Following 13
Followers 5
My Datarooms 1
Recent Activity
A rising tide floats all boats. There would be few losers (R Sox and Yankees) and many winners in profit sharing parody.
An additional $17.7M for the Rays in the post-season in 2008...makes a big impact when their base profit is $6.8M.
Despite growing salaries, attendance is a major issue. I definitely feel the dwindling attendance at the Rogers Centre.
Baseball cannot afford another lost season. Player salaries cannot be allowed to get out of hand without the resulting fan support.
Is this chart for the entire MLB?
Yes
terriachilds
Interesting stuff Gary. As an avid hockey fan I've always appreciated the fact that you can't really 'buy a winning team' - if you want a few power players, you're going to have to sacrifice somewhere else. The out of control spending for some MLB players is a little mind boggling.
It definitely gets to be less exciting for fans if they know (more or less) who is going to win every year (ahem, Yankees).
I guess the free market capitalist in me figures that over the long term, these two lines come closer and closer together...but in the short term this "market inefficiency" as I would call it is not good for the game. It's very interesting how other sports that haven't been around nearly as long as baseball seem to have figured it out.
This gets into a much deeper issue. How much did the Skydome cost (Now Rogers Centre)? Around 500m. How much did Rogers acquire this stadium for. If my facts are correct. $25mil. Although attendance is great, the television contracts are a huge revenue driver and Rogers happens to own it's content (The Blue Jays). Rogers has deep pockets and can sustain a loss at the gates.
Nice design!
This is really insightful. It will be interesting, though, to see how money actually plays in a role in the final outcome of the big one: World Series.
I think this is an interesting idea that could be used in a hypothetical context. Salaries and overall team payout as it relates to wins. However, I fear there is a bias not accounted for. New York may have the highest payroll - only because Steinbrenner is willing to spend that kind of money. Not to mention that every year is different. LA Angels have been second in the highest overall payroll, and as low as eight in the overall statistics... yet their best performance was actually the year that they had the 5th highest payroll (behind, NYY, BOS, LA Dodgers, and PHI). Thus, the logic may be appropriate for this season, but what happens next year when payrolls change.
Also, the implementation of a cap - be it soft or hard, would completely disregard this theory.
I like the idea, the thoughts, and the approach. I just think there needs to be more variables considered when utilizing an overall payroll as an indicator of wins, especially over a 162 game season.
Cheers!
I wanted to comment in the body of the link but for some reason it hyperlinked it all. Also - it is taking me a year to write this...the text lags a lot. But anyway...meant to say that it's a case of the rich getting richer. I do like the direction Anthopolous has the Jays going in. Very Tampa Bay of him.
What happens when Brad Pitt plays you in a movie...you get an article in Maxim.
It does not pay to be valuable! The Dodgers went bankrupt this year, the Red Sox and Mets lost money, and the Pittsburgh Pirates make just about as much as the Yankees.
Who knew? More equal competition drives higher profits...as evidenced in the NL West where we have seen 4 out of the 5 teams make the World Series in recent memory.