Do we have competitive balance right now?

[MJLiverock]

Arguing that the Patriots get free agents over the Lions is true but it isn't because Boston is some mecca for football players it is because they are good right now. It wasn't all that long ago that the Patriots were terrible and I would lay money they weren't attracting free agents then. Players at the end of their career in football often choose winners to try and get the ring as well as prolong their career by not having to be "the guy" on already good teams. Sort of like Smoltz signing with the Cardinals. Why didn't he sign with the Nationals? They are desperate for pitching and would probably let him struggle for longer. Instead he picks the Cards where he will be 5th starter or bullpen on a team headed for the playoffs but may not even make the playoff roster unless it is as a reliever. Not saying he is a great player but it happens in baseball too.

 

Back to football, the Lions aren't bad because of poor competitive balance it is because Millen was terrible. The Lions at least have a chance to turn it around. Detroit isn't a great city but I doubt it really has much impact on getting free agents. Green Bay is not a very impressive NFL city, in fact it may well be the worst city in the league for a player who wants bright light big city clubs, restaurants, houses, and frankly, other black people around but Green Bay still manages to put a competitive team on the field because it's all about the money and everyone has basically the same amount to spend.

 

I hear arguement about how the Yankees haven't won the World Series in X years but have spent all that money. At the same time people say all you have to do is make the playoffs and anything can happen, its a crap shoot. Well during all these years the Yankees missed the playoffs once and it is a huge deal to the media, fans, and the team. So which is it? Making the playoffs and having a shot or only winning the World Series? The Yankees themselves seem to believe it is about WS titles and just let everyone else worry about just making the playoffs.

 

Brewers fans were exstatic making the playoffs and exiting in the first round. We may not see another playoff game for years now. Meanwhile the Yankees freaked out and spent a quarter billion dollars when they missed the playoffs. They may not win the WS but they came as close to guaranteeing they would get a shot as you can. The critics who say they paid too much will be proven wrong again just like when they overpaid for Giambi, or ARod, or Clemens, or Pavano, or all the other contracts that were going to cripple them in the future. It isn't paying too much when you have so much money it doesn't matter. The money doesn't do them any good sitting in the bank and there is no trophy for fewest dollars spent per win.

[Invader3K]

Selig with some fresh comments from Ken Rosenthal:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/09/selig-on-competitive-balance-draft-salary-cap.html#comments

 

However, Selig says the draft needs to be changed when the current collective bargaining agreement expires after 2011. In fact, the commissioner believes changing the current system is "imperative for the health of the game." Selig suggests, as he has before, that he will push for slotting and a worldwide draft.

 

Selig doesn't completely rule out a salary cap, but hints that he first plans to explore other ways of maintaining competitive balance.

 

Seems like he is pretty serious about this issue with all of his comments on it since the June draft.

[AJAY]

I am very disappointed by Selig's comments. There clearly is a severe competitive balance problem and I hate how people think that an occasional playoff appearance by a smaller market team somehow makes everything okay. The current economic system is extremely insulting and disgraceful. No other professional sport has anything this ridiculous. I am glad Selig sees the need to change the draft, but that alone is not addressing the real fundamental problem.

 

I think the small to mid-market owners need to take strong control and be willing to go to war to get real changes that are meaningful. It's time for guys like Mark Attanasio to get mad, roll up his sleeves, and go to battle. We need serious changes and not just putting lipstick on a pig.

[Invader3K]

I do partly agree with you, but I'm not sure Selig has any real power to do anything drastic at this point.

 

A good post from that same thread on MLB Trade Rumors:

 

If the playoffs were today here are the teams making them and their respective rank in salary (from the start of the year using Cot's numbers). Teams are ranked by winning %. Displaying team name, winning %, salary and overall rank by salary in the ML:

 

Yankees - .645 - $206m - 1st

Angels - .601 - $116m - 7th

St Louis - .596 - $94m - 13th

Dodgers - .589 - $109m - 8th

Boston - .583 - $123m - 6th

Philly - .577 - $128m - 5th

Rockies - .571 - $75m - 21st

Tigers - .543 - $130m - 4th

 

Put another way - if you are in the top 8 in spending your odds of making the playoffs in 09 were 75%. Only two teams out of the top 8 spenders won't sniff the post-season (Mets/Cubs). That leaves 2 spots open for the remaining 22 teams (or approximately 10% chance). In the AL the top 4 spenders will represent every playoff spot.

