Reply With Quote
well,
IMO, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay, Kansas City can spend more than they do.
There Payrolls should go up, and they should at least try and give a .
a fool on a different board is trying to tell me that the whole "small market" thing is just a myth and that the "smaller" teams are just cheap and do not want to spend the money. He maintains that if teams like KC and Milwaukee really wanted to...they could outspend the Yankees. I pointed out the tv and radio contracts and merchandise that the Yanks get millions on. What else can I say? Do you think that is true that there are no "small market" teams?
Question.
well,
IMO, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay, Kansas City can spend more than they do.
There Payrolls should go up, and they should at least try and give a .
Mikey,
Small market isn't a myth, but it is used as a crutch by a lot of teams. You are dead on when it comes to TV, radio, and merch deals per team allows each to spend more. It's not like the NFL with a national TV contract and equal distribution of monies for each team. Pretty much each baseball team has a region "of influence", so to speak. In that region, they are usually the only team that broadcasts radio and TV signals to that area, and in theory they draw from there as well to the ballpark.
Here is a list of markets in MLB by size:
Markets of more than 10 million people
--------------------------------------------------------------
21,199,865 New York Mets, New York Yankees
16,373,645 Anaheim Angels, Los Angeles Dodgers
Markets of 5-10 million people
--------------------------------------------------------------
9,157,540 Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox
7,608,070 Baltimore Orioles
7,039,362 Oakland Athletics, San Francisco Giants
6,188,463 Philadelphia Phillies
5,819,100 Boston Red Sox
5,456,428 Detroit Tigers
5,221,801 Texas Rangers
Markets of 3-5 million people
--------------------------------------------------------------
4,682,897 Toronto Blue Jays
4,669,571 Houston Astros
4,112,198 Atlanta Braves
3,878,380 Florida Marlins
3,554,760 Seattle Mariners
3,426,350 Montreal Expos (Montreal)
3,251,876 Arizona Diamondbacks
Markets of 2-3 million people
--------------------------------------------------------------
2,968,806 Minnesota Twins
2,945,831 Cleveland Indians
2,813,833 San Diego Padres
2,603,607 St Louis Cardinals
2,581,506 Colorado Rockies
2,450,292 Montreal Expos (San Juan)
2,395,997 Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2,358,695 Pittsburgh Pirates
***2,265,223 Portland, OR
Markets of 1-2 million people
--------------------------------------------------------------
***1,986,965 Vancouver, BC
1,979,202 Cincinnati Reds
***1,796,857 Sacramento, CA
1,776,062 Kansas City Royals
1,689,572 Milwaukee Brewers
***1,644,561 Orlando, FL
***1,607,486 Indianapolis, IN
***1,592,383 San Antonio, TX
(*** - no team)
By market size, NL champion and perennial power St Louis is six from the bottom. It is easier for larger market teams to be compe ve due to the sheer amount of people able to fill a 50,000 seat park and that advertisers will pay more money to beam ads to a greater viewing audience, but that doesn't make it impossible for a smaller market team with a solid plan to play for hardware.
Oakland has its' "Moneyball" theory and others use a solid farm system like Atlanta. Others like Arizona believe in using farm talent to lure trades for bigger names. Still others believe like St Louis that it is better to surround three or so big pricey names with solid, less expensive defensive-minded role players.
The biggest hit to small market teams is free agency. Larger market, flush owners like Steinbrenner or Henry will buy players to either upgrade what they have or keep smaller compe ors away from the bidding in the first place. That's also why so many smaller market teams try to sign players to extension within the first two years of MLB service (Berkman, Adam Dunn, the A's Big Three a couple years ago)...to delay the inevitable.
It's definitely a disadvantage playing in a smaller market, but not impossible to compete. Otherwise, these would be no parity at all and teams like Oakland, Houston, Minnesota, and St Louis would even been competing for divisional les year end and year out. It's like having to play a golfer with equal ability, and he gets to swing from the ladies tees and you're back on the blues. You have a pretty big obstacle to overcome, but it isn't impossible.
doesn't MLB have national contracts with Fox and ESPN?
the Cardinals are moving into a new stadium in 2006, and will be able to up there payroll SUPPOSEDLY by 10 million.
up to 95 96 million.
They are at 86 million right now, and supposedly, they barely make money.
But, they always raise the budget at the mid point or trading deadline in july.
Hopefully for an all star 2nd baseman, or a great closer.
Yeah, but by no means are they anywhere near what the NFL commands.
George Steinbrenner and John Henry shoud burn in . These two animals are ruining the game, and MLB needs a salary cap for it to be even in any way.
those damn Yankee teams and big market boston will out spend and crush smaller teams like Milwaukee and all them.
amen.MLB needs a salary cap for it to be even in any way.
Steinbrenner is not one of the top 10 richest owners in the league as far as money in the bank, but he is willing to spend his money to put a winning team on the field. There are a lot of billionaire owners that are too cheap to spend the money to give their fans a legit le chance.
the Cubs come to mind.There are a lot of billionaire owners that are too cheap to spend the money to give their fans a legit le chance
Peter Angelos owner of the Baltimore Orioles fits this bill
Do you think those owners made their billions by being stupid and paying more money than their teams can afford?
What kind of rediculousness is that?
Teams are in the Bussiness of making MONEY, not fielding 6 20 million dollar players.
Steinbrener can afford to pay those people what he does because the YANKEE organization can afford to pay it with all the contracts and yadda.
Sure there are richer people that Steinbrener that own teams, but they are making most of it outside of baseball.
Owning a franchise is really an appreciation play anyway. You can hardly make ANY money year to year.
That's what the Spurs are, they are an Appreciation play.
He's coming around, though. Miguel Tejada and Javy Lopez weren't cheap. He was also in the Vlad running for quite awhile, and had looked into Beltran this year.
If Murdoch sold the Dodgers, which I think he did... That makes
Carl Polhad (Minnesota Twins) the richest owner in baseball...
ing cheap skate!
Angelos was actually one of the original big spenders. He pulled back from that philosophy when his team got so old that it couldn't compete anymore and he was still up the river for big money. Now that those contracts have gone away, Peter's back to spending money. I had thought he was spending more wisely, but the Sosa thing makes me wonder.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
