Yankees to sign Kerry Wood? Seriously?

[pigskincardboard]

I figured I'd have to clarify this for a Yankees fan. Did you read the paragraph? You can't judge whether or not money was spent successfully based on whether or not a team wins the world series because in small series, such as the playoffs, the role of chance is an important factor in determining the winner. Any amount of money cannot buy you a 100% chance of winning the world series; it just doesn't work like that. The Yankees or anyone can only ever give themselves a statistical advantage heading into a fairly short series. It's still quite possible that a 200M will lose to a 80M in a seven game series. If they played 100 games, the Yankees would more than likely win 70 give or take 7 or 8 wins. In a seven game series though, the Yankees expected value of wins is probably about 4 or 5 but there's almost no certainty. It wouldn't be outer-worldly for the opposing team to win 4 games and the Yankees, 3.

Back to the problem with revenue sharing, is there a difference between spending 27 Million and spending 47 million? Does that put you in the Top-4 Teams (playoff teams) in your league? Does it put you in the top 8? Last year as an example, the top-8 were all above 100M. As an owner, you have to ask whether or not spending to the floor of 60M does anything for your chance to win. Is there a fiscal difference for the Marlins if they spend as much as the Nationals and the Mets, Phils and Braves still have them easily covered? It may make perfect sense for them to take the 20M profit at their current level. Does sacrificing your profit of 20M justify an increase in 0.7% of making the playoffs and the increased playoff revenue?

No, you don't have to clarify it for me, I understood, I just disagree with you. I think the sacrifice is worth it if you want to risk bringing a competitive team to opening day. If not, then they should let their fans know that so they can stop blaming the Yankees and Red Sox for spending so much money and they can focus their anger on the owners of their favorite teams for not spending enough money. I know, I know....small markets etc....I'll call the Wambulance. Of course, bringing in a star player doesn't always equate to more attendance. The Rangers' attendance only went up an average of 3K/game from 2000 to 2001 and then it fell around 5K/game from 2001 to 2002. Again, it's a risk....but I think fans would be more appreciative of their owners if they were at least making an effort to put out a solid product on the field.

If a cap was established it would still be set very high...most likely in the 125M to 150M range because the players union would have a stroke otherwise. If it was indeed set for 150M, then only two teams (Yankees and Red Sox) would have to do some cutting to meet the cap. Things will be status quo for everyone else. Now, without a floor the Pirates would still have the same payroll and the Yankees would have theirs right at the cap limit and nothing would change.

guh.

Yankees Spend 200M and Win World Series, ROI = 110%
Royals Spend 200M and Win World Series, ROI = -50%

You seem to think that anyone can spend the big-bucks and succeed, but it's simply NOT POSSIBLE. Unless you're in a market of 3M or more, spending money on high-dollar contracts is essentially throwing money away.

New York
New York
Chicago
Detroit
Philadelphia
Boston
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Houston
Seattle
Chicago
Atlanta

and now...

NY 21.9M
LA 17.7M
CHI 9.7M
WAS-BAL 8.2M
BOS 7.4M
SAN JOSE, SAN FRAN, OAK - 7.2M
PHI - 6.3M
DAL 6.3M
HOU 5.6M
ATL 5.4M
MIA 5.4M
DET 5.4M
PHO 4.0M
SEA 3.9M

Notice how the size of the metro area correlates quite strongly with payroll? You understand that competing with the Yankees would result in the franchise folding in a year, right?

 

[Labratt21]

I figured I'd have to clarify this for a Yankees fan. Did you read the paragraph? You can't judge whether or not money was spent successfully based on whether or not a team wins the world series because in small series, such as the playoffs, the role of chance is an important factor in determining the winner. Any amount of money cannot buy you a 100% chance of winning the world series; it just doesn't work like that. The Yankees or anyone can only ever give themselves a statistical advantage heading into a fairly short series. It's still quite possible that a 200M will lose to a 80M in a seven game series. If they played 100 games, the Yankees would more than likely win 70 give or take 7 or 8 wins. In a seven game series though, the Yankees expected value of wins is probably about 4 or 5 but there's almost no certainty. It wouldn't be outer-worldly for the opposing team to win 4 games and the Yankees, 3.

Back to the problem with revenue sharing, is there a difference between spending 27 Million and spending 47 million? Does that put you in the Top-4 Teams (playoff teams) in your league? Does it put you in the top 8? Last year as an example, the top-8 were all above 100M. As an owner, you have to ask whether or not spending to the floor of 60M does anything for your chance to win. Is there a fiscal difference for the Marlins if they spend as much as the Nationals and the Mets, Phils and Braves still have them easily covered? It may make perfect sense for them to take the 20M profit at their current level. Does sacrificing your profit of 20M justify an increase in 0.7% of making the playoffs and the increased playoff revenue?