 

I would guess if you looked at the past several years, the numbers would be similar. Like AJAY said, pointing to an occasional rare team like the Rockies or Rays getting in doesn't really mean anything in the long run. The Rays won the AL pennant last year and are right back to being a middle of the pack type team. Granted, they've had injuries, but by and large, you can expect a New York, Boston, Chicago, or LA team to have a hugely better shot at the playoffs than Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Tampa, Oakland, etc.

 

I do like what he's saying about fixing the draft as well, though...it's clearly a broken system.

[Baldkin]

Yes, when players being drafted get to determine what team they go to, instead of the teams determining what players they want something is very wrong with the draft system.

[nate82]

Selig may or may not be right about the competitive balance in MLB but it has improved with the Wild Card and added division in baseball without those competitive balance can not be made. It is going to take a lot of baby steps in order for more competitive balance will be seen in MLB. I certainly don't want the type of competitive balance that is in the NFL or the NBA. I believe the NHL is going towards the right amount of competitive balance.

 

Selig has to cater towards both large market teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, and Dodgers while also catering towards the small and mid-market teams like the Brewers, Royals, and Pirates.

 

The draft is the third baby step towards more competitive balance the first two steps were the realigning of the league and more revenue sharing. Bud also says he would like to do more. Of course there is more to be done but you can't get everything you want right away you have to give and take. You would never get a salary cap and draft reform in the same bargaining agreement from the players union nor with the larger market teams.

 

This is definitely the right step in the right direction for MLB. Again you can't expect to get everything you want right away you are going to have to wait for the rest.

[AJAY]

Nate, I respect your opinion, but some of us have been waiting and waiting for real changes since the day Paul Molitor left for the money in Toronto back in 1992. Baseball has never felt the same for me since that day. I really deeply miss the game that I used to follow as a child. When I was a kid, you would enjoy having great players on your team. Now it seems like all people do is plan for a player's eventual departure and talk about trading him to the same old usual franchises. We have a hall-of-fame talent in Prince Fielder, and instead of enjoying him and being excited, everyone is mostly feeling angst about him leaving eventually. I just can't stand this anymore. There is always a dark cloud that is hovering over this franchise and many other similar franchises too. It's just not fun anymore.

 

For me, it has been nothing but 17 years of very strong bitterness towards baseball economics and the players union. I get more worked up about talking about baseball economics than I do about any other social issue or political issue that is out there. I am not interested in baby steps because too many of us have been waiting forever and ever for real change. I want an all-out war and I am so ready to battle.

 

I want to see the same fire and passion from the owners now. I don't want to hear talk about how the players union won't accept this or won't accept that. I want to instead hear talk about how the fans won't accept this nonsense anymore.

 

Mark Attanasio, PLEASE DO SOMETHING !!!!!!

[bklynbrewcrew]

AJAY, I agree with you 100% and you have completely summarized how I have felt for years as well.

[nate82]

Well you also have to get the large market teams on board and currently they are not. Last I read on this subject the only large market team that is on board with a salary cap was the Boston Red Sox. There is no way you would get a salary cap just out of the owners let alone the players union.

 

I could actually see the players union conceding to a salary cap if there was a salary floor which really wouldn't be a good idea. The contracts will still be guaranteed and that won't help small market teams all that much. I believe the time has past to expect a salary cap to happen in MLB. If MLB wanted to have a salary cap it would have had to do so in the 70's or the 80's. I believe it is to late for a salary cap in MLB both sides that you would have to convince to have a salary cap are rooted into the ground too much and will not budge from their positions.

 

Again you are going to have to wait. I don't see MLB doing anything drastic to increase the competitive balance in MLB. You are going to have to live with the baby steps because that is what you are going to get. It is going to take time to chop down everything before a salary cap will happen. Unless MLB goes the way of the NHL which would make another strike or lockout happen. I don't see MLB doing that though especially with the steroid stuff going around.

 

Both sides are going to be making concessions and hopefully the international draft and slotting system comes. That will help teams become more competitive. Other than TV revenue I do not see what else MLB could do. That wouldn't result in a strike or lockout.

