Do we have competitive balance right now?

[Invader3K]

Last year's playoffs looked like something of a watershed type year. You had the Brewers making the playoffs for the first time in over a quarter century. The Rays ended up winning the American League pennant. This year, things look pretty different though. This article highlights some of the current frustrations of this season, particularly in regard to the Indians and Pirates:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-sp.rogers09aug09,0,1876631.story?track=rss

Since the salary sell-offs of the Indians and Pirates, we have been hearing a new round of talk about competitive balance in baseball-specifically the gulf between the financial haves and the (relative) have-nots.

Take a snapshot right now, and the landscape backs up the claims of second-division owners looking for help.

Seven of the eight teams in line to make the playoffs entering the weekend came from the teams with the 10 largest payrolls. The lone exception is the Giants, who ranked 13th.

But is this a trend or a coincidence?

Over the previous decade, only 34 of the 80 playoff teams came from the top third of teams in payroll. Twenty-one of 40 to reach the championship series were from the richest third. But in the last four World Series, only the 2007 Red Sox were in the top 10 in payroll.

[endaround]

The Rays still have a +90 run differential. They've just been really unlucky.

[Ennder]

Of course we don't, but then again no sport does. There are teams who are always terrible in every sport, even the ones with caps. They could do more to limit the top few teams and help the bottom few teams but the middle 20-25 teams are pretty balanced. It is still a work in progress but they are moving in the right direction overall.

[paul253]

There will never be true competitive balance until one of two things happen. 1) Set up a world wide draft and some sort of maximum rookie salary or slotting system that allows the worst teams to not only draft but sign at a reasonable price the best players 2) A salary cap for the 40 man roster.

 

People who say we have competitive balance say "oh well last season the Brewers and Rays made the playoffs and the Yankees didn't". So what? It was first time ever the Rays made it, and the first time in a quarter of a century the Brewers made. The Yankees merely took a year off. They went and signed pretty much the only reason the Brewers did make the playoffs, and look at what its done to both clubs. When, realistically, only a third of the leagues teams have a shot at signing the top tier players, I don't see how anyone can claim we have true competitive balance. The NFL, now that is true competitive balance.

[Baldkin]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/08/05/market.size/index.html?eref=sihpT1

 

Joe Posnanski just wrote a piece about that very thing, which I agree with quite a bit.

 

It used to be the small market teams could compete by out smarting the large market teams... but now that the large market teams have wised up, the competitive balance just isn't there any longer. Right now, it seems like the best option to attempt to win is to take a Marlins-like approach for a small market team -- draft well and hope you get enough talent to win in a given window, then sell off all the parts and start over. That just sucks.

[Ennder]

The NFL, now that is true competitive balance.

 

No it isn't, but this argument never goes anywhere so I'll just leave it as an agree to disagree.

[nate82]

When, realistically, only a third of the leagues teams have a shot at signing the top tier players, I don't see how anyone can claim we have true competitive balance. The NFL, now that is true competitive balance.

No the NFL is not true competitive balance it has its flaws. When was the last time the Packers signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Lions signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Bengals signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Browns signed a highly touted free agent? Salary caps only help in keeping the bigger teams getting every single free agent there is around. A better idea than a salary cap would be a spending cap in the off season. Teams wouldn't be able to spend more than 75% of the lowest team payroll in the league or something like that.

 

If MLB had a salary cap I doubt the Brewers would be able to keep both Fielder and Braun and once they hit free agency it would become even less likely that they would be able to resign them without hurting the team. I hate the salary cap there is no team loyalty in the NFL by the players since players switch teams or are dropped because they are to old or are being paid to much. Just take Marvin Harrison as an example the NFL is not a true competitive balance if anything it has been watered down way too much.

[trwi7]

No the NFL is not true competitive balance it has its flaws. When was the last time the Packers signed a highly touted free agent?

 

A couple years ago when we got Charles Woodson.

[endaround]

Woodson was not a top FA. Most thought he was done when the Packers signed him.

