The economic composition of the DC area has changed quite a bit in thirty years. We’ve still got the gummint bureaucrats (including yours truly, now), but we also have a high-tech corridor that, while not as booming as it was 18 months ago, is still employing a lot of people, and paying them a lot of money. (You’ll notice that AOHell hasn’t exactly gone under yet, more’s the pity.) We’ve got two exceedingly affluent groups desiring to buy a MLB club - one for DC, the other for No.Va.
And we had the Orioles to compete with back then, too - when they were actually good. Can you say Frank Robinson, Brooks Robinson, Boog Powell, Paul Blair, Dave McNally, Jim Palmer, Dave Johnson, Mark Belanger? The Orioles that Nats 2.0 competed with, went to the WS 4 times between 1966 and 1971, winning twice. I think a DC team can compete with today’s O’s just fine, thanks.
Nor do I, and I have not said so “authoritatively”. I just think it is risky, at a time that some baseball franchises are not doing well.
Your link says that the Twins turned an operating profit last season but does not go into detail. I read elsewhere that the Twins were being paid $20M by the other teams, due to the luxury tax revenue sharing. If the “profit” is due to this, then it is misleading to suggest that the team is a profitable enterprise, and the owners are justified in calling for it’s shutdown.
I don’t think that’s the kind of competition Izzy was talking about, RT. But I agree, D.C./Northern Virginia is clearly the best site for the Expos to be moved to, with Las Vegas a fairly distant second. I strongly suspect that will happen long before contraction, which is very obviously a negotiating ploy on the part of the owners.
Think about it . . . you’re Bud Selig. You’re absolutely convinced that baseball must contact. (Remember, this is a hypothetical, not reality.) But you’re gonna get crucified by the fans, the press, and anybody with half a brain cell. How do you make contraction happen? By convening a meeting of the owners and buying out the contractees immediately? Or by telling eveyone that you’re going to whack some clubs, then getting the owners to vote in favor of whacking some clubs without deciding on a pricetag or the victims, then holding a press conference to tell everyone that you’re gonna whack some clubs–maybe your club!–sometime, ya know, whenever we get around to deciding which clubs to whack. No hurry or anything.
I’m sorry for misapprehending your argument. However, the logic here doesn’t quite work. If some franchises are doing poorly, it is due to either a) something wrong with the franchise itself (i.e. mismanaged on the field or run at a loss off it), b) something wrong with the franchise’s location (i.e. no fan support), or c) something wrong with baseball itself (i.e. not able to financially support so many teams). Absent any compelling proof of c)–and I’ve yet to see it, if it exists–there’s no reason why the failure of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays means that the New Orleans Blue Notes are inherently a risky enterprise.
Here’s the thing, though. My link also shows that Carl Pohlad, the owner of the Twins, is the wealthiest owner in baseball. He’s chosen to essentially pocket his gains from the luxury tax rather than spend them on improving his team (and yet the Twins still led their division for most of the season, and have a good farm system and a bright future). So Pohlad is refusing to spend the money he’s given, and because of that he’s being given $250 million and the state of Minnesota loses its baseball team, which under another owner might well be thriving? Yup, sounds fair to me. That is, there’s nothing intrinsic about the Twins organization or about the Minneapolis-St. Paul area that would suggest that the team would not do well financially, save for its owner. Indeed, the contrary is the case–the Twins have won two world championships in the last fifteen years (two-thirds of MLB teams haven’t won even one during that time, including Bud’s Brewers), boast a forty-year-old tradition (a century, if you count its years as the Senators) and three of the all-time greats (Killebrew, Carew, Puckett; more if you count Senators like Walter Johnson), and have enjoyed traditionally strong fan support. Yet because the fans have refused to fund another stadium, because the 86-year-old owner is content to cash out before he, well, cashes out, and because other owners would like a bigger cut of the luxury tax (although I’m still not sure how that profit works, given the two $250 million buy-outs), the Twins get dissolved.
A couple of people on a baseball list I’m on had that thought, actually. The consensus is that it would set a bad example for gasp baseball financing its own stadiums in the future, not to mention piss off teams like Milwaukee and Pittsburgh who got their stadiums the old-fashioned way–they extorted the public for them.
