What's up with Corey Hart? Latest: Hart wins arbitration hearing (post # 190)

[sheethead]

I know Ennder's mind has been made up for quite a while, but for the rest of us...

 

Past decade by Nielsen Local Television Market Universe Estimates:

 

World Series:

NYY - 1 (4)

NYN - 1

PHI - 4 (2)

TB - 14

BOS - 7 (2)

COL - 16

STL - 21 (2)

DET - 11

CHA - 3

HOU - 10

FLA - 17

LAA - 2

SFG - 6

ARI - 12

 

Average market size of MLB team to make the WS: 8

 

Super Bowl:

PIT - 23 (2)

ARI - 12

NYG - 1 (2)

NE - 7 (4)

IND - 25 (2)

CHI - 3

SEA - 13

PHI - 4

CAR - 24

TB - 14

OAK - 6

STL - 21

BAL - 27

NO - 51

 

Average market size of NFL team to make the SB: 15

 

Can anyone imagine the Pittsburgh Pirates getting to the World Series FOUR TWO times in the next decade in the current MLB structure? I know I sure couldn't. Sure the Patriots pulled out a dynasty, but it wasn't because they were buying up all the Steelers free agents. It just can't be much clearer for me. But I can see how an avid supporter of the way it is could make it a little murky by just looking at raw numbers.

 

Green Bay - 70 (can't wait to see this number skew it even more after next year).

[Invader3K]

Yeah...and it's also worth pointing out that it isn't that exciting to see the Rays or Rockies make it to the World Series, only to lose 4-0 or 4-1. Yes, that's sort of cherry picking, but the fact remains that only the biggest market teams in MLB have a legitimate consistent chance of actually winning a championship. The small market teams basically just have to hope they can luck into the playoffs and hope for a respectable run.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Yeah...and it's also worth pointing out that it isn't that exciting to see the Rays or Rockies make it to the World Series, only to lose 4-0 or 4-1. Yes, that's sort of cherry picking, but the fact remains that only the biggest market teams in MLB have a legitimate consistent chance of actually winning a championship. The small market teams basically just have to hope they can luck into the playoffs and hope for a respectable run.

Marlins - Yankees

D-Backs - Yankees.

 

Ugh. Just the fact that I'm saying there's a decent balance in baseball leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

The playoffs are a crap shoot, at least IMO. The Yankees have been to the playoffs 8 times in the last 9 years, and are 9-8 in those playoff series.

[Ennder]

Past decade by Nielsen Local Television Market Universe Estimates:

 

Those ratings are meaningless without some context though and it isn't very useful comparing them across sports with such different structures. Pitt has the 20th size ranking but they are more equivalent to an MLB large market team for the NFL than say Arizona is ever going to be. On that NFL list the impressive teams are NO, BAL, STL, CAR and IND and maybe sneak in SEA. The rest of those teams might as well be large market teams in the context of the NFL because they are places free agents are going to want to sign and places that probably can sign players for below market value. MLB teams I"d be impressed by are TB, COL, FLA and ARI. STL might be a smaller market but they've always had a healthy payroll so hard to include them on the baseball side. Baseball should be judged more on team payroll than anything with market size being a distant 2nd since endorsements don't mean quite as much to the baseball player while they are a large part of why a football player will pick one team over another.

 

 

As for most teams can't hope to make the playoffs.

 

AL West - Rangers, Mariners and Angels all should be considered strong contenders and Oakland could sneak in with some health from Sheets/Dusch.

AL Central - Twins, White Sox, Tigers can all make very strong cases for being contenders. The Royals are run horribly so like the Lions aren't in the discussion. Cleveland is probably in rebuild mode.

AL East - Rays, Yankees, Red Sox are all strong contenders. The Orioles and Blue Jays could be contenders in a different division if things bounce right with their young players. This division is obviously the problem, it all revolves around the Yankees needing to be fixed.

 

I'd say 12 of 16 AL teams have a real shot at making the playoffs.

 

NL West - Dodgers and Rockies are strong contenders. Giants and Diamondbacks could easily be in the picture with some good health.

NL Central - Any team but the Pirates could realistically win this sad division. Cardinals are the favorites if they keep the big 4 healthy all year but hard to put odds on Carpenter with his injury history.

NL East - Nats probably don't have enough and I'm not seeing it with the Mets. The other 3 teams are all strong contenders.

 

As many as 12 of the 14 NL teams could have a shot to make the playoffs. I'd say about 10 of 14 have a real shot.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxsc...probabilities-simulation

 

Using PECOTA simulations there were 4 teams that came out with an under 10% chance to make the playoffs for 2010. 17 of 30 had a 20% chance or better. Baseball needs some work still but it isn't anywhere near as bad as people try to make it sound like. A salary floor would certainly help and better media revenue sharing is an obvious next step as well.

[snyttri]

"Yes, but if you look at the teams that by and large make and WIN the World Series, it's been almost exclusively the big market teams in the last ten years. For every freak Marlins championship, there's 4-5 Yankees/Boston/LA/Chicago winners."

