Do we have competitive balance right now?

[bklynbrewcrew]

The NFL has it right. Every team in the league has the opportunity to win if they draft well, get good coaching and sign the right free agents. I like the fact that the Jets are on equal footing with the rest of the league and cant just buy their way to a championship. I also like that the NFL has the franchise tag which allows each franchise to keep its most marketable players.

 

Its sad knowing the Brewers wont be able to keep Prince past the next two years and that some team like the Yankees or Red Sox will blow any offer we make out of the water. Professional sports should be about each franchise having an equal chance to win and thats just not the case in major league baseball. I really hope one day we can have a salary cap as well as a salary floor to insure that every franchise has a chance.

[joepepsi]

Professional sports should be about each franchise having an equal chance to win and thats just not the case in major league baseball. I really hope one day we can have a salary cap as well as a salary floor to insure that every franchise has a chance.

Probably the period of greatest competitive balance in MLB was from the start of free agency until the 1994 strike. Was there competitive balance before free agency? Haven't the Yankees always dominated the American League? Wasn't the NL dominated by the Dodgers and Cardinals (and Giants to a lesser extent) from the 20's through the 70's?

[mletto157]

After reading through all of the comments here I will have to say I don't think there is such thing as a perfect system. I don't believe there is a feasible way for any professional sports league to attain perfect competitive balance where all teams have equal opportunities to sign all free agents, get all draft picks, etc... It just is an impossibility based on the different market sizes. Ideally all markets with professional sports teams would be the same size and would all appeal to all people near equally (though obviously climate plays a part in this too). Since this can never be the case we will never have a system without teams having some sort of advantage. Whether it's not having to pay as much to sign a player (NFL), or being able to pay more to sign a player (MLB).

 

The only thing we can do is try to make the systems as close to perfect as possible with what we can control. To that end each sport would definitely have to be handled in a different way. Do I like the system the NFL has? Absolutely. I love watching the Packers every year knowing they should have a ligitimate chance at the playoffs. I like what the NFL did and think they definitely tried to make it as fair as possible for their sport. However, I in no way think the system they have in place would work for baseball. The differences in the sport itself, the differences in the number of games played, the differences in the amount of key role players, etc... would not allow the same system to work. I definitely think baseball has flaws that need to be addressed; and I believe they are heading in the right direction.

[logan82]

Free agent draft every off season with slotted contracts.

[Diskono]

One thing I'd like to see in baseball is for the draft to be adjusted so that great players don't trickle down to the rich winning teams solely because they're able to pay more.

I've always wondered why smaller market teams don't take advantage of this. Higher signing bonuses are still less than most free agents...I realize that there's more risk involved in draft picks, but how much would it really cost per year to overpay a few later round picks?

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

The NBA is a different animal, because you only need one impact player to be competitive.

 

That may be true, but no team with one impact player has ever won a championship. Jordan never did without Pippen. Kobe never did without Shaq or Gasol/Odom. Magic never won without Kareem... and the list goes on.

 

If the MLB put in the same salary rules/structure that the NBA had, the Brewers would be a more competitive team right now. I'm not sure there is an argument against that statement.

[nate82]

The only thing that needs to be done to make baseball more competitive is a slotted draft system and a international draft just like the NBA. In the NBA the teams pay only a certain amount for an international player (to payoff the team they are playing for currently) the rest the player has to pay or negotiate out from their current contract.

 

With an international draft players like Hideki Matsui and others can't just pick their teams where they want to go. I would also like to see teams being able to trade their draft picks or the rights of the players they have drafted to another team. Strasburg is the perfect example of this if the Nationals don't sign him they get another pick next year. Why wait until next year to get someone for your team? I bet if the Nationals could trade Strasburg they would get a haul and a half for him. Something along the lines of getting three really good prospects something like Kennedy and Hughes plus another prospect from the Yankees.

 

That would help out the Nationals more so than what they would get for not signing Strasburg.

[endaround]

Japanese players will never be subject to an international draft.

[Invader3K]

Japanese players will never be subject to an international draft.

 

Maybe not from a practicality standpoint, but they probably should be. It can't possibly be argued that it's fair to have only a handful of teams being able to sign Japanese players. Also, I'm confused at the references to Ryan Braun earlier in this thread...the Brewers already do have him signed to a long term contract...they have him under control through 2015 at a very reasonable price. He'll be spending most of his peak years (if not all of them) with Milwaukee, barring an unforeseeable trade.

[TuesdaysWithRillo]

Japanese players will never be subject to an international draft.

