In case you do not have MLB Network, Bob Costas sat down on Studio 42 last night with the commish himself, Bud Selig, to talk about the issues of the game. Some of the things they touched on included the steroid issue, instant replay and perhaps baseball's biggest wart, the salary discrepancies between the large and small market teams.
Selig delicately tip-toed around those touchy subjects, such as how revenue sharing money is being used by teams. However, I have to give kudos to Costas for not throwing Selig softball questions. You would think that a part-time employee of the MLB Network would have a conflict of interest bringing up controversial subject matter related to baseball, but Costas still brought the heat. That in turn, made for a very entertaining interview.
When asked about whether or not baseball needs a salary cap, Selig responded by saying that 23 of the 30 teams have made the postseason this decade. He also mentioned how that statistic is indicative of more parity in baseball than there was just 10 years ago, and that this was all achieved through revenue sharing. Surprisingly enough, sportswriters Tom Verducci and Ken Rosenthal each agreed with Selig during the studio discussion after the interview. Would you like to know something else? I agree with them, too.
I know, it is a popular stance to take right now regarding the economics of baseball. Screaming for a salary cap is in vogue right now, much like screaming for a playoff system in college football. However, who is really affected by the spending habits of the Yankees and Red Sox? I find three teams that you could possibly make an argument for: the Baltimore Orioles, the Tampa Bay Rays and the Toronto Blue Jays. Hell, I'm even being generous with Toronto, considering that they are in arguably the fifth largest market in MLB and that they are owned by the Canadian media conglomerate, Rogers Communications. They could easily have their payroll on Boston's level if they really wanted to. They just choose to play it cheap, just like most of the other teams that cry poor in baseball. Tampa Bay, despite being in the smallest market in the AL East, has found a way to achieve success through player development and scouting. Baltimore? Well, let's just say that some of their fans are more fed up with their incompetent owner, rather than New York and Boston's spending habits.
However, I don't feel any remorse for teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Cincinnati. I have no pity on them because, last time I checked, they don't play in the AL East. The Pirates and Reds play in the NL Central, which has been largely dominated by the Cubs, Cardinals and Astros in this decade. While the three have been known to have some big payrolls in the past, they are nowhere near the level of New York and Boston. You have to make the postseason first before you reach the World Series, and let's face it, those three teams are nowhere near being invincible. The same argument applies with Kansas City. With the exception of 2006, the AL Central has not been all that competitive. You do not need to look any further than this past season to see that. The Twins won the division with just 87 wins, and it took a play-in game just for them to reach win number 87! Plus, the Royals have not been to the playoffs in 24 years. That's right, 24 years. You have people who are out of college that weren't even born when the Royals last saw the postseason. When you go that long without making the playoffs, you had better look at yourself in the mirror first before you start pointing fingers at baseball's economic system. So, could somebody please tell me how the Royals are at a competitive disadvantage, when there has been more parity in that division than in any other division this decade? They aren't! When you have a terrible front office, the bad product shows itself on the field.
Also, it is one thing to have a stretch of losing seasons, or years in which you miss the playoffs. It happens to nearly every team. However, how can you feel sorry for the Pirates, who have 17 losing seasons in a row? Come on. You almost have to try to be that bad. Heck, in 2006, the Cardinals won the division with just 83 wins. You mean to tell me that the Pirates are at a competitive disadvantage when you can win less than 90 games to win the division more often than not? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument, either.
Why can't the Pirates and Royals be more like the Detroit Tigers? The Tigers had the third highest payroll in the AL this past season, and the fifth highest in baseball. In 2008, they had the second highest payroll in the AL, and the third highest in baseball. This is also coming from a city that's been hit harder by the current economy than any other city in America. How is it that they can still spend money to be competitive, and the Pirates and Royals can't? It is simple; they have an owner that is willing to see his team succeed at any cost, and he is willing to put forth the money to see it happen. Guess what happened? They averaged over 31,000 per game in 2009, and they drew over 3,000,000 fans in 2008. Of course, team revenue isn't solely tied to attendance, but when you're packing them in every night like Detroit, a high attendance is like the cherry and whipped cream on top of a milk shake.
Baseball's economic system is an easy scapegoat for people when they want to put down the Yankees for winning it all. I don't like the Yankees, and I would love to see baseball make their revenue sharing system hit the Yankees' wallets a little harder. However, suggesting that a salary cap should be instituted is just an egregious justification as to why your favorite team has not been competitive. Cheap owners want fans to believe that, so they can go laughing all the way to the bank with their increased profit margins. Besides, small payroll teams like Minnesota and Florida are making teams like Pittsburgh, Kansas City and Baltimore look more and more worse with each passing year. If the Twins and Marlins can be competitive, why can't any other team with a small payroll do the same?
No comments:
Post a Comment