The White Sox and Angels were mid-level salary teams as the Brewers are now when they won the Series. http://www.bizofbaseball....nalPayrollbyYear_MLB.pdf

The financially weakest teams in baseball that do not even bother to spend the revenue sharing money that is doled out to them, the Rays and Marlins, can win. Of the other poorest teams the A's often do well but the Pirates and Royals just don't seem to be well managed. Some of the poor teams have owners or investors with pockets as deep as the Yankees but they don't seem to use their resources to get the best management available.

I would like to see the Yankees taxed more severely and the owners share their revenues better. But the Yankees dominated the most when baseball was at its most popular so the Yankee problem is not new or fatal. Hopefully an international draft and other changes will help offset the increasing disparity that has resulted from increasing overall revenues going mostly to the richer teams.

Some cities will always have an advantage over others because they are considered better places to live.

[rluzinski]

The NFL contracts are in fact binding for both parties. Its not like teams just tear up a contract and send a player packing. Its written into the contract that players can be cut or released.

 

Can it be written in the contract that a player can be released from it at a time of HIS choosing? If it can, than I stand corrected. And with the size of signing bonuses getting larger and larger, it's not really fair of me to suggest that NFL contracts are completely unguaranteed.

 

If NFL contracts were all for guaranteed money, they would have to remove the salary cap.

 

Why?

[sheethead]

Can it be written in the contract that a player can be released from it at a time of HIS choosing?

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with the contract that is actually signed being binding. Can I write into my mortgage agreement that I will pay 1% interest?

 

If NFL contracts were all for guaranteed money, they would have to remove the salary cap.

 

Why?

 

Injuries.

[sheethead]

...it isn't very useful comparing them across sports with such different structures.

 

You started it http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[monty57]

In my opinion, the most glaring difference is that in football, all of the TV deals are national, and the TV revenue is shared. In baseball, most of the TV deals are local, with each team negotiating their own TV deal and getting that revenue. Some team owners even own the TV station, which allows them to work around MLB revenue sharing. The biggest advantage teams like the Yankees have over the Brewers is that they receive at least $100MM more per year from their TV deal than the Brewers receive. Therefore, the single biggest "fix" that could be done to the MLB system would be for the MLB to negotiate TV deals and share all of the revenue equally among all of the teams.

 

However, the biggest problem MLB has when it comes to this is that the owners will never get together. What incentive do the Yankees have to agree to this? As long as the arguement is over a salary cap, the big market teams and the players' union are on the same side against the small market teams. If the arguement goes to TV revenue sharing, the players' union really wouldn't care one way or the other. So, it makes sense for the big market teams to keep the arguement on the salary cap, which is a situation they know they will win.

 

I see the system working out as technology takes the next step. In the not-too-distant future, we are going to get our television programming over the internet. Bud Selig wisely insisted that all internet revenue is shared. Therefore, more of the television revenues will be shared in the not-too-distant future. I think Selig pulled one over on the big market teams with this move.

[Invader3K]

Hopefully you are right, monty. I can't see any reason for a team like the Yankees to ever share their traditional TV revenue with other teams. I mean, to be fair to them, they spent the money to build up their YES Network. Really, why should they share that money? There's just no incentive for them to do so. It just stinks that the Brewers are saddled with a far inferior TV deal. I know they signed a new deal last year, but I don't remember ever hearing the actual terms. Is it correct to assume they still have probably the worst TV deal in the majors?

[sheethead]

In my opinion, the most glaring difference is that in football, all of the TV deals are national, and the TV revenue is shared.

 

That's exactly the difference between the two, and the biggest reason for huge disparity in payrolls.

There's just no incentive for them to do so.

 

The incentive might one day be to keep the league viable going forward.

[Invader3K]

Maybe, sheethead. But right now all of MLB is raking in tons of money. I don't think any team can really make the case that they are financially nonviable. The Yankees could turn around say that even poor drawing teams like the A's and Pirates are already getting revenue sharing from the big market clubs, money which they may not even be fully spending on their on-the-field teams. It seems like it would be a hard case to argue that the Yankees need to share money from their TV channel in order to keep the rest of the league afloat.

[Ennder]

...it isn't very useful comparing them across sports with such different structures.

 

You started it http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

But I didn't, my argument had nothing to do with market size. Just that baseball is competitive for the majority of teams. All I did was show that about the same percentage of teams made the big game between the two sports. The numbers posted really have no meaning in the context of the sports because market size is only a tiny bit of the puzzle for why one team would have an advantage over another.

[sheethead]

All I did was show that about the same percentage of teams made the big game between the two sports. The numbers posted really have no meaning in the context of the sports because market size is only a tiny bit of the puzzle for why one team would have an advantage over another.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see how showing a percentage of teams making it to the championship round would have any more context than correlating market size to teams that make it. Market size obviously has a lot to do with making it in MLB, and less to do with in in the NFL. Again, its mainly due to disparity in television revenues, which is strongly tied to market size.

