Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Obviously, having a high payroll helps you win. It doesn't guarantee anything (as shown by the 2004 Yankees), but it helps to have better players. Better players demand higher salaries which equals a higher payroll. But this is my beef: People get upset at George Steinbrenner for doing what he does, and accuse him of trying to "buy" a championship. It's just good business. In baseball, winning equals profit, because that brings in the fans, sells tickets, gets higher TV contracts because more people want to watch a winning team, sells more merchandise, etc. etc. Why can't other owners try the same thing? There are plenty of owners who are more wealthy than George, but aren't willing to make that investment. They need to quit whining because they don't want to spend. The Yankees were able to start their own TV network because of the amount of fans that their winning years brought in. And how did they win? Through spending money. Other teams can do it to, they just don't want to.
Now I realize there are teams in smaller markets that even if they are successful will never have Yankee type profits. They need to spend more to compete. If they can't or won't, they need to close up shop, just like in any other business. But realize too, that it's not all about market size. Ask any Met fan.
Yes I agree to an extent. A higher payroll statistically increases a team's odds of making the playoffs, but nothing more (it's been proven).
While I think spending more will increase the fan base, there is a threshold that is reached where overspending occurs which really hurts other teams. Why? Because a 5% increase over what a player is worth may not be much to George, but it sure is a lot to teams like Oakland, Minnesota. For instance, Kevin Brown. They paid him 15.7 mil which was way above his market value, and exponentially inflated overall salaries for a number 1 or 2 starter. Now, what do you think Mulder is gonna want next year? He will pull out his analysis graphs and show that Kevin Brown is making 15.7, and Vazquez 10 mil, so he wants somewhere in that range. Oakland will tell him to f off that's over what he's worth, and he will go to a big market team that will now pay him the money. So while I commend what NY is doing, they are also hurting baseball by overpaying players like Bernie Williams, Brown, Vazquez, and bullpen guys like Heredia.
This is why a hard cap would be great, George could not inflate market price through the roof, but could invest the money elsewhere like Yankee Stadium renovations, or invest more of the money in NY's minor league system. Think about how sweet bringing your laptop to the game would be, and getting wireless access where you could order a beer/nachos/pizza right to your seat. Sounds good, right? Well the SF Giants have had this for awhile Overall I think a hard cap would solve everything, George may not be able to spend spend spend but could still invest in better marketing, maybe a Yankee TV NETWORK CHANNEL instead of just a TV contract. The possibilities are endless. At the same time, the small market teams could catch up talent wise, and interest in baseball as a whole would be elevated.
Edit: One other thing I thought of as well, is that you are probably wrong when you say that smaller market teams should just "spend more money". George doesn't spend a dime of his own money, all of the player's salaries/OH costs come out of Yankee revenues. Now if you said that yes, at a point in time in the past, George opened up the wallet to his bank account, and spent millions of his own money to get the team to where it is today, then that's different (and I don't know if he did that). But the fact of the matter is, most teams only spend what they make in revenue for salaries, George is no different. But there is a point where, as a fan, you would love for the owner to just open up that wallet and take the plunge. ATM, it's also a lot easier to do in baseball b/c there isn't a hard cap...