No, you don't have to clarify it for me, I understood, I just disagree with you. I think the sacrifice is worth it if you want to risk bringing a competitive team to opening day. If not, then they should let their fans know that so they can stop blaming the Yankees and Red Sox for spending so much money and they can focus their anger on the owners of their favorite teams for not spending enough money. I know, I know....small markets etc....I'll call the Wambulance. Of course, bringing in a star player doesn't always equate to more attendance. The Rangers' attendance only went up an average of 3K/game from 2000 to 2001 and then it fell around 5K/game from 2001 to 2002. Again, it's a risk....but I think fans would be more appreciative of their owners if they were at least making an effort to put out a solid product on the field.

If a cap was established it would still be set very high...most likely in the 125M to 150M range because the players union would have a stroke otherwise. If it was indeed set for 150M, then only two teams (Yankees and Red Sox) would have to do some cutting to meet the cap. Things will be status quo for everyone else. Now, without a floor the Pirates would still have the same payroll and the Yankees would have theirs right at the cap limit and nothing would change.

guh.

Yankees Spend 200M and Win World Series, ROI = 110%
Royals Spend 200M and Win World Series, ROI = -50%

You seem to think that anyone can spend the big-bucks and succeed, but it's simply NOT POSSIBLE. Unless you're in a market of 3M or more, spending money on high-dollar contracts is essentially throwing money away.

New York
New York
Chicago
Detroit
Philadelphia
Boston
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Houston
Seattle
Chicago
Atlanta

and now...

NY 21.9M
LA 17.7M
CHI 9.7M
WAS-BAL 8.2M
BOS 7.4M
SAN JOSE, SAN FRAN, OAK - 7.2M
PHI - 6.3M
DAL 6.3M
HOU 5.6M
ATL 5.4M
MIA 5.4M
DET 5.4M
PHO 4.0M
SEA 3.9M

Notice how the size of the metro area correlates quite strongly with payroll? You understand that competing with the Yankees would result in the franchise folding in a year, right?

I've added the Payrolls of the MLB teams to go along with your population numbers

NY 21.9M - Yankees (206M), Mets (133M)
LA 17.7M - Angels (105M), Dodgers (95M)
CHI 9.7M - Cubs (147M), White Sox (108M)
WAS-BAL 8.2M - Nationals (61M), Orioles (81M)
BOS 7.4M - Red Sox (163M)
SAN JOSE, SAN FRAN, OAK - 7.2M - Athletics (52M), Giants (98M)
PHI - 6.3M - Phillies (142M)
DAL 6.3M - Rangers (55M)
HOU 5.6M - Astros (92M)
ATL 5.4M - Braves (84M)
MIA 5.4M - Marlins (56M)
DET 5.4M - Tigers (123M)
PHO 4.0M - Diamondbacks (61M)
SEA 3.9M - Mariners (98M)

I'm also going to add a few more to the list

MIL 2M - Brewers (81M)
Minn/St. Paul 3.3M - Twins (98M)
St. Louis 2.8M - Cardinals (94M)
Kansas City 2M - Royals (72M)
PITT 2.4M - Pirates (35M)

Now, by your definition the Marlins, Diamondbacks and Athletics should be outspending the Brewers because they have a greater population. However, the Brewers outspend the Marlins by about 25M/year, the D-Backs by about 20M/year and the A's by about 29M/year. So, while population can definitely correlate with payroll, it's not the standard by which a team should spend, or by which we should judge them. The A's will always be the best argument against a high metro population equating to a high payroll. They don't want to spend money in Oakland, and that's just something those fans are going to have to deal with. If there was a salary floor as in the NFL then this wouldn't matter. But I also believe that the floor for the NFL is out for this year and 2011...but I could be wrong there. Which means that teams like my beloved Raiders will suck again because Al Davis is going to pocket the cash and try to complete his Lazarus machine. Like we need that dill-hole at the helm for another 25 years....sorry, tangent.

And even then, the Pirates have a higher metro area population than the Royals and Brewers, but they spend less than half of what either of them does on their payroll. Now, I never said that everyone should have a 200M payroll or even a 100M payroll. That just can't happen. But the Pirates could at least spend as much as KC or Arizona do (60M) and TRY to make it look like they're being competitive. The only way that's going to happen is if they're forced to use revenue sharing money and invest it into the team by increasing the payroll and/or salary floor.