I don't think any team can really make the case that they are financially nonviable.

 

The MLB has been talked about contraction several times within the last decade. I am not altogether sure how many teams are rolling in dough, as many team's financials are not public.

[Invader3K]

Well, like 10 years ago possible contraction was discussed. However, even some of the teams that would seem to have been poorer, such as the Twins, Marlins, and Rays, have new stadiums lined up. The A's seem to be not well off right now, and I expect they will either get a new stadium or move sooner than later. The Royals seem to be relatively secure as well, having just completed a nice renovation to Kauffman Stadium. These things tend to sort themselves out.

[joepepsi]

The A's have broken ground on a new stadium I believe.

 

I'm convinced all teams are making plenty of money. Even if "plenty" is an overstatement all teams are pretty rich in equity. Every recent team sold has turned a handsome profit for the former owners. A team has no reason to demonstrate profitability, at least not in a public forum. That would only hurt their bargaining position with players and fans.

[Invader3K]

The A's have broken ground on a new stadium I believe.

No, I don't believe that is true. Previously a deal to move to either Fremont or San Jose was thought to be in place, but those have seemed to fall through. They're still considering possible relocation destinations, it seems. They may also build a new stadium in Oakland yet.

[rluzinski]

I'm not sure what this has to do with the contract that is actually signed being binding. Can I write into my mortgage agreement that I will pay 1% interest?

If the bank will agree to it, sure.

I shouldn't have said that the contract "isn't binding" for the team. I should have said that the team can "opt out" of the contract, while the player usually can't. I suspect that the vast majority of posters understood what I meant, however.

If NFL contracts were all for guaranteed money, they would have to remove the salary cap.

Why?

Injuries.

There are many potential solutions to that issue. Off the top of my head, you could raise the cap for that team by some percentage of the injured player's contract, up to some maximum dollar value, for instance. That would be more of a soft cap, I guess, but that would be fine by me.

[kramnoj]

The MLB has been talked about contraction several times within the last decade.

 

It was a negotiating tactic on two fronts. One, there was a new CBA that was being negotiated. It was written in the CBA that contraction wouldn't take place for a certain amount of time, and the union gave up something for it (I don't recall what, it wasn't major). Second, by talking about contraction, it was intended to add a spark to the notion that the Twins needed a new stadium.

 

Baseball is doing incredibly well, and the team that is making the least amount of money recently has been the Yankees (but they have been increasing the franchise value).

[sheethead]

I should have said that the team can "opt out" of the contract, while the player usually can't.

 

They can opt out because its written in the contract that they can. I get where you are coming from, but the signing bonuses that don't exist in baseball make up for it (i'm talking vets here).

[monty57]

Baseball is doing incredibly well, and the team that is making the least amount of money recently has been the Yankees (but they have been increasing the franchise value).

 

The Yankees making the least amount of money is probably due in large part to accounting. The Yankees making money means more money spent to smaller clubs. Therefore, the Steinbrenners (Yankees) charge themselves (YES Network) less money for the TV deal and they make the revenue with YES Network rather than with the Yankees, so that they don't have to distribute it out to the other teams through revenue sharing. Nice & easy way around the MLB-imposed "taxes" that owners who own their own networks can utilize.

 

But I agree with you that baseball as a whole is doing well, and it's not overly likely that anything is going to change any time soon when baseball is raking in fans & money. Let's not forget that as much as we Brewer fans like to see our team on national TV, the ratings are at their highest when the Yankees play the Red Sox, so giving them an unfair advantage probably increases the revenue for MLB in their national advertising. I don't like it, but it's probably true.

[sheethead]

All good points monty, and I'm not trying to say that MLB is struggling financially. Just saying they could be at some point in the future if fans turn their disposable income in elsewhere because their team's $120M payroll will never compete with aonther teams $600M payroll.

[monty57]

Agreed. Someone on the site has my quote from long ago in their tag line: The big market teams need the small market teams, because fans aren't going to show up simply to watch the Yankees play with themselves :-)

 

I'm a capitalist, and in the business world, you try to destroy your competition and put them out of business. In baseball, you can't destroy the competition, as you're in a symbiotic relationship with them... if you destroyed the competition, you'd be left on a field by yourself. Instead, whoever wins the World Series starts out the next year at 0-0, just like everyone else. If it gets to the point that small market fans lose interest and stop spending their money on baseball, no one wins. I believe Selig has helped us get back to a "more fair" system. It's still heavily weighted in favor of a few teams/markets, but at least every team has a chance, even though they are at a disadvantge.

[bigredrobbo]

Hey, it works for the Harlem Globetrotters!

[joepepsi]

I believe Selig has helped us get back to a "more fair" system.

I don't agree with the this. MLB had more parity and teams had a better chance of keeping their star players before the 1994 strike. Market size was basically irrelevant in the initial period of free agency, from the late 1970's to the 94 strike.