The public does get “extorted” here in Pittsburgh but mostly it isn’t us locals. The tax burden was designed to fall on outsiders ( for hotel rooms and the like ). We are big sports fans here but for the most part we aren’t “moronic taxpayers”. We can count at least and that’s why we voted down the stadium proposal. What we have is basically a minor league team. The 'rats can’t afford top flight players. Guys like Barry Bonds play out their deal and move on to greener pastures. Even with the new stadium ( financed over our objection ) we are near the bottom of the league in revenue. Until baseball gets its financial house in order that just won’t change. We aren’t dumb. We know we can’t win so we shrug and turn away. That’s what you do when the kid takes his ball and goes home. Sure he has the right to but that doesn’t make him any less of an asshole.
I caught some of the congressional hearings on this topic. Funny, George Will actually makes sense when he talks about saving his beloved game. Too bad he doesn’t care as much about his fellow Americans. Bob Costas made a good point that hasn’t come up here yet. It was different back before free agency. Sure the big money teams had an advantage then but the perception was that the smaller teams had a chance. There was no certainty that Bonilla and Bonds would be leaving town when they were eligible. Now people don’t want to get attached.
As for the NFL and NBA, I like those leagues better. I am mortified that my Lions are winless but I don’t blame it on the system. They stink because they have switched to new offensive and defensive schemes and are under the learning curve. That and the fact that they are cursed. No one else seems to sustain the key injuries they do. In today’s league they could win it all next season. The Pistons have been pretty disappointing for the last decade but I have confidence that Dumars can get that turned around. Those leagues could use some tweaking in their salary structures but even the worst teams have the potential to get better.
( Well, maybe not the Clippers. )
I think it works the other way. Presumably those who actually make decisions and risk their money will make a more in depth study of the potential revenue (# of potential fans, TV viewers, etc.) I don’t see that anyone here has done one that shows that another location would be successful. My point is merely that absent any evidence, the likeliest theory is indeed that there are no other locations that have great potential, at this time. It may be wrong, but merely pointing out in a general way that there’s a lot of middle/upper class people in the general vicinity does not add much.
My position is, again, that contraction is unlikely to solve baseball’s problems, but that these problems do exist, and will likely exist in any new location as well. What is your position? Is it that there is no problem with income disparity (as suggested by your comments on Pohlad) and that the owners have invented the entire problem?
I don’t understand your point about Carl Pohlad. The fact that he is the wealthiest owner in baseball is completely irrelevant. No one is in a position to tell anyone, no matter how wealthy, that they are obligated to lose money so as to support the fans. And certainly baseball, as an organization, cannot make decisions about the sport as a whole based on the notion that this 86 year old guy is going to subsidize a money losing franchise (or that the other owners are going to keep on subsidizing him).
The Twins were probably as successful this year as they could be. They had a low payroll and were still competitive most of the year. If they could not turn a profit without subsidies from other owners in a year like this one, that franchise is not worthy of continuing. And remember again that no one can run a franchise whose existence is predicated on the need to be in a pennant race in order to survive.
The idea that the owner should spend more money on such a team is wrong IMHO. No one can know how a team will perform heading into the season. Few experts thought the Twins would do as well this year as they did. No one knows how well they will do next year. And spending a lot of money of salaries is no guarantee of success, as many teams have discovered. The only thing it is a guarantee of is a lot of money being spent. Pohlad would have to have been nuts to have spent a lot of money on salaries going into this season - he would have been guaranteeing himself losses on the team, with no guarantee of success. And he’d be nuts to spend a lot on salaries for next year.
I would say that even if the Twins made money without luxury tax subsidies that this year is an aberration, and a problem still exists. If indeed they still lost money absent the luxury tax, they are doomed.
With all due respect to Costas, if he actually said something THAT stupid, he’s not much of a baseball fan. Small market teams before free agency has far LESS of a chance of winning; New York teams pretty much ran the league for three decades, enjoying a level of dominance unmatched in baseball history, and it was because they had the most money. The Pirates today could win if they’d stop spending so much money on Derek Bell and Pat Meares and followed an Oakland A’s pattern. If Oakland can win, Pittsburgh has no excuse; they’ve been losing because their management has been terrible. But many teams in the good old days just didn’t have any chance at all.
Between 1930 and 1952 the St. Louis Browns were terrible every year there wasn’t a World War going on. In that span their best record outsie of WWII was 70-84, and they were usually much worse. Their attendance in these years averaged below two thousand fans per game, and went as low as a thousand fans per game. In 1942, when the team finally had a winning record, they drew only 3000 fans per game; in 1944 they won the pennant and drew only 6500 fans per game. Between 1928 and 193 the Browns were dead last in the league in attendance every single yeat except for two of the war years, when they were second last and third last. There were five-year stretches in which the Browns did not draw as many fans as the Expos did this year.