[Invader3K]

AJAY summarized what I think a lot of us feel, deep down. Looking at last season, the Brewers built up to that year by trying to do all the "right things, the right way." They spent money, they drafted well, they have an all around well-acknowledged GM in place. Then in the past off-season, they were basically punished for it. They tried to give a star player a franchise record, gigantic contract, but were still blown out of the water by the Yankees. They found their financial resources were finite, so they couldn't bring in more good pitchers to replace the ones that left. They got hosed in the draft process. Yes, it could just be one down year, but I think we all know looking at history that it's more the trend than a fluke.

 

It's easy to be a fan of a big market team like the Yankees, Cubs, etc. It's a lot harder to be a fan of a team like the Brewers and I'm sick of being not rewarded for my fan loyalty. It's time for some change. Yes, it may take baby steps for change, but it better be real change and not just middling stuff that doesn't really make a difference.

[nate82]

It's easy to be a fan of a big market team like the Yankees, Cubs, etc. It's a lot harder to be a fan of a team like the Brewers and I'm sick of being not rewarded for my fan loyalty. It's time for some change. Yes, it may take baby steps for change, but it better be real change and not just middling stuff that doesn't really make a difference.

All of the changes so far that have happened have helped smaller market teams. Has it helped completely level the playing field? No and I don't believe MLB will ever get to that point. Maybe MLB will go more towards an NHL style cap which has a ceiling and a floor but I highly doubt that. It will probably be more like the NBA's salary cap which is there but teams do go over the cap.

 

The draft needs to be changed slotting will help teams like the Brewers and the Royals sign players they normally wouldn't be able to sign. That may or may not be a good thing though. Also the international draft needs to happen maybe it can be a separate draft from the amateur draft for players in the states or it can incorporate both. Something needs to be done and hopefully Selig and the rest of baseball can get this done. This should help out a lot we have all been asking for this and now that it is happening we are complaining about no salary cap. At least we have a commissioner now who is actually trying to get some things for the mid and small market teams. It may not be enough but at least there is a voice that has a lot of pull who will at least try to get this done. We should be rejoicing over this. Just my opinion though.

[snyttri]

For me, it has been nothing but 17 years of very strong bitterness towards baseball economics and the players union.

 

Bud choosing his daughter instead of someone qualified to run the team didn't help. Well run teams do something with small to medium salaries, including win championships. Until recently the Brewers were run on the Pirates model.

 

The players earned their right to see what their services are worth in the free market. Maybe there could be a cap if the sport were in NHL type trouble. That would require the players working with owners to share revenues but the players would have to get over the owners history of deceit.

 

MLB has been prospering with competitive imbalance. I don't think the players or owners want to break a money machine to give some teams a better chance of winning. Championships may be more of a fan issue while profits may be more of an ownership issue.

 

If the owners care about competitiveness they can do things that do not detract from a players freedom to earn what someone is willing to pay him, like a salary floor and adjustments to the draft and revenue sharing.

[AJAY]

First of all, there is no free market. If there really was a free market, you would have 5 to 7 baseball franchises in the New York area (instead of just the Mets and Yankees having exclusive territorial rights). In a free market, you also wouldn't have all the rules and restrictions about things such as roster size, scheduling, etc. because companies in free markets would be free to operate however they want. If it were really a free market, a team like the Oakland A's could even refuse to do business and not schedule games against the Yankees if they don't like the terms.

 

Baseball has standard rules and a system in place for everything else, so therefore, the owners are well within their right to have rules about what teams can spend. The law allows for collective bargaining and ownership is well within their legal right to propose a salary cap. There needs to be more recognition that free market principles don't apply to the business of sports leagues, especially considering that the nature of the product is intended to be good competition rather than trying to drive each other out of business and stealing each other's customers.

 

I also don't think the players "earned" anything. They bargained for the current system by being tough. The owners could also now be tough and fight for what is right.

 

I do completely agree that profitability is often more of an issue than winning and losing for some owners. I am sure there are at least some teams which are content with losing games but being profitable. That is what scares me most. I just hope there are enough owners who are thinking about the fans and all the misery they have been through. The fans need a strong voice for a change. I especially feel pain for the people of Cleveland who have just about lost every star player who has put on an Indians uniform. Even if the team drafts well and has some success, how could anyone ever get invested knowing that everyone will be gone in a short time? The whole thing is just very insulting.