[TheCrew07]

The NFL system certainly has it's flaws, but the Packers have to means to sign any FA they want, TT just doesn't believe in trying to build through FA so he avoids it. Sherman on the hand, had some colossal busts in FA.

 

I stand by opinion that anyone who thinks the NFL doesn't have competitive balance doesn't understand the game very well. Baseball will never reach the NFL's level because every MLB team signs it's own TV contract, and not all markets and deals are the same. The Packers couldn't compete in the NFL either without revenue sharing, and they are always around the top of the league in popularity and merchandising. There's simply no way the Fox Valley would generate the same revenue as any other team in the league if the NFL played under MLB's rules.

[nate82]

I stand by opinion that anyone who thinks the NFL doesn't have competitive balance doesn't understand the game very well. Baseball will never reach the NFL's level because every MLB team signs it's own TV contract, and not all markets and deals are the same. The Packers couldn't compete in the NFL either without revenue sharing, and they are always around the top of the league in popularity and merchandising. There's simply no way the Fox Valley would generate the same revenue as any other team in the league if the NFL played under MLB's rules.

No. There still would be revenue sharing in the NFL with or without a salary cap look at MLB it has revenue sharing. Yes the TV contracts are different but these are two different sports one plays one game a week the other plays multiple games per week. Maybe if MLB only played 1 series a week they could do a NFL type TV deal but other than that there is no way for something like that to happen.

 

I understand the game very well and the NFL is not built through free agency. It is built through the draft since players that get older unlike in baseball have such a steep decline in ability it doesn't make sense to have a lot of veterans on your team. In the NFL you only need to lock up one key important spot and that is at QB unlike in baseball where you need multiple spots to fill with high quality players. Comparing the NFL with MLB is just lunacy.

 

A couple years ago when we got Charles Woodson.

Woodson was coming off an injury and as stated by someone else was thought to be done. He really wasn't being pursued by many other teams other than the Packers.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

I think the NBA salary structure is one to look at as opposed to the NFL. They do have the world wide draft. They do have a salary cap with a luxury tax. They also have a rookie salary cap that the NFL does not have. Teams in small cities like San Antonio have put together dynasties. This is why I'm a huge NBA fan. David Stern has set up the economics and policy nicely despite the weird public perception.

[endaround]

And the NBA has one of the most unbalanced leagues imaginable.

[logan82]

Hit on one high draft pick in the NBA and your team is set for a decade pretty much. The best way to get ahead in the NBA is to pretty much suck really bad for a year so you get a good draft pick.

[trwi7]

And the NBA has one of the most unbalanced leagues imaginable.

 

That's because one player can turn around a team. That wouldn't happen in baseball.

[CportBadger]

When was the last time the Packers signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Lions signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Bengals signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Browns signed a highly touted free agent? Salary caps only help in keeping the bigger teams getting every single free agent there is around.

If the $$ is equal, you're not going to find many young people in any profession that would chose to live in GB, Cle, Cin, or Det when they could go to the other NFL cities. It's not so much the economy of the NFL as it is a reality that there are a lot more desirable places to live than the cities you listed.

[paul253]

When was the last time the Packers signed a highly touted free agent?

 

That's hardly the point. First off, they have just as much opportunity to sign top tier free agents as anyone else. Just because their GM chooses not to does not mean they cant. The Brewers, on the other hand, like 2/3 of the rest of the MLB teams, did not have a chance to sign CC Sabathia. The Bengal, Lions, Browns, all those teams you mention...they've been bad for a while, for numerous reasons....poor coaching, poor drafting, off field issues, etc. The NFL needs 22 players to start, almost 3x that of MLB. You can't spend all your money on one or two big money players and expect that to turn around an 0-16 team.

 

Second, just off the top of my head i assume Green Bay is the smallest market in all of professional sports, yet since they signed Reggie White a number of years ago, they've been a playoff regular. There is no possible way if Green Bay had MLB instead of NFL that would happen. That team wouldn't last in Green Bay more than 5 years, if that.