Mr. Costas should have a look at the facts. The Pirates has no excuse. The Browns had no chance.
I also vehemently disagree with your assertion that the public wasn’t extorted to build the Pirates’ new park. According to the PNC Park website, the total project was $807 million including both PNC and the new Steelers stadium, and the people of the state of Pennsylvania kicked in $300 million. The sports teams who will actually played there kicked in only $75 million. And like it or not, locally applied taxes to raise the rest will have local impacts.
I’m not sure your point about the Browns is valid. As noted previously, the St. Louis market also supported the Cardinals, who were (& are) the most successful team in NL history. It is likely that the Browns were caught in a spiral of failure leading to unpopularity leading to more failure. Had they been able to break the cycle they might have made it. But they never did. (BTW, the numbers you cite seem worse than they are, because attendance was generally lower in those days, IIRC)
I don’t see how anyone can possibly dispute Costas’ point. Whatever problems might have been extant before free agency, they must certainly have been greatly exacerbated by free agency. It is now routine for small market teams to lose their star players to free agency (or have to make trades that they otherwise would not make) as noted by 2sense. This phenomenon would not exist without free agency.
This seems facile to me. The Twins threatened to move to Charlotte a few years ago. There’s serious talk that Oakland might relocate to San Jose. Washington, D.C. has been the favored destination of disaffected teams for at least a couple of years now. In Portland, at least, they’ve done just such a study as you suggest. (And Charlotte and D.C., by the way, were finalists in the last round of expansion–I submit again that, from what I’ve heard, D.C. would have a franchise by now were it not for Peter Angelos.) I don’t see how you can say that there’s no evidence another location would be successful–what’s your criteria? You’ve insinuated several times that because MLB has not expanded elsewhere, there are no other viable locations for MLB. That logic folds in on itself like an origami swan, considering the current predilection for contraction. So what characteristics would an area have to have to prove to you, personally, that it could house a major league franchise? You say potential fans and TV audience–is that it? What else? (I point you again to Colorado and Arizona, who are doing quite well as franchises–there’s simply no reason to believe that MLB locations have been tapped out.)
Explain something to me. You say that income disparity is a problem for baseball. You then say that no owner should be forced to spend money on “such a team”–by which I assume you mean one that doesn’t turn a profit. And the apparent solution is that the owner who doesn’t spend money is given a quarter of a billion dollars because he didn’t spend his money, and the team itself is dissolved. Let me ask one question, then: what is it about the Twins organization itself, independent of its owner, that causes it not to be profitable? Follow-up question: there are many teams out there–like the Pirates, Padres, A’s, and Royals–that tend to have lower payrolls and make less money than the heavy hitter clubs. How many of them should be contracted as well, and how do you determine which ones? One more question: You say that “Pohlad would have to have been nuts to have spent a lot of money on salaries going into this season - he would have been guaranteeing himself losses on the team, with no guarantee of success.” With the caveat that money never guarantees success (look at Baltimore’s hamhanded financial ways), I’d suggest that spending money on salaries could have done a tremendous amount to stave off losses and encourage success–say Pohlad trades for Gary Sheffield and signs Mike Mussina in the off-season to a $20 million a year deal–do you think the fans flock to the team? With respect to fan support, at least, it’s sometimes a vicious cycle: Minnesota fans are historically some of the best in the game, but if the Twins front office shows no commitment to fielding a winning team, that’s going to affect attendance.
A final question: What, in your view, is wrong with baseball that mandates this move? If your answer is that some teams are failing financially, why is that a problem for baseball rather than for the failing teams themselves? Would a shift in ownership help those teams, or is there something intrinsic about the teams’ markets or the organizations themselves that are causing them to fail? If it’s the market, why wouldn’t relocation solve the problem? And how could it be just the organization itself, independent of ownership or location?
(There’s no reason, by the way, why the Twins’ success this year wouldn’t carry over to next year. They’ve got a great core of young hitters in Hunter, Koskie, Guzman, and Mientkiewicz, and two of the best young pitchers in the game in Mays and Radke. Not to mention a good farm system. There’s no reason why they couldn’t be this decade’s Indians–and you better believe they’d start turning a profit then.)
