Why do fans of bad small market teams always use $$$ as the excuse for their poor results? (playoff, amateur)

[NewToCA]

Looking at baseball's problem here, and I do think they have a significant problem, it seems to me that a core issue is discovering and retaining talent.

When a club successfully discovers and develops a player, the fans shouldn't be on a "death watch" towards the date that player will inevitably leave the organization. Fans should have a reasonable expectation that they get to retain "their" talent.

In basketball, teams in small markets such as the San Antonio franchise, don't lose stars like David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and George Gervin to big market franchises. Likewise for Salt Lake City and stars like Karl Malone and John Stockton.

I think baseball needs to rethink how they set aside the money from revenue sharing. Perhaps they should consider setting up a payment pool and allowing a discount to teams wishing to retain players after "x" number of years. If the Indians want to retain Grady Sizemore, perhaps they could get a 20% "rebate" on a long term contract provided after the 5th full season in the majors. That way they could match an offer from another club, but still have the financial ability to keep operating the entire team.

Just trying to see this from multiple angles here. It just seems like the core issue is really losing talent, and fan identity with "their" guys.

[Mathguy]

<shrug> I just vote with my dollar and have drifted away from baseball since the strike. Then they turned a blind eye to roids, juiced the ball and ruined any semblance of competitive balance and I've ceased to care.

Way too much money to play a game, especially one where they have long careers and the money is guaranteed.

MLB Salaries - CBSSports.com

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Looking at baseball's problem here, and I do think they have a significant problem, it seems to me that a core issue is discovering and retaining talent.

When a club successfully discovers and develops a player, the fans shouldn't be on a "death watch" towards the date that player will inevitably leave the organization. Fans should have a reasonable expectation that they get to retain "their" talent.

In basketball, teams in small markets such as the San Antonio franchise, don't lose stars like David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and George Gervin to big market franchises. Likewise for Salt Lake City and stars like Karl Malone and John Stockton.

I think baseball needs to rethink how they set aside the money from revenue sharing. Perhaps they should consider setting up a payment pool and allowing a discount to teams wishing to retain players after "x" number of years. If the Indians want to retain Grady Sizemore, perhaps they could get a 20% "rebate" on a long term contract provided after the 5th full season in the majors. That way they could match an offer from another club, but still have the financial ability to keep operating the entire team.

Just trying to see this from multiple angles here. It just seems like the core issue is really losing talent, and fan identity with "their" guys.

Baseball will only change if the fans turn on them, it's that simple and an incredibly fair process since we all get to "vote" by watching games, buying merchandise, going to games etc.

[filihok]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Looking at baseball's problem here, and I do think they have a significant problem, it seems to me that a core issue is discovering and retaining talent.

When a club successfully discovers and develops a player, the fans shouldn't be on a "death watch" towards the date that player will inevitably leave the organization. Fans should have a reasonable expectation that they get to retain "their" talent.

Teams already get a huge discount on players over the first 6 years of their careers in order to 're-coop' money spent on player development.

Way too much money to play a game, especially one where they have long careers and the money is guaranteed.

So, what is your suggestion? That the owners should keep more of that money and not give it to the players?

[Orangeish]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Baseball will only change if the fans turn on them, it's that simple and an incredibly fair process since we all get to "vote" by watching games, buying merchandise, going to games etc.

Meh, I don't know how many people buying tickets know about, or care about the economics and politics behind the scenes--though I am sure plenty do know about it. I don't think every ticket buyer is somehow endorsing the currect structure of the MLB, they just wanted to see a ballgame, or take their kids or something.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by Orangeish

Meh, I don't know how many people buying tickets know about, or care about the economics and politics behind the scenes--though I am sure plenty do know about it. I don't think every ticket buyer is somehow endorsing the currect structure of the MLB, they just wanted to see a ballgame, or take their kids or something.

They are voting unconciously then. There are certainly some that view it as a tradition or just a fun outting. Certainly attendance is climbing and the league is generally healthy overall so I expect no real changes soon.

FYI- Speaking as someone that used to live very close to Wrigley Field, I've been to enough games to see the stands packed with spam texting "beckys" that couldn't tell you who is even winning. Now those watching on the TV tend to be your more serious fans but few of those will give up on baseball no matter what.

[filihok]

The $ecret to Our $uccess | It's About The Money

Strange, but true: at this moment, the Yankees may have already earned gate receipts in excess of what the Pirates will see for all of 2010

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Looking at baseball's problem here, and I do think they have a significant problem, it seems to me that a core issue is discovering and retaining talent.

When a club successfully discovers and develops a player, the fans shouldn't be on a "death watch" towards the date that player will inevitably leave the organization. Fans should have a reasonable expectation that they get to retain "their" talent.

In basketball, teams in small markets such as the San Antonio franchise, don't lose stars like David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and George Gervin to big market franchises. Likewise for Salt Lake City and stars like Karl Malone and John Stockton.

I think baseball needs to rethink how they set aside the money from revenue sharing. Perhaps they should consider setting up a payment pool and allowing a discount to teams wishing to retain players after "x" number of years. If the Indians want to retain Grady Sizemore, perhaps they could get a 20% "rebate" on a long term contract provided after the 5th full season in the majors. That way they could match an offer from another club, but still have the financial ability to keep operating the entire team.

Just trying to see this from multiple angles here. It just seems like the core issue is really losing talent, and fan identity with "their" guys.

Moving to KC about 10 years or so ago, it was funny to hear the delusional Royals fans. "We have some great you players like Damon, Dye....blah blah blah" and I was like "but won't they leave?" LOL you see their ex-players all over the big budget teams since they are basically a glorified farm team at this point.

I can say though that in the past 2-3 years though that most fans are no longer clueless and recognize that their young talent will indeed leave. However, it's funny to watch them get all pumped up for the season when in reality thier team goal should be to avoid losing 100 games each year.

With that said, they have a lovely ballpark with good seats for $15 so you can go see a game reasonably if you want.

Pretty much the only hope the small budget teams have is to just have a bunch of young guys develop around the same time and win a WS before their contracts come up for renewal. There is little margin for error when your budget is 60mil or so. It's almost turning into NASCAR where only a few driving teams really have a chance and the rest are there to fill out the field with inferior equipment like extras in a movie.

[David674UT]

It's a good excuse,the Big teams(Yankees,Red Sox,Dodgers)can buy more players!

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by David674UT

It's a good excuse,the Big teams(Yankees,Red Sox,Dodgers)can buy more players!

Fail. Your "Big teams" have won just 7 of the last 20 World Series.