 

Finally, I don't deny that Wendy Selig was not competent to run the Brewers franchise for all those years. However, that has nothing to do with my personal bitterness towards baseball economics. If a team owner makes poor decisions, that is unfortunate for them and their fans. But what I absolutely can't tolerate is when the system is inherently stacked against you too. As someone already mentioned, even well-run teams are being screwed. If a small market team has success, that means the star players are usually pricing themselves out of that team's future. It's just beyond ridiculous how bad things are.

[snyttri]

The Curt Flood case recognized that players, not just the owners, have economic rights in MLB. The players are free to seek the best salary available in the market as the owners are free to make and spend as much money as they want. MLB players got to their strong position by having their rights recognized in court and by not bargainig them away as the sports with weaker unions did. They didn't get their rights by being tough. They just had the fact that they had the right to seek the value of their service in the free market recognized, the same as anyone else.

 

There needs to be more recognition that free market principles don't apply to the business of sports leagues, especially considering that the nature of the product is intended to be good competition rather than trying to drive each other out of business and stealing each other's customers.

 

Baseball already has the most extensive exemption from the antitrust laws of any business. MLB teams only pretend to be going out of business to get concessions from the union and taxpayers. Competition has been an issue for fans of poorly run small market teams throughout baseball history. The only thing Congress would have any interest in would be keeping cities from losing teams. W-L records are not their job.

 

The Brewers would be have been bad under any system of baseball economics with or without a union when management was by nepotism instead of ability. Do fans of the Twins feel such futility? Middle and small salary teams St.L., Col., CHW and Tampa have all been to the WS recently.

[Invader3K]

I don't think you can really call the Cards and ChiSox small market. And again, pointing to a team like Colorado or Tampa Bay making the World Series once in their entire existences doesn't really prove too much. The statistical odds say that once in a great while, a small market team will make the World Series, maybe even win a championship. Certain teams have been better at it than others (Marlins), but overall if you're the Red Sox or Yankees, your odds of going all the way are much, much greater.

 

AJAY is correct again on his assessment that baseball isn't a true free market. If it was truly free market, players would be able to be cut or fired for under performing, and not be entitled guaranteed contracts which more often than not cripple teams like the Brewers. However, that's beside the point. A lot of fans out there are still very discontent right now. I think his point earlier about feeling a "dark cloud" in regards to players like Prince Fielder is very accurate. Basically you get to enjoy a guy in his prime for maybe 3 or 4 years at most, and then he is likely gone in free agency because he'll get a contract offer the Brewers can't possibly hope to match.

 

It's time to get angry and demand better.

[Teatoe993]

They spent money, they drafted well, they have an all around well-acknowledged GM in place. Then in the past off-season, they were basically punished for it. They tried to give a star player a franchise record, gigantic contract, but were still blown out of the water by the Yankees. They found their financial resources were finite, so they couldn't bring in more good pitchers to replace the ones that left.

 

One thing you have to remember is the way we acquired Sabathia. If baseball were how you want it to be, then we never would have been able to trade for Sabathia for the pennant race because Sabathia would still be pitching in Cleveland. The system works both ways in helping us and hurting us. And honestly I really can't think of any studs we've had in the past ten years or so that we had to trade away due to pending free agency. Maybe I'm just having a brain fart.

[Invader3K]

Burnitz and Sexson spring to mind. You are correct about the fact that Cleveland probably would not have traded Sabathia in a better system...but at least the given system should have worked out where the Brewers got some real compensation for losing him, after having given up LaPorta in the trade.

 

One other thing that gets me is that for years, the big market fans would scream at the small market fans "Maybe your team should spend some money!" Well, teams like Milwaukee have, and it seems like they get burned by those contracts more often than not. They gave big money to Suppan and Hall (yes, I realize it was their choice to do so) and those contracts are like mill stones around the neck. A team like the Yankees can just shrug when a contract doesn't work out, and spend more money on someone else. When one team can spend nearly half a billion in one off season on the top three free agents, that just screams about how much inequity there is in the market place.

[RightFieldCoder]

Yankee fans didn't fret in '96 about Jeter leaving in a couple of years. Red Sox fans aren't pusing to try and make the playoffs before Pabelbon is traded away. Yet Brewer, Twins, Rays, Pirates fans all have to worry about their stars leaving in the forseable future.