Even by the lower standards of the day the Browns’ attendance was far worse than anything we see now. You can’t get any worse than being last in attendance EVERY YEAR. Even the Expos can’t match the Browns’ record in that regard. And as to the Browns being in a spiral of failure… uhhh, yeah, isn’t that the point? Isn’t that Pittsburgh’s problem, too? Surely their attendance problems have been largely caused by the team’s overall suckosity, which can be traced directly to bad management; they’ve given big contracts out too, and they’ve all been disasters. If they can break the cycle, they’ll make it, too. We can’t expect every team to be equally good; some teams will have long runs of sucking, because some teams just don’t make the right moves.
Furthermore, your claim that smaller teams routinely lose players to free agency they would otherwise keep is
Ignorant of baseball history - prior to free agency, it was quite common for less financially successful teams to sell star players to the Yankees et al., and
Doesn’t explain the Indians and the A’s, partially because it simply is not the case that free agency is the meal ticket to easy championships. For that matter, things are looking up for the Twins.
The fact of the matter is that every team in baseball today, save possibly the Expos (and even that I would dispute) could win the pennant. There is nothing about Pittsburgh that prevents it from doing what Cleveland, Seattle and Oakland have done.
When he says ludicrously false things like “back in them good old days every team had a chance, not like now,” it’s easy to dispute his point. NO team currently in existence has had any sort of prolonged period of hopelessness that even approaches what the Browns, A’s, Senators, and other teams went through in the past. Those teams were bad beyond any modern standard of badness. The worst teams in baseball last year, the Devil Rays and Pirates, went 62-100. The Phillies once went five straight years without having a record even close to being that GOOD. The Phillies went from 1900 to 1975 winning exactly two pennants; for the most part they were putrid beyond anything a modern day Pirates fan could imagine.
You can say from now until the cows come home that free agency has made the small market teams less competitive, but there is no evidence that small market teams are worse off since 1975 (the year free agency started) than before. Prior to free agency the big-market Yankees enjoyed arguably the greatest dynasty in the history of pro sports; how was Yankee domination good for small market teams? What chance in hell did the A’s have when the Yankees were winning 15 pennants in 18 years? The recent Yankee run doesn’t even come close - they’re great, but 15 pennants in 18 years, plus 8 of 18 NL penannts in that span of time going to the two New York NL teams, is big market domination the likes of which simply do not exist now. Just recently we’ve seen Cleveland, a small market, become wildly successful, and Oakland has built an awesome team. Seattle couldn’t afford ANY of their top stars, losing them all because of money, and they just won 116 games and made the playoffs for the second year in a row. I would like it explained to me how Pittsburgh, given the success of other small market teams, could possibly be said to have no chance of winning, or less of a chance than the dreadful teams of old.
This is a valid point. To the extent that you believe that the “current predilection for contraction” is completely concocted by the owners as a bargaining chip, then it is possible that all these locations are actually viable - in fact it is possible that all locations including the current ones are viable, and everyone who says otherwise is a devious owner or a stooge. My inclination is to believe that the spread in potential income is a legitimate problem, so I am inclined to believe that the current locations are problematic, and hence that there are unlikely to be other locations that are too much better, as mentioned. I could be wrong.
I am not seen any analysis of the factors, nor am I an expert in this type of analysis. If I saw the competing viewpoints in detail it is possible that I might venture an opinion. Or not. What I’m saying here is not about my personal beliefs about the situation - I am merely speculating about the likely results of in-depth analyses that I’ve not seen.
I’m not so sure about Arizona. I’ve heard that they might be dismantled, similar to Florida.
Apparently, the franchise itself is worth something - the new team owners pay to get in.
I would imagine that the market is not large enough to sustain the type of spending that would produce a competitive team, except on rare lucky and shortlived occasions.
I don’t know. Personally, I am skeptical of contraction, as I’ve mentioned many times in this thread. I think contraction will weaken the remaining small market teams - teams that were close to the bottom will fall into the bottom, causing their fans to lose interest. As I see it its the income disparity itself that is the problem - not the specific teams involved. If contraction would work to the point that all teams had about the same amount of potential revenue it would accomplish something. But I don’t see that happening. (Here’s a suggestion: maybe open a third team in NY, a second team in LA etc. (giving the equity to the owners of the current teams in these locations) This would accomplish similar results).
I doubt if too many more flock to the team than flocked to see this year’s pennant race. And I really doubt if there would be an increase of the magnitude needed to pay the salaries of these players.