 

And Badger made a good point. Its not like Green Bay, WI is glamor city USA. I live in MILWAUKEE and i think Green Bay is boring.

[RightFieldCoder]

If the NFL had the MLB open market, the Packers would have had to trade Favre in about '99 because they wouldn't have been able to afford to keep him. The Packers were also able to go out and get White. The Brewers know we'll lose Fielder and Braun in 6 years. We also can't go out and get the best player at a position who's on the FA market. I like the NFL system because every team has the same starting point in terms of salary to spend. If the baseball system is so great, why do every fantasy league give it's owners the same amount of money to spend every year?

[1992casey]

The MLB system isn't great. Neither is the NFL's. They both suck in different ways.

 

I think the key to the NFL system is revenue sharing. MLB has it, but it's not as extensive. One of the things that sucks in the NFL is the amount of player movement caused by the cap.

 

My belief is that MLB would be better off it examined options outside of the idea of the cap. In addition to increased revenue sharing, draft compensation should be retooled. Instead of directly compensating the team losing a free agent, it would seem more appropriate to distribute the picks according to the free agent rankings.

 

The fact that the Yankees signed both Sabathia and Teixeira pushed the Brewers' compensation pick down a round. Had picks been distributed according to player rankings, the Brewers would have gotten the second best compensation pick.

[paul253]

perhaps a way around a "cap" is to provide much stiffer penalties over a certain amount, but lower the amount so that only the Yankees don't have to pay it. Also, set penalties for payrolls under a certain number. Increase revenue sharing, and for pete's sake....fix the draft! World wide draft, strict rookie slotting or caps.

[logan82]

Instead of directly compensating the team losing a free agent, it would seem more appropriate to distribute the picks according to the free agent rankings.

 

Continue to take picks away from teams that sign free agents and make all compensation picks as sandwich picks. Type A's get a pick after round one in order of FA rankings followed by Type B compensation picks then the second Type A compensation picks. Remember that as bad as we got screwed over on our CC compensation, the Jays got a 3rd rounder for AJ Burnett. Right now having your Type A sign with a bad team gets you a pick at the top of the 2nd round which after figuring in the sandwich picks is more like round 3.

[kramnoj]

I stand by opinion that anyone who thinks the NFL doesn't have competitive balance doesn't understand the game very well.

 

How many how are saying that the NFL doesn't have competitive balance, as compared to saying that it isn't any better than MLB?

 

There's simply no way the Fox Valley would generate the same revenue as any other team in the league if the NFL played under MLB's rules.

 

Talking about the Packers success and not mentioning Milwaukee and other parts of Wisconsin doesn't make much sense. It's not like the Packers could succeed as well as they do if they were in Montana.

[bani1717]

I think people here are underestimating the Packers' ability to make money. I believe the Packers have made money for the past several seasons. The nationwide popularity of the Packers is really high - fans everywhere and fans that travel well. It wouldn't surprise me if the Packers actually contribute more money to revenue sharing than they take out. (This would be assuming the TV contract revenues are divied up among the 32 teams based on ratings.) I will admit that if the Packers had to have a local TV deal like MLB teams, they would be hurting in revenue, but if they were allowed to negotiate, say, a Notre Dame type national TV deal, they would do ok IMHO. Revenue sharing isn't as big of a deal in helping the Packers as it is in helping other small-market teams, if you ask me. As I once read somewhere regarding the Packers' success in such a small market, "The Packers are a team that just shouldn't be, but still is." So, I don't think the Packers are a good example to use for the benefits of revenue sharing just because they're a small market team.

[pebadger]

I think the answer to this question is irrelevant to some, and has different answers for many to those to whom it is relevant. In many ways, it goes right to the heart of why some of us feel the way about sports that we do, and why others feel differently. I guess the first thing that needs to be considered though is what exactly does competitive balance mean?

