Of Baseballs and Payrolls

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: jocycliff
So small market teams should just suck it up and spend. You can't run a business that way what makes you think an owner wants to do it.

Sure, but a small market team cannot sustain massive losses every season. You seem to think that spending money will magically and permanently increase their market. It won't.

Baseball money doesn't come from fans going to the games. It comes from the TV revenue. The Yankees have the name to sell TV rights not only in the northeast but also places like Japan. Where that is the most popular team there and make fat jack from that TV contract.

The Yankees and other large market teams also make 'fat jack' from their US TV revenues. The small market teams don't make nearly as much simply because their market is small.

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: isasir
Bill Gates should start a baseball team. Maybe he can buy out the Mariners.

He can call them the Micro Sox

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Obviously, having a high payroll helps you win. It doesn't guarantee anything (as shown by the 2004 Yankees), but it helps to have better players. Better players demand higher salaries which equals a higher payroll. But this is my beef: People get upset at George Steinbrenner for doing what he does, and accuse him of trying to "buy" a championship. It's just good business. In baseball, winning equals profit, because that brings in the fans, sells tickets, gets higher TV contracts because more people want to watch a winning team, sells more merchandise, etc. etc. Why can't other owners try the same thing? There are plenty of owners who are more wealthy than George, but aren't willing to make that investment. They need to quit whining because they don't want to spend. The Yankees were able to start their own TV network because of the amount of fans that their winning years brought in. And how did they win? Through spending money. Other teams can do it to, they just don't want to.

Now I realize there are teams in smaller markets that even if they are successful will never have Yankee type profits. They need to spend more to compete. If they can't or won't, they need to close up shop, just like in any other business. But realize too, that it's not all about market size. Ask any Met fan.

i have to disagree. in the short run it might seem better, but in the long run all of baseball benefits from a more competitive league. sports competition is not the same as business competition. baseball teams compete AGAINST each other on the baseball diamond but they really shouldn't look at each others as competitors in the BUSINESS arena. that's a common mistake.

baseballs competition is football, basketball (well you know what i mean) etc. they are competing with other forms of entertainment. as such, george's BUYING hurts the league as a whole.

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Obviously, having a high payroll helps you win. It doesn't guarantee anything (as shown by the 2004 Yankees), but it helps to have better players. Better players demand higher salaries which equals a higher payroll. But this is my beef: People get upset at George Steinbrenner for doing what he does, and accuse him of trying to "buy" a championship. It's just good business. In baseball, winning equals profit, because that brings in the fans, sells tickets, gets higher TV contracts because more people want to watch a winning team, sells more merchandise, etc. etc. Why can't other owners try the same thing? There are plenty of owners who are more wealthy than George, but aren't willing to make that investment. They need to quit whining because they don't want to spend. The Yankees were able to start their own TV network because of the amount of fans that their winning years brought in. And how did they win? Through spending money. Other teams can do it to, they just don't want to.

Now I realize there are teams in smaller markets that even if they are successful will never have Yankee type profits. They need to spend more to compete. If they can't or won't, they need to close up shop, just like in any other business. But realize too, that it's not all about market size. Ask any Met fan.

i have to disagree. in the short run it might seem better, but in the long run all of baseball benefits from a more competitive league. sports competition is not the same as business competition. baseball teams compete AGAINST each other on the baseball diamond but they really shouldn't look at each others as competitors in the BUSINESS arena. that's a common mistake.

baseballs competition is football, basketball (well you know what i mean) etc. they are competing with other forms of entertainment. as such, george's BUYING hurts the league as a whole.

Of course George's buying hurts the whole league...but the players union doesn't want a salary cap, owners dont want to have a minimum payroll.

No one wants to budge, which is what makes baseball less competitive in comparison with the other sports.