As absolute as that sounds, I say why not? The European basketball leagues are at the same level as the Japanese baseball leagues in terms of a comparison to their American counterpart leagues. It would only make sense to have MLB teams draft the rights to a Japanese player and then work out the buyout/contract details in a slotted range later.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The two biggest differences between the NFL and MLB have to be that NFL operates under non-guaranteed contracts, and their organizations don't have to fund 5-7 levels of their own teams' minor league development system. NFL teams can cut crap off their roster whenever they want, even if it means taking a salary cap hit for one season to free up space for the next year. The packers cut Joe Johnson 2-3 years into that horrible 5 year deal Sherman signed him to...last I checked the Brewers aren't going to be able to get away from paying Hall, Suppan, and Riske almost 1/3 of their expected payroll next year. Baseball teams may have to have a MLB payroll for a 25 or 40 man roster compared to the NFL's 53-man rosters, but then the payrolls of all recent drafts/signings/minor leagues aren't factored in at all. A baseball organization's roster is actually 2-3 times greater than any NFL team.

 

In the NFL, every amateur comes in through the draft, and every street free agent basically walks in making the league minimum...in baseball, amateurs threaten to hold out a season if they feel that the signing bonus isn't enough to buy a jet, and large market teams pay more than Ryan Braun's total contract extension just to get the rights to negotiate with a Japanese league pitcher.

 

Revenue sharing has helped small market teams' bottom lines, but there is no competitive balance at all, and never will be as long as tv contract revenues are kept separate. The NFL's salary cap system has basically ended quality free agency - you rarely see marquee free agents in their prime jump from one team to the next, unless their former team has cap issues or the free agent is a headcase.

[kramnoj]

in baseball, amateurs threaten to hold out a season if they feel that the signing bonus isn't enough to buy a jet,

 

The signing bonuses for the top picks in football are quite a bit more than what baseball teams spend on their entire draft in a year.

 

and large market teams pay more than Ryan Braun's total contract extension just to get the rights to negotiate with a Japanese league pitcher.

 

Teams? This hasn't happened more than once, has it?

 

Revenue sharing has helped small market teams' bottom lines, but there is no competitive balance at all

 

It's either clearly wrong or gross hyperbole to say there is no competitive balance. There are certainly improvements that should be made, but teams that fail do so because of poor management, not because they don't have the ability to compete within the system.

[paul253]

It's either clearly wrong or gross hyperbole to say there is no competitive balance. There are certainly improvements that should be made, but teams that fail do so because of poor management, not because they don't have the ability to compete within the system.

 

Poor management certainly part of it, but how you can say the Yankees and Red Sox don't have an advantage over the Pirates and Royals then you aren't thinking straight. The Yankees can overcome poor management MUCH easier and quicker than the Pirates can because they can afford to buy off their mistakes, something most teams don't have the luxury of doing. Also, if teams are passing on the best players in the draft because they won't be able to sign them, is that poor management, or is it the system? I've said it before and I'll say it again. When 2/3 of the teams in the league don't even have a chance to sign someone like CC Sabathia, how can you claim there is competitive balance?

[kramnoj]

Also, if teams are passing on the best players in the draft because they won't be able to sign them, is that poor management, or is it the system?

 

It's poor management. What baseball player has existed that couldn't have been signed?

 

When 2/3 of the teams in the league don't even have a chance to sign someone like CC Sabathia, how can you claim there is competitive balance?

 

Any team has a chance to sign CC, if they structure their budget properly. It's certainly a bigger risk for many teams, but there's no reason to act like they couldn't spend the money that way if they chose to. To look at it another way, I would guess that many teams spend the money that CC makes and get's less return than he has usually provided.

 

Poor management certainly part of it, but how you can say the Yankees and Red Sox don't have an advantage over the Pirates and Royals then you aren't thinking straight.

 

Nothing like a good insult to start a post. The good thing for the Pirates is they aren't competing at all for a playoff spot against the Yankees and Red Sox. The Royals aren't either, as their goal should be to win their division. The Twins can get into the playoffs in this league that supposedly has no competitive balance.

[J Brew Crew]

I don't know if there is true competitve balance in MLB, but I would lean no, not compared to other sports.

 

If you look at a 10 year period, the past 10 or the next 10 whatever, do you get the same expected return on your investment as a fan from "your" MLB team as you would vs "your" NBA, NHL or NFL team. Do you get the same expected return as a fan from another town gets from "their" team?

 

Consider the time and money you spent on the Brewers. Money spent on tickets, parking and must have Brewer gear. Time spent watching games, going to games, wonderful evenings tailgating, posting here and sleepless nights tomented by the bullpen. I believe that your expected return is a lot more variable in MLB than in other sports. A small market fan has more years knowing "their" team is absolutely hopeless than a big market team. A small market fan has more years in the Bermuda triangle, bad last year, bad this year and bad next year. There are a lot of small market baseball teams that you can point at a 10 year span and say that team had no meaningful games in the last 1/3rd of the season for that decade. I think the number would be lower in the NFL.

 

If I was born and raised somewhere else and my hometown team was a large market team, I should expect more days in the playoff hunt, more playoff games and therefore a greater expected return for my time and money. As a Packer fan too, I think there is less variance in return for my time and money than as a Brewer fan.

 

Three points. The most important is I am very happy I am a Brewer fan. Would not trade it. And two I used the NFL for my thought process because I could not care any less about the NBA and the NHL salary cap is too new for me to figure out how it affects me as a fan. Most importantly number three, bad management and ownership trumps everything. It doesn't matter how balanced a league is if you are Brown family or Donald Sterling.