[Invader3K]

Yankee fans didn't fret in '96 about Jeter leaving in a couple of years. Red Sox fans aren't pusing to try and make the playoffs before Pabelbon is traded away. Yet Brewer, Twins, Rays, Pirates fans all have to worry about their stars leaving in the forseable future.

 

That's exactly it. If you're a Red Sox or Yankees fan, you get to talk about maybe having Fielder or Gallardo on your team some day. If you're a Brewers fan, you talk about getting some guy that's in the minors right now.

[MJLiverock]

I agree with the general economic idea that the players should receive a big chunk of the money and have some rights a la the Curt Flood case. But there also needs to be some understanding that the Yankees and the rich teams receive a benefit from the league as a whole being popular and from having a team to play against. Nobody except a crazy diehard few will want to see the Yankees scrimmage themselves everyday or play in a league of 8 teams. As popular as the Yankees are, there a vastly more people who don't care about them or don't cheer for them. A league of just a few big market teams would fade away as the majority of people in the whole country wouldn't care enough to follow a team outside their market, al that would be left would be the baseball diehards and a few big markets.

 

Baseball has done better in recent years since the bitterness over the strikes has faded, steroids juiced the offense (chicks and most of the masses dig the long ball), not a lot of competition in the summer, tradtions, and America becoming somewhat sports crazy over the last 20 years. But the rich teams can't become so adamant in hording all the money they push their playing partners to the fringe causing people outside of a few select places to tune out the game as a whole. This is where the TV money which is really the driving force in the disparity between teams comes in. Attendance is nice but even with the Brewers drawing 3 million fans a year they still can't compete with the rich teams because of TV.

 

I will admit I don't know a lot about how the TV money each team gets is split now if at all (other than the national contracts with Fox/TBS/ESPN). Does anyone have any idea of the split if any the teams get on the local TV deals? For instance when the Rays play the Yankees do they get anything from the YES contract or does all the money go to the Yankees, who without the Rays being there wouldn't have a game to televise.

[joepepsi]

Last night I dug out my copy of the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract from 2002. His essay about baseball economics in the 90's has a good idea. He suggests all teams split TV/radio revenue 50/50. So if the Yankees have a $500 million cable package, they get to keep $250 million and must put the other $250 million into a shared pot with 50% of the revenues from every team's media contracts. That pot is then distributed evenly to all 30 teams.

 

Under this plan, the Yankees would still be making a fortune, but the small market teams would also see a huge boost in revenue. Since it takes two teams to play a game, it's only fair the broadcast rights are shared.

[sheethead]

I certainly don't want the type of competitive balance that is in the NFL...

 

Personally, I would love to see NFL type balance in the MLB. The fact that 20+ teams have a chance at a championship each year is part of what makes the NFL the most popular league in the US. Would the league really be better if the Bears could have signed Brett Favre in 1996 because they were offering $5MM more per year than the Packers could offer?

[Invader3K]

Yeah, I know it's not apples to apples, but look at the Packers...many lengthy extended runs of success (yes, I know partly due to their heritage and popularity) in the smallest major sports market in the US, but there is no realistic way the Milwaukee Brewers will ever be able to achieve that in MLB as it is structured now, even if they draw over 3 million every single year and continue to get record TV and radio ratings.

 

MLB is just so stacked against teams like the Brewers it is basically a joke. The Brewers and other franchises shouldn't exist just to be extended feeder teams for other markets, but that is basically how it is at this point.

[RightFieldCoder]

IIRC, the teams have an uneven split of gate receipts (70/30 or 60/40 for tickets), but the team gets 100% of broadcast rights. So the Rays get nothing for being on untold million households with YES.

[sheethead]

So the Rays get nothing for being on untold million households with YES.

 

They do get revenue from their home broadcast partner, but you are right in a sense. They do not benefit from being watched in NY, only from those watching in the Bay area. This is the ultimate source of the problem, and not necessarily ticket sales. The NFL has national broadcast rights, and revenue is distributed to all teams. YES goes directly to the Yankees, which allows them to spend $200+MM on contracts and still make a fortune on the season. They could put out a $300MM team and still turn a profit. All because of broadcast revenue. Since it takes two to play a game, this seems unfair and unbalanced. Teams 9-30 should threaten to break away from MLB and form their own league, one that's structured to benefit the LEAGUE and not just three or four teams. Let the other 8 teams have the MLB (Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, White Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Phillies, and Mets). See how they like an 8 team league.