 

Is competitive balance akin to deciding the World Series winner much like the NBA Draft winner is decided but with each team having the exact same number of ping pong balls in the hopper? If think those are the lines along which many people define blance, but it would also be a bit unsatisfying, because it sort of leaves the 'competitive' part by the wayside. We want some clubs to be better and some to be worse. We don't want the entire season to be a crapshoot. But we want the differences between teams (on paper at least) to be based on something that we deem 'fair' or 'rational'. From a fantasy GM perspective, we all want to have roughly the same resources. Using those resources, the best man would win (at least on paper). Then you throw in the fun part of watching it all play out on the field.

 

In big-time European soccer, there is not a lot of competitive balance in most senses of the word that would apply in the US. That said, European soccer is probably more like baseball than any other American sport. The big clubs buy all the talent from the smaller clubs, and the big clubs are always around for the big competitions. Every once in a while a smaller club will have a great year, but for the most part it's the same teams winning national leagues and qualifying for European competitions. Just like baseball though, most of the smaller clubs do just fine at the gate and they all have their own niche in the grand scheme of things. Of course, they also have their own things to fight for, like staying in teh top league, or gaining entry to the top league, or simply avoiding being relegated to a lower league, which is a major difference from baseball. But the point is that most of these clubs have 'no chance' going into the season and people still line up to watch and enjoy, just like baseball.

 

I think the NFL system works for the NFL. It works because of the way the league works in terms of its schedule, structure and the restricted nature of the game in terms of being played only here in the US. Most importnatly, the fans seem happy with it, even if much of that happiness is based on swallowing spin provided by the league itself.

 

Baseball is just too different from any other major American sport to really apply the same criteria that we apply to other leagues. The economics are very different. The schedule is differnt. While international, it's still not as international as basketball or arguably even hockey. Though not as team oriented as football, it's not as superstar oriented as hoops, but is still exceptionally dependant on one particular talent: pitching.

 

I'm not as happy as I could be with the state of baseball in this regard, but I think it's a bit better than it would be if nothing had been done in terms of the limited revenue sharing that is in place now. I guess the one big thing fans have to remember too is that we often thing of these issues from the fantasy GM or owner perspective, too. The whole thing is much, much different from a player perspective. And while it's hard for us to relate to that perspective, it's crucial to the whole picture.

[Diskono]

No the NFL is not true competitive balance it has its flaws. When was the last time the Packers signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Lions signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Bengals signed a highly touted free agent? When was the last time the Browns signed a highly touted free agent?

But when was the last time *any* NFL team signed a highly-touted free agent? Free agency hasn't really been as big in the NFL as it is in other sports, since they have so much in place to allow teams to retain their own players. As far as a totally communist "competitive balance" goes, the NFL is probably as close as you're going to get.

 

That said, I must be the only person who can't stand it. I feel like the league is almost entirely a bunch of natural 8-8 teams, all battling to see who can be slightly luckier than the others and finish 10-6. I like having big evil teams to hate - its more fun to hate the Red Sox for buying championships than it is to make fun of them for sucking.

 

I think the NBA salary structure is one to look at as opposed to the NFL. They do have the world wide draft. They do have a salary cap with a luxury tax. They also have a rookie salary cap that the NFL does not have. Teams in small cities like San Antonio have put together dynasties. This is why I'm a huge NBA fan. David Stern has set up the economics and policy nicely despite the weird public perception.

The NBA gets a lot of crap for its financial system, but I really think they have the right idea. Unfortunately when the current CBA was rolled out, all of the GMs made the same mistakes at the same time, which is why we're seeing expiring contracts as some of the bigger trade assets right now. Once the Dan Gadzurics of the world's contracts expire, I expect the league to get a lot better, where you'll have a good mix of competitive balance and potential for long-term team success. They still have some things that could be fixed, but they're on the right track.

 

On a side note, all of the financial manuevering going on is actually one of the things I quite enjoy about the NBA. Adds another element of strategy that you don't really see much of in other sports.