Money, Baseball, and Success

[pokerdirty]

Would you rather root for a team that uses its farm system and manufactures its own players? Or would you rather root for the super team composed of free agents that can throw no hitters and crush 50 hrs every year? Or does it even matter to you?

[nyc999]

I'm jumping into this thread pretty late, but here is my .02:

1. The luxury tax is starting to have an impact: Examples would be the Brewers re-signing Sheets or Johan re-signing with Minnesota. Without the luxury tax, these signings wouldn't have been possible. This causes a lack of quality pitchers on the open market - which results in the Yankees having to sign Chacon and Wright, and the Sox having to sign Clement and Wade Miller. It also magnifies the weaknesses in the farm systems of these teams who traded away prospects in the past for high-payroll, immediate-impact players.

2. Some teams can spend a lot more, but their owners choose otherwise. Atlanta is owned by Turner (or who took Turner over) and LA by Disney. These companies have waaayyy more money than Steinbrenner, but choose not to invest in their teams. The Yankees spend a lot of money to win, but a part of that is an owner with a committment to winning.

Overall, there is obviously an imbalance, but I think it is improving.

[brettbrettr]

(Chacon was acquired via trade.)

[nyc999]

[ QUOTE ]
(Chacon was acquired via trade.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, bad example - but you know what I mean.

[kschellenger]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather root for a team that uses its farm system and manufactures its own players? Or would you rather root for the super team composed of free agents that can throw no hitters and crush 50 hrs every year? Or does it even matter to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd rather cheer for a group of players who were developed through the minor league system because I think there's something special about a group of guys who came up together. I remember seeing most of the Brewers young guys playing in A ball in Beloit and tracking them in AA and now seeing them in the majors. Probably a difference based on geography, but I think it's something special when you can develop your own talent. Then again, I don't like my team because they win, I like them because they're my team.

Note: not saying anyone that likes the Yankees likes them just because they win. Just a note that a lot of people I know who like the Sox, Yankees, etc. can't name their AAA affiliate or anyone in their bullpen except the closer.

[hoyaboy1]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Some teams can spend a lot more, but their owners choose otherwise. Atlanta is owned by Turner (or who took Turner over) and LA by Disney. These companies have waaayyy more money than Steinbrenner, but choose not to invest in their teams. The Yankees spend a lot of money to win, but a part of that is an owner with a committment to winning.



[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be related to the fact that the Yankees make a lot more money than Atlanta or the Angels.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Some teams can spend a lot more, but their owners choose otherwise. Atlanta is owned by Turner (or who took Turner over) and LA by Disney. These companies have waaayyy more money than Steinbrenner, but choose not to invest in their teams. The Yankees spend a lot of money to win, but a part of that is an owner with a committment to winning.



[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be related to the fact that the Yankees make a lot more money than Atlanta or the Angels.

[/ QUOTE ]

both are true

steinbrenner is more than a little crazy, and will go to the mattresses. but nyy also earns wayyyy more in tickets/jerseys/tv than other teams.

there are uber wealthy owners who could do what steinbrenner is doing but arent insane like him.



also, IIRC the angels are not owned by disney anymore, just a nit point. i could be wrong though.

[pokerdirty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Some teams can spend a lot more, but their owners choose otherwise. Atlanta is owned by Turner (or who took Turner over) and LA by Disney. These companies have waaayyy more money than Steinbrenner, but choose not to invest in their teams. The Yankees spend a lot of money to win, but a part of that is an owner with a committment to winning.



[/ QUOTE ]

Or it could be related to the fact that the Yankees make a lot more money than Atlanta or the Angels.

[/ QUOTE ]

both are true

steinbrenner is more than a little crazy, and will go to the mattresses. but nyy also earns wayyyy more in tickets/jerseys/tv than other teams.

there are uber wealthy owners who could do what steinbrenner is doing but arent insane like him.



also, IIRC the angels are not owned by disney anymore, just a nit point. i could be wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

i feel like the yankees payroll will be about 20 mil less next year though, unless we go out and get a 20 mil CF, or resign matsui for $$$$

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
there are uber wealthy owners who could do what steinbrenner is doing but arent insane like him.

[/ QUOTE ]

their teams also aren't profitable like his.

sure, Paul Allen (does he own the Mariners?) could spend some of his billions on the team, but every dollar he spends is a dollar lost. the Yankees, even with a $200M payroll, were still profitable, so it's not like Steinbrenner is just "spending like crazy". he's making a net profit. other teams could go up to $200M, sure, but they would be losing money. big difference.

none of these guys got rich by blowing money on investments guaranteed to lose money, and they're not going to start now (except for maybe Mark Cuban).

[pokerdirty]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2182576

maybe a new powerhouse in baseball?