It is a problem for baseball because unlike, say, a McDonalds in which the success of one franchise is marginally correlated with the success of another, baseball involves teams playing against other teams. Every team requires that the other teams be there, and that some entity be in charge of coordinating between the different ones and promoting the game as a whole. If the structure currently in place will almost invariably lead to financial problem for some of the teams, it is the responsibility of baseball as a whole to address this structure.
That’s the question. The thinking that I am buying into is that it’s the markets.
Relocation would solve the problem if the new market is better than the old one. If not it’s just an expensive failure.
I don’t know what you mean with this.
Anything could happen. Or anything else. It is very difficult to predict from year to year. Note the Chicago White Sox as a recent example. But what is true is that the long term prospects for the Twins remain bleak. Whereas if the NY Yankees had this core of players they would be in good position, the Twins know that a few years down the line the young players will be demanding huge sums of money to remain in Minnesota. At that point the Twins will be hard pressed to keep the team together, let alone to add a few key players (as the Yankees might do in similar circumstances). Note the earlier comments about the Pirates and talk of the Oakland A’s losing Giambi, et al.
No, it’s not. The difference is between a team that simply failed to make it and a team that couldn’t.
My understanding is that their decline began with their inability to resign Bonds and Bonilla even when things were going good, not because they fell into a bad cycle.
How common? Anything remotely as common as free agency? I doubt it (maybe you could put some numbers behind your claim. Also, what caliber of “star player”?).
I don’t understand your point in this.
Anything can happen. But the odds are heavily stacked against it. The odds are stacked against Seattle and Oakland, but it happens every so often that someone beats the odds. And the odds against long term success are even greater - this would require beating the odds and starting from scratch and beating the odds again etc.
Again, there’s a difference between the Yankees dominating at a time when other teams had a chance to win but just happened to not do so, and today, when fans can see a tangible reason for their team not being able to win.
Again; that sounds good, but it’s not true. You cannot demonstrate, given the evidence, that teams like Cleveland and Seattle are less capable of sustaining success than teams like New York or Los Angeles. Cleveland’s run of first place finishes is just as long as the Yankees’.
Since the introduction of free agency, no team has dominated the league for a sustained period of time the way the Yogi Berra Yankees did; nor has any team suffered for an extended period of time the way the Danny Litwhiler Phillies did. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that the Yankees in Bob Costas’s memory were only dominant because of better management, not money - and yet their financial resources back then were just as overwhelming. It’s not just free agency that costs dough; especially then, when there was no draft, the Yankees could simply outscout and outbid everyone. It’s easy to point to the Yankees’ four-championships-in-five years-plus-a-pennant run and conclude big markets own the league, but
A) It’s obvious that the YANKEES are the outlier, not anyone else. No other big market team’s dominating the way they have, and most other really big market teams have sucked like a Hoover for the last five to ten years, and
B) Picking off the Yankees as your example doesn’t change the fact that other teams like Cleveland have built sustained championship clubs, teams that have stayed among the contenders just as long as big market winners. These guys aren’t one-year flukes; Cleveland’s finished first six out of the last seven years. Seattle has two division titles in a row and has to be a 5-to-1 favourite to make the playoffs again next year. St. Louis isn’t playing in a large market and they have a lousy old stadium, but through smart management and terrific marketing they’ve been contenders for years. San Francisco shares its market with Oakland, sort of, and has low payrolls, but they’re always right up there. What is stopping Pittsburgh from doing what Cleveland did? As near as I can tell the main difference is that Cleveland wouldn’t have given so much money to Derek Bell.
It’s not obvious to me that the large markets have dominated baseball championships and/or success, beyond the recent Yankees run. The Mets have two playoff appearances in the last fourteen years, albiet both in the last three; the Chicago teams have not been very successful; the Dodgers haven’t broken through since '96, and the Angels blow. Philadelphia’s a huge market but they haven’t seen the postseason since Mitch Williams threw Joe Carter the biggest meatball in baseball history. Isn’t Detroit one of the biggest markets in the US? They haven’t smelled a playoff berth since 1987. It seems to me a list of big market failures is as large as a list of small market failures.
And while I would be sympathetic to a team that developed fine young players but had to give them all away, I can’t think of any examples save Montreal. Pittsburgh’s record for developing young players has been brutal, and they’ve seen fit to waste their free agent money on bozos like Derek Bell. I don’t mean to beat up on the Bucs, but just where are the good young players they’ve developed since Barry Bonds? Jason Kendall’s pretty good. Who else? I hear crickets chirping. The Royals are infamous for the horrible, illogical trades they’ve made, and they can’t develop a pitcher to save their lives. Milwaukee is dreadfully run. Besides the Expos, what small market team has been killed by losing a bevy of young stars? Hell,who did Minnesota lose? The one star they traded away was Chuck Knoblauch - and they made out like bandits, robbing the Yankees of Eric Milton while the Knobster forgot how to play the field.
