Anyone else less interested in MLB overall because of the Yankees' win?

by Potomac Fan on Nov 7, 2009 2:34 AM EST Comment 10 comments

I didn't watch much of the World Series at all, mostly because it was the final steps in the completion of a money-fueled almost predetermined plan. Though money doesn't guarantee championships, it sure does make it easier to make mistakes. Most teams could not survive the disasters of Carl Pavano and other failed free-agent signings a few years ago, but the Yankees can turn right around and sign CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira in one offseason and basically buy a championship. If the Nationals had signed Sabathia, Burnett and Texeira last winter, they would probably have been one of the top teams in the league.

I suppose if you have the money and you're willing to spend it, then you should go ahead. But I don't think it will be good for baseball in general if the Yankees begin to dominate the league again the way they did at the end of the last decade. There was so much hope for opening up the playoff club to smaller-market teams when Tampa made it to the World Series last year but maybe that was just a fluke. It's not impossible for small-market teams to win but it takes a lot of luck. Most of the playoff perennials are the big spenders/large-market teams while the bottom tier of the league (Kansas City, Pittsburgh, et al.) is made up of small-market teams.

I'll still follow the Nats and watch the games next year but I'll probably watch even fewer national broadcasts than I did this year. I only watched a couple national games all year as it was (those not involving the Nats). I barely watched any of the playoffs. I hope baseball changes its economics in 2011 (?) when the next round of collective bargaining is supposed to begin.

0 recs | Comment 10 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Cardinals' team salary was $77M in 2009.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2009

That may have been before they got DeRosa and Holliday, but I think they should be the model. The Nats were at $60M.

It can be done and I think Rizzo can do it. Look what bad contracts can do to teams…Mets and to a lesser extent, the Nats.

by RoscoeNats on Nov 7, 2009 11:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

oh, cmon lets not get dramatic here

first of all, AJ Burnett sucks, they overpaid for him based on a bad season overall where he had 200k’s in 200 innings.. If anything, he is an example of how you can burn through cash as an organization.

also, its not as if they dont make any good savy moves… people tend to overlook that they traded Wilson Betimet and in return got a guy who hit 30 hrs, slugged 500 and walked 100 times this year. In terms of return on investment, that was without question the best trade made in the offseason.

Which leaves Sabathia and Texeria, who I suppose you can say were bought… but I don’t think it’s fair to say that on the strength of two players the yankees won a world series, baseball just dosen’t work that way…

by martins on Nov 7, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But you have to count the other mega-signings of recent years

Not many teams could have signed Sabathia, Teixeira and Burnett (who cost a lot, even if he wasn’t dominant) not long after signing Alex Rodriguez to the largest contract in MLB history and paying millions and millions for other players like World Series MVP Hideki Matsui. That’s also after paying large numbers for players like Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield and Johnny Damon. Even after all of those signings, they were still able to get Sabathia and Teixeira.

Assuming the Nats don’t make any dramatic off-season moves, I’m pulling for some of the other mid-level hopefuls like Tampa next year. Then again, Strasburg could be the reincarnation of Doc Gooden or Cy Young and blow the league away next year. If so, the Nats could make a significant move up in the standings. keeping my fingers crossed

-------------------------------------------------
The Washington Nationals, the team of the 2010s!

by Potomac Fan on Nov 8, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope your right on Steven

"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James

by PhDBrian on Nov 10, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It IS possible but not easy

Some smaller-market teams like Minnesota and Oakland have been able to field some decent teams over the past decade but not always on a consistent basis. The Nats could actually become a large-market team. The metropolitan area is large enough and heaven knows, there’s a lot of money in this area.