 

I don't often think of my fanhood in expected return of my time and money but that is the way I look at it trying to figure out on how well a league is run and how balanced it is.

 

Regards

 

J Brew

[sheethead]

It's poor management. What baseball player has existed that couldn't have been signed?

 

 

Is it poor management for drafting the best available player that they cannot sign, or poor management because they don't give an unproven commodity $40 million? Teams are often held hostage by draft picks in MLB and in the NFL. The NFL signings are much more slotted than MLB. At the end of the day, I guess good management takes a pass on the best perceived player in the draft, knowing they cannot afford to sign him. Doesn't pass the competitive balance smell test for me.

[kramnoj]

Is it poor management for drafting the best available player that they cannot sign, or poor management because they don't give an unproven commodity $40 million?

 

There is no player that can't be signed. If you are talking about Strasburg, if the Nationals don't sign him, they get another pick next year. It's a worthwhile risk to pick him and see if the team can sign him to a deal that the team considers reasonable.

 

At the end of the day, I guess good management takes a pass on the best perceived player in the draft, knowing they cannot afford to sign him. Doesn't pass the competitive balance smell test for me.

 

Again, which player has existed that a team couldn't afford to sign? Teams have either chosen to pass on amateurs, while throwing away more money on bad veterans, or refused to sign a deal that the player wanted. Sometimes that works out for the team, sometimes it doesn't.

[sheethead]

There is no player that can't be signed. If you are talking about Strasburg, if the Nationals don't sign him, they get another pick next year. It's a worthwhile risk to pick him and see if the team can sign him to a deal that the team considers reasonable.

 

I can see already I shouldn't have started to argue here. Of course every player "can" be signed, theoretically. How does management rate when they blow 1/3 of a teams budgeted payroll on one player (sometimes even a pitcher that plays every 5 games), and then fail to field a competitive team because they have nothing left to spread around, are unable to sign their own farmed players due to one hefty contract, or God forbid that player gets hurt and cripples that franchise for 5-7 years?

 

Smaller market teams simply cannot afford the luxury of paying any player, much less a starting pitcher, $25 million a year. To believe they realistically can is either clearly wrong or gross hyperbole.

 

Its what makes Melvin's job tougher than 90% of the GMs in baseball. He is playing in an uneven field, against loaded decks, with a blindfold on.

[kramnoj]

Smaller market teams simply cannot afford the luxury of paying any player, much less a starting pitcher, $25 million a year. To believe they realistically can is either clearly wrong or gross hyperbole.

 

It would be a huge risk. But it's only one player. There are plenty of other options that small market teams can sign.

 

The Rangers paid Alex Rodriguez to not play for them after trading him away. The problem wasn't Alex. It was the contract they gave to Chan Ho Park. Small market teams can afford to go after good players. It's just that the bad teams choose to sign bad veterans for too much money and then cry poor.

[sheethead]

The Rangers are not a small market team.

 

There are plenty of other options that small market teams can sign.

 

I think this sums up my point. "Hey small market, you can't possibly think of signing that guy. There are plenty of other players to sign, but don't think about signing this one, or this one, or this one, or..."

[kramnoj]

The Rangers are not a small market team.

 

I didn't say they were, but that move was small market mentality.

 

I think this sums up my point.

 

It shouldn't. There aren't that many players that have that huge a salary. Besides, why should competitive balance revolve around the most expensive FA? Teams are given a huge chunk of money. If they just throw it at bad FA, that's their problem, not a problem with the system. Smart teams should focus on better scouting domestically and internationally.

[Baldkin]

And rich teams choose to sign bad veterans for too much money, and then just shrug off the contracts.

 

Just because small market teams can compete doesn't mean there is competitive balance.

 

If one team has the option of throwing 20 darts and the other team has the option to throw 3, which team is going to win more often?

[sheethead]

Teams are given a huge chunk of money.

 

I don't think teams are given any money, actually. But since we are talking hypothetical, let's play monopoly. You start with $800 and I will start with $2,300. Who has the better chance of winning?

[Ennder]

Teams are given a huge chunk of money.

 

I don't think teams are given any money, actually. But since we are talking hypothetical, let's play monopoly. You start with $800 and I will start with $2,300. Who has the better chance of winning?

It really isn't that simple. The Yankees pay more money per win than any other team in baseball.

 

To take the NFL as an example the best teams pay less per win than other teams.

 

They are completely opposite situations.

 

I don't see how anyone can say the Yankees and Pirates are 'balanced though'. Of course the Lions and Steelers aren't either and neither is the best vs worst team in the NBA. No sport has competitive balance and I doubt it is even possible to have it.

[sheethead]

Poor management is easily reflected in the NFL, as all teams are basically given even standing ground from a financial aspect.

 

In baseball, a GM like Cashman wouldn't last five minutes outside of NY. He basically is handed signed blank checks to dish out. Must be rough.