There is one team, just ONE, who have objectively been killed by losing young players - the 'Spos. They’ve made horrific decisions too, but I can’t argue that they lost Pedro, Larry Walker, John Wetteland et al. for money. The Expos are a remarkably poorly run team; they’re the worst marketed team in any major sport, they have a Godawful stadium in the middle of a dump in the (per capita) poorest city in MLB, and the local governments are smart enough not to rob the taxpayer to build a shiny new stadium… it’s a hard situation. So I have the perfect solution. Move 'em to D.C. Problem solved.
I am not suggesting that big markets don’t have some advantage over small. They do. However, it’s always been that way. Bos Costas is simply wrong to claim otherwise, and he’s wrong to claim that small markets have no chance now - Cleveland and Oakland prove him utterly wrong.
And contracting two teams isn’t going to change anything! Get rid of Montreal and Minnesota and alienate their fans, fine. Now how does that make Kansas City any better off relative to New York?
In the year 2001, how many of baseball’s divisions were won by the team with the highest payroll?
The answer is (drum roll)… six! EVERY division was won by the team that spent the most.
Moreover, the notion that the Mariners and Indians are “have-nots” who thrived despite low payrolls is ludicrous. They’re HAVES, and their payrolls reflect that.
“Well, what about the TWins and the A’s” I hear people saying. Don’t THEY prove that, a low-payroll team that does a decent job of recruting talent can win it all?
Uh, no. They prove that, if the leagues create enough divisions and enough wild card slots, a low-payroll team doing a BRILLIANT job of recruiting can contend for a wild card a year or two, before their young stars depart for big bucks elsewhere.
And, incidentally, the Twins ended the season a lot closer to 3rd than to 1st.
We have a good corporate environment, including several Fortune 500 companies headquartered here (although they all complain about their tax burden). Target Corp, UnitedHealth Group, General Mills, BestBuy and Medtronic spring to mind.
This isn’t about the market. This is about the fact that Minnesota didn’t wrap up a stadium for Carl and put a big bow on it.
Dunno where you got your info, but by my count there are only two division champions who led their division in Opening Day payroll - the Yankees and the Indians. The Mariners were outspent by the Rangers; the Diamondbacks were outspent by the Dodgers; the Braves were outspent by the Mets; and the Astros were outspent by the Cardinals… or did St. Louis finish ahead of Houston? I can’t remember which was which.
The problem is that “highest payroll” does not mean “biggest market.” Just what advantage could possibly be said to be conferred upon the Mariners over the Angels? How is Cleveland better off than Chicago? Sure, New York’s got a big advantage, but I thought the Diamondbacks were short of money?
Oh, Lord. HOW are they haves? Do they have a legitimate advantage - or are they just choosing to invest in on-field results, rather than going it cheap? Show me the REVENUE advantages - the bigger market size, the larger local TV audiences. Don’t tell me they spent more. Anyone can spend more. The Twins could spend more if they wanted to - they’ve chosen not to. That’s not a disadvantage, it’s a choice.
Going from payroll is placing the cart before the horse, because payroll doesn’t mean market size. Surely to God nobody is dumb enough to think frickin’ PHILADELPHIA is a small market because they had a small payroll, are they? Philadelphia was outspent by Pittsburgh, but what sort of lunatic thinks Pittburgh’s got an advantage over Philly?
Do you really think Toronto is a better market than Detroit?
Obviously, RickJay’s sources and mine don’t agree. I’m using a USA Today article published during the playoffs. USA Today’s figures showed that the Braves spent more than the Mets, and that, despite the obscene amount Tom Hicks gave to A-Rod, the Mariners still spent more on payroll than the Rangers.
SInce I’m not an accountant and don’t have access to the books, I’ll just say there’s some disagreement over who’s paying how much, and leave it at that.
How about now you actually address my post. Y’know, the one that begins, ‘The public does get “extorted” here in Pittsburgh…’ Tax money was used to build the stadiums. My point was that the burden is spread around. It was set up this way because all three counties voted down the referenda on the question.
As for Costas, all of your facts have nothing to do with his point. He was talking about perception rather than reality. Many potential fans are turned away because they feel the free agency system is unfair to the local team.