I guess I wouldn’t want the Nats to follow the path of the Yankees, Red Sox or the Mets (who also spend like drunken sailors but don’t quite get the same results). If they can build a solid core through the draft and then add a few key pieces later on via trade or free agency, then I’d enjoy the Nats’ eventual championship that much more. (Yes, the Nats WILL win a championship, someday…) Everyone knows that there are some good building blocks in Zimmerman, Nyjer Morgan, Josh Willingham, John Lannan and hopefully Strasburg. Some other promising players in Ian Desmond, Flores (if he can stay healthy), Jordan Zimmermann (in 2011?). Rizzo needs to make some good mid-level deals this winter. The Nats need more depth and some veteran leadership. Maybe they can find an aging veteran who can still hit but not play everyday. That guy could show the other Nats how to take pitches and wear out opposing pitchers by making them throw more pitches than they want to. That’s the best way to deal with dominant pitchers. Wear them down so that they can’t make it through more than 6 or 7 innings and then work on the relievers, who probably aren’t as good.

-------------------------------------------------
The Washington Nationals, the team of the 2010s!

by Potomac Fan on Nov 8, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, to an extent.

I wanted the Yankees to lose as much as the next guy (assuming the next guy doesn’t live in New York), but I don’t think all is hopeless for small market teams. I think you said it exactly right — money doesn’t buy championships, but it does allow teams to make mistakes and still succeed. Had the Yankees signed Austin Kearns to the same deal the Nats did, he would have been a drop in the bucket rather than 10%+ of the team’s salary.

by John Quinn on Nov 7, 2009 3:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm actually glad the Phillies didn't repeat

Even if it meant the Evil Empire capturing their 27 title.

by Andrew Davidson on Nov 7, 2009 8:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nope, I Tip My Hat to Them

Hey, I wish the Lerners had the same philosophy as the Yankees, and put their money back into the team instead of banking it. What with the articles suggesting that the Nats had the best cashflow in MLB, that makes me grind my teeth!

It’s true that the Yankees are a big market ballclub and therefore have a much larger margin for error than small market teams. But it’s no guarantee (see, e.g., Dan Snyder). The Yankees have a pretty good organization now that they’ve stopped wiping out their minor leagues with foolish trades. Yes, they have big money free agents – but if it’s not for the younger home-grown players (especially Phil Hughes) they don’t make it.

by d_c_guy on Nov 9, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with this post

I did have a few games on in the background this postseason, but only after Cliff Lee threw his gem because great baseball is always fun to watch. Nonetheless, I absolutely hate the Yankees and any team remotely like them. I almost always root for small market teams even when they are ineptly run like the Royals. The Nats are my favorite team, but I do not think of the NAts as being a small market team though. DC is a large wealthy market. If we find a way to win the World Series or become a perennial playoff team then we will have revenues in the top 10 in the game maybe top 5. San Diego will never ever have revenues outside the bottom half no matter how much they win. Ditto KC, FLA, Tampa, Oakland and Pittsburgh.

"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James

by PhDBrian on Nov 10, 2009 4:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think the top guys in baseball think incorrectly

because they give to much stock to how many people watch the post season games. When the postseason gets large viewership they think baseball in general is more popular. They are wrong!

The World Series this season was viewed by many more people than the World Series last year simply because the Yankees were in it rather than Tampa. Tampa is located in the very poor part of this country and is not a huge city. NY is huge and rich. Thus, NYA will always draw more viewers to its post season games than TMD. Many many more people in this country have some sort of connection to NY city than Tampa. So NYA is always set on ratings and ticket sales. The Yankees could lose for years and years and this would not change much (look at Boston prior to the last 10 years or the Cubs..they draw fans despite losing)

However, I think that overall baseball viewership is hurt by the same huge big market teams winning every year. A casual fan in San Diego, KC, Tampa or Pittsburg enters every season giving his team almost no chance of winning the World Series. Fanatics like me will always spend some money on baseball, but the casual fan will spend his money elsewhere. However, if those same cities had maybe a 1in 6 chance of making the post season every season, then their casual fans would spend far more. Tampa won the World series last year and was still in the bottom half of the game in terms of revenues this season. That had a lot to do with the casual fans expectation of Tampa’s ability to repeat its championship with the way the Yankees spent in the off season. Baseball needs to address this inequity for the overall health of the game, but they wont because the Yankees always sell out games. They are short sited!

"What you know is often the enemy of what you can learn" Bill James

by PhDBrian on Nov 10, 2009 5:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs