NL wild card

[packs]

Originally Posted by BobC

I don't think they really can all spend the same amount. Unlike the NFL, which I believe handles all the TV contracts and deals for the entire league, and then shares the money among all the teams, MLB teams I believe are much more on their own when it comes to TV and contracts. It was Steinbrenner who I believe was the first to really make a big difference when he started putting the Yankees games on their own cable network. Big market teams get bigger paydays because advertisers pay more to advertise in larger markets.

Now of course the owners of smaller market teams could, if they're rich enough, just spend tons of their own money to try and compete more easily against the big market teams, and simply have their franchises operate at a loss every year. But then don't forget, MLB teams are, and always have been, businesses first. And even very rich small market team owners likely can't afford to just keep funding losing businesses year after year after year.

Sorry, I don't believe that. Everyone knows a winning product is a valuable product. If an owner wanted to maximize profit they would build a winning team. It worked for the Patriots. It can work for any losing franchise.

But absent owners don't do that because they don't care about the team. They care about maximum profits on minimum budgets and that means operating as cheaply as possible and not really caring about a championship. Look at the Pirates. They've had grievances filed against them twice for not spending their revenue share money on their team. Every team also made 100 million dollars in TV contracts before even selling a ticket this year.

How a fan of a small market team can be both satisfied and wear that as a badge of honor is not something I'll ever understand.

[KCRfan1]

I agree PACKS.

A winning team is great for the bottom line.

This is accomplished via FA, assuming the right player / players are available and a fit for the team. In baseball, is the player a fit for the stadium? The player also has to want to play for the team. When Pete Rose became a FA from the Reds, KC made a generous offer and I believe the highest offer. And Pete signed with Philly.

A more cost effective way to build the team is via the draft. If a team has high picks, they cannot whiff those picks. KC cannot develop a pitcher to save their life. Yet they have high pitching draft picks and they are getting rocked in the minors. Perhaps they were poor selections, but it continues to be an issue regardless. This is not lost on those pitchers who have seen former KC arms go elsewhere and experience much better success.

So a combination of smart FA signings with players who want to play for the team AND being able to develop players are essential.

Pro franchises are very valuable. I am surprised that more owners aren't involved or current on the state of that asset.

[packs]

It's about WANTING to win. There is no way you'll ever convince me the owner of the Pirates wants to win. How could you? But then if by some miracle the Pirates do find themselves in a World Series, all of their fans will want to pat themselves on the back for backing the small guy.

But you aren't backing the small guy. You're backing the guy who could care less.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Sorry, I don't believe that. Everyone knows a winning product is a valuable product. If an owner wanted to maximize profit they would build a winning team. It worked for the Patriots. It can work for any losing franchise.

But absent owners don't do that because they don't care about the team. They care about maximum profits on minimum budgets and that means operating as cheaply as possible and not really caring about a championship. Look at the Pirates. They've had grievances filed against them twice for not spending their revenue share money on their team. Every team also made 100 million dollars in TV contracts before even selling a ticket this year.

How a fan of a small market team can be both satisfied and wear that as a badge of honor is not something I'll ever understand.

Don't entirely disagree, but have you ever been involved with a sale of a business, any business? If a small market team owner generates losses from the business year after year, even if the result is a winning team, those recurring losses will normally drive the business' value down, not up. Do you know what EBITDA is and how most businesses are valued and sold using some multiple of that factor?

Also, I fully realize there is a revenue sharing aspect when it comes to TV/cable revenue, like with the MLB network. But there are also then local broadcast rights, and an even bigger exception to that revenue sharing concept as I understand it if the baseball team itself also owns a share/interest in the TV/cable network that handles a team's local broadcasting. For example, my understanding is the Red Sox own something like 80% of the company they have contracted with to provide local broadcasts of their games. So, if after receiving and accounting for the normal revenue they got for their local broadcast rights, let's say the company doing the broadcasting ended up making $100M for the year. That means the Red Sox have an additional $80M of revenue that doesn't get counted towards any revenue sharing, that they can potentially spend on players.

You are correct though in that ALL baseball teams are businesses, and the only thing that ALL of them have in common is that ALL any of the owners possibly truly care about is making money, first and foremost. The fact is that some teams, mostly all from the bigger market teams, end up getting so much more revenue than their smaller market brethren that those big market team owners can almost indiscriminately spend as much as they want to lure away the top talent in free agency. Those big market team owners don't really care so much about the fans either. They know they can outspend the other team owners, thereby having the winning bragging rights they can then lord over the other owners, AND still make a sh@tload of money doing it. And don't kid yourself, the bigger market team owners do want to win to not necessarily make the fans happy, but likely more so to keep the viewing numbers up so they can show those figures to advertisers, and charge them even more money.

[packs]

Let’s be real. We’re not talking about a general store and we’re not talking about an owner just trying to keep the lights on. Every team has billions of dollars behind it. But not every owner wants to win.

[clydepepper]

Meanwhile, the Braves keep locking up their talent long-term...Strider today...

I don't know why they haven't gotten Dansby signed...starting to worry.

He's been Mr. Clutch lately.


...oh, I'm sorry...this was the wild card thread...oops. (snicker; chuckle)

.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

Let’s be real. We’re not talking about a general store and we’re not talking about an owner just trying to keep the lights on. Every team has billions of dollars behind it. But not every owner wants to win.

Believe what you like, but when it comes to business, regardless of it being a general store or a baseball team, they do all tend to follow a similar pattern and treatment, whether you can admit that or not.

[packs]

Originally Posted by BobC

Believe what you like, but when it comes to business, regardless of it being a general store or a baseball team, they do all tend to follow a similar pattern and treatment, whether you can admit that or not.

You can see it playing out though. The A’s, Rays, Pirates and Marlins all had grievances filed against them for not reinvesting the revenue sharing money into their team. Those owners don’t want to win. It has nothing to do with market.

The Warriors were a dead franchise going nowhere. They have always played in the Bay Area. The same market as the A’s. Now the Warriors are NBA royalty and Steph Curry is one of the most recognizable faces in the NBA. How did that happen? They started winning in the same market they’ve always been in.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by packs

You can see it playing out though. The A’s, Rays, Pirates and Marlins all had grievances filed against them for not reinvesting the revenue sharing money into their team. Those owners don’t want to win. It has nothing to do with market.

The Warriors were a dead franchise going nowhere. They have always played in the Bay Area. The same market as the A’s. Now the Warriors are NBA royalty and Steph Curry is one of the most recognizable faces in the NBA. How did that happen? They started winning in the same market they’ve always been in.

In those cases where teams did not properly spend the money they were supposed to, I can see and agree with you on that. Still we don't really khow what the monies were spent on. Just assuming the owners pocketed it may, or may not, be accurate. It is also possible they were saving up to make offers to free agents that did not get accepted. Or they're pooling and saving the funds to make future offers and deals. Also, I know it isn't looked upon favorably, but occasionally sports teams will tank to get higher draft picks. Doesn't seem to be as prevalent in baseball, but who knows for sure if some team doesn't want to spend the money on better players right now so they can get that higher draft spot.

Truth is, we don't know for sure. There may be some team owners looking just for the cash, but by a team operating to win it usually makes the fans happier and more interested, which usually equates to more tickets sold and more viewers, which then generally equates to more revenue and profit, and ultimately more team value, to the owner. Some team owners may not be too worried and care much about the fans, but the bottom line is they'll usually try to win because it should lead to them making even more money when the fans are happy. So in essence, such owners probably do worry about making the fans happy, just maybe not for the reason(s) we'd like.

[Shoeless Moe]

Also, just look at Judge & DeGrom, both will be free agents.

So technically all 30 teams have a shot at them right?

Wrong.......look at any article out there, or anyone in the know. They will have the top 5 or top 7 landing spots for them.

And it will be the same 5 or 7 teams. Maybe 1 different. You think Judge is signing with the Angels? or the A's? or the Pirates?

Not bloody likely.

Mr. Packs Man you are nutty if you think the playing field is level.