to more winning. They aren't afraid to take financial risks if they think it will lead to championships.
Now that was Jocketty who was the mastermind behind that philosophy, so lets hope he can convince the Reds ownership to try it.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote