World Series a pipe dream for small market teams (pitching, playoffs, star)

[Upton]

So the Yankees bought themselves a championship... but when you spend over $200 million in salary, signing the top 3 free agents during the off season, you are supposed to win the World Series...Big Deal

Here are some numbers, from a great article, baseball and Selig should be seriously concerned about:

Pittsburgh has had zero winning seasons in the last 17, a record for futility. Cincinnati has 2 in 14. Kansas City, 1 in 15; Tampa, 2 in 12, Milwaukee, 2 in 17; Montreal/Washington, 3 in 15.

That adds up to 10 winning years out of a possible 90 for six of the lowest-paying clubs in baseball. That means 20 percent of your members have an 11 percent chance of even marginal success. That kills hope. When hope disappears, can your fan base be far behind?

World Series is a pipe dream for small-market teams like Reds - Paul Daugherty - SI.com

[BringTheContent]

Originally Posted by Upton

So the Yankees bought themselves a championship... but when you spend over $200 million in salary, signing the top 3 free agents during the off season, you are supposed to win the World Series...Big Deal

Here are some numbers, from a great article, baseball and Selig should be seriously concerned about:




World Series is a pipe dream for small-market teams like Reds - Paul Daugherty - SI.com

Now that baseball is over I hope we can still count on you to start nine or ten of the exact same threads every week. Don't start cutting back just because spring training is four months away.

[wingate20]

Originally Posted by Upton

So the Yankees bought themselves a championship... but when you spend over $200 million in salary, signing the top 3 free agents during the off season, you are supposed to win the World Series...Big Deal

Here are some numbers, from a great article, baseball and Selig should be seriously concerned about:


World Series is a pipe dream for small-market teams like Reds - Paul Daugherty - SI.com

Originally Posted by BringTheContent

Now that baseball is over I hope we can still count on you to start nine or ten of the exact same threads every week. Don't start cutting back just because spring training is four months away.

pwn3d.

[Orangeish]

[NewToCA]

Until the overall revenue stream starts to significantly decline, I don't see baseball changing the way they treat team payrolls.

[PeteyNice]

Awesome that it ignores teams like Minnesota and Oakland who have succeeded while not spending much money. Or that Tampa's "2" were the last 2 and they were in the WS last season. Which runs counter to the headline. Or that for many of those years the Expos were run by the league and winning was not a priority.

I'll make a deal with you.

You keep spinning and the Yanks will keep winning.

[Orangeish]

It also ignores teams like the Cubs that spend the big bucks and do NOT win. The mets are probably an even better example of this.

[NewToCA]

OK, I'll side with Upton here a bit.

Pointing out that Minnesota or Oakland have intermittently been successful is accurate, but to me the main issue is retaining assets. Once a team like Minnesota or Milwaukee is successful, the star players become too expensive to retain, and they tend to end up with the big payroll teams.

Ever hear of a guy named CC Sabathia?

[Orangeish]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

OK, I'll side with Upton here a bit.

Pointing out that Minnesota or Oakland have intermittently been successful is accurate, but to me the main issue is retaining assets. Once a team like Minnesota or Milwaukee is successful, the star players become too expensive to retain, and they tend to end up with the big payroll teams.

Ever hear of a guy named CC Sabathia?

I straddle both sides of the arguement because I really think both sides refuse to acknowledge the others points. When NYY people bring up Jeter, Rivera, Jaba etc I always point out that holding onto your talent is also a function of a big payroll, not just signing free agents. However I would not call winning the WS a "pipe dream" for the smallers markets either. It may take a different formula and a little luck, but it is not rigged for the Yankees to win every year as so many claim.

It's not the best example, but look at the 05 White Sox (yes my homer team). They had a medium payroll that year, but didn't really make any major splash in free agency the year leading up to 05, in fact we lost Mags--due to free agency and the Big Hurt---due to injury. Yet starting pitching was solid (with a NYY reject dominating for us) and when the playoffs came we ran hot. I don't think anyone could accuse the Sox of buying a WS that year.

Now, I could see teams like the Orioles and Blue Jays being more upset because in their division they have to deal with the Yankees and BoSox, but the Rays did do it last year, so its not totally impossible.

[Upton]

Check it out..of the top 9 teams in payroll, 5 of them made the playoffs and the Tigers almost did. With the largest payroll buying, er, winning it all.

Unfortunately, in today's MLB, payroll size equates to victories. And in that kind of climate, big market teams win, small market teams lose..

Sure there are exceptions, but that's what they are EXCEPTIONS.

1. New York Yankees $201,449,289
2. New York Mets $135,773,988
3. Chicago Cubs $135,050,000
4. Boston Red Sox $122,696,000
5. Detroit Tigers $115,085,145
6. Los Angeles Angels $113,709,000
7. Philadelphia Phillies $113,004,048
8. Houston Astros $102,996,415
9. Los Angeles Dodgers $100,458,101