 

[pigskincardboard]

There's definitely bad owners, I won't dispute that, and a few of the examples are due to circumstances. Texas obviously comes to mind...

There's always variance, but here are the numbers
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY NYY
LAD BOS BOS NYM BOS BOS BOS BOS NYM NYM BOS
BAL LAD TEX ATL LAA NYM LAA NYM DET CHC CHC
ATL NYM ARI LAD NYM LAA CHW LAA BOS BOS PHI
BOS CLE LAD TEX PHI PHI NYM CHW CHW DET NYM
NYM ATL NYM BOS LAD STL LAD LAD LAA LAA DET
ARI TEX ATL SEA CHC SFG CHC SEA LAD PHI CHW
CLE ARI SEA STL ATL SEA HOU CHC CHC HOU LAA
TEX STL CLE SFG STL CHC ATL DET SEA LAD SFG
TB TOR SFG ARI SFG ATL SFG BAL ATL SEA MIN


Yes, Tampa and Minnesota will show up once and a while. Most of the time, the Houston Area just falls outside the top-10. Texas hasn't been in the top-10 since 04, but that's a case unto itself.

If you go back to the 90s, we're dealing with

(1990) 1. KCR 24M vs. Last CHW 9.5M (about 2.5)
(1995) 1. TOR 49M vs. WAS (i guess MTL) 12M (about 4.0)
(2000) 1. NYY 90M vs. MIN 15M (about 6.0)
(2010) 1. NYY 206M vs. PIT 34M (about 6.0)

So, you're basically looking at teams in smaller markets having ONE shot of a maximum of 3 years to win. Other than that, we're dealing with the same teams over and over again.

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Bay Area (it's not Oakland's fault that it's Oakland), PHI and ATL. With Boston and Seattle having a reach well beyond their actual metro-size.

It's not rocket science and I bet in the past 20 years, you'll have a correllation coefficient of at least 0.85 on a payroll vs. target market.

 

[Labratt21]

It's not rocket science and I bet in the past 20 years, you'll have a correllation coefficient of at least 0.85 on a payroll vs. target market.

I agree with you, it would be also really interesting too see the differences between the two coefficients if you were to take salaries before and after free agency vs target market. I think the issue with the lower payroll teams is that if they start winning and have a successful season, say 97 or 03 Marlins, they let all of their top talent go and drop payroll again. Where as any of the top 10 payrolls continue to keep those players and in many cases sign more top dollar free agents. So, the question would be, why the fire sale? Are they trying to take in the revenue from winning and then drop down to last to benefit from revenue sharing and do a double dip? Maybe, kinda a conspiracy theory, but who knows.

A 200M payroll doesn't win games, just like a 37M payroll doesn't win games. But if a lower pay-rolled team wants to keep their young talent and keep people going to their games then they're going to have to spend the money to keep them there. There's just no way around that. If they don't then all they are is a minor league system for the top 15 teams. A cap would keep the Yankees/Red Sox from buying everyone and a floor would keep the Pirates from letting go of everyone.


.....And you're also right about Oakland. My family had season tickets there from 89 through 92. It was such a fun place to go to and then I'm just not sure what happened. It's like a scene from Beyond Thunderdome there.

 

[Hallsgator]

I have no problem with the Yankees "buying" championships. Complain all you want, but they're playing within the guidelines of an uncapped sport. If you want to place blame, place it with the players' union, which will never allow a salary cap.

The problem is with teams who generate revenue, but put a crap product on the field. According to my girlfriend, who lived in Pittsburgh for three years, the Pirates have a strong fanbase and good attendance. Didn't look attendance figures up, and my girlfriend doesn't know shat about sports, but let's assume she is right. Pittsburgh is a rabid sports town with a deep baseball tradition. It's not like the Marlins, where people in south Florida clearly don't give a shat about going to a game.

Why do the Pirates constantly suck? Why do they constantly trade away talent? and why do fans constantly put up with that crap? They're making money but not spending any.

Pittsburgh is a city of about 300,000. Even if they become a perennial contender, there's just not enough people to sustain the team economically. Merch Sales, TV Rights, and all of the things that aren't ticket prices will basically fall flat in a market like that. Furthermore, when you have to draw like a 1/10 of the population to fill the stadium, you're going to have issues. Pittsburgh best case scenario is like 1/20th of New York's, so I hope you understand why it's just not worth it to spend 200M and compete every year.

The Pirates make more then enough from revenue sharing to spend on players and compete. The owners just choose to pocket the money since there is no rule that the revenue sharing money has to be spent on the team.