I know this is just one season, but all eight playoff teams came from the 16 biggest payrolls, and 10 of 16 had a chance at the playoffs going into the final week of play. Revenue sharing schmevenue sharing?
Also, I can't believe Seattle's payroll is that high.
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:42 (fourteen years ago) link
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 04:43 (fourteen years ago) link
30 Tampa Bay Devil Rays $29,363,06729 Kansas City Royals $36,881,00028 Pittsburgh Pirates $38,133,00027 Milwaukee Brewers $39,934,83326 Cleveland Indians $41,502,50025 Toronto Blue Jays $45,719,50024 Colorado Rockies $48,155,00023 Washington Nationals $48,581,50022 Oakland Athletics $55,425,76221 Texas Rangers $55,849,00020 Minnesota Twins $56,186,0019 Florida Marlins $60,408,834
― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:03 (fourteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:11 (fourteen years ago) link
― Jimmy Mod wants you to tighten the strings on your corset (The Famous Jimmy Mod), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:19 (fourteen years ago) link
I definitely am not under the illusion that things used to be different, I just am not convinced that revenue sharing is doing much to affect the major competitive balance issues in the league. The counterargument is that a balanced league means boring parity, but I enjoy watching the NFL and deeply respect the teams that have managed to stay highly competitive despite a mostly level playing field (Patriots, Green Bay until this year, St. Louis, Denver, Indy, etc.).
And of course I deeply respect what the Beanes and Ryans and Shapiros of the world have been able to accomplish, but I would be more impressed to see what they could do with a more level playing field.
― polyphonic (polyphonic), Monday, 3 October 2005 05:34 (fourteen years ago) link
2. A more important point: almost all of the teams in the bottom 12 are either rebuilding, or have been for years. Cleveland 26th place ranking has zero to do with revenue sharing, it's because they tore the team apart a few years ago and started rebuilding from scratch -- all before the present deal was in place. If they start letting all of their young (=cheap) crop walk in a couple of years in order to retain a $40M payroll, then we can talk.
― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Monday, 3 October 2005 06:00 (fourteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 3 October 2005 06:38 (fourteen years ago) link
― The Obligatory Sourpuss (Begs2Differ), Monday, 3 October 2005 12:45 (fourteen years ago) link
Seattle's payroll = THANK YOU RICHARD SEXTON & HARRIDAN BELTRAY! (And Evie Day Eduardo.)
― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 3 October 2005 13:17 (fourteen years ago) link
― gygax! (gygax!), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:18 (fourteen years ago) link
― David R. (popshots75`), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:20 (fourteen years ago) link
Oh, yeah, the Yankees and Red Sox are both in the playoffs, as are four other teams who played in the 2004 postseason. Wasn't this the kind of thing that Bud Selig railed against five years ago? Where is the outcry today about how so few teams have hope and faith? It couldn't be that "competitive balance" is merely a canard, a catchphrase brought out during negotiating periods that really means, "the players make too much money," could it? It couldn't be that as long as there are controls on labor costs and mechanisms that funnel money down the competence pyramid, the powers that be couldn't give a damn what the standings look like?
Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is there is just as much stagnation atop the standings and in the playoffs as there was in the previous CBA, but we don't hear about how increased revenue sharing and agreements to restrict the labor market…well, don't have much effect on the game on the field. Perhaps now we can get some honest coverage of baseball's economics as we head into the next round of CBA negotiations.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 3 October 2005 18:38 (fourteen years ago) link
is parity receding?
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Monday, 28 August 2017 11:29 (two years ago) link
we're gonna end up with four 100-loss teams and three-to-five 100-win teams
what are the records for such things?
― mookieproof, Saturday, 21 September 2019 18:12 (two months ago) link
Four 100 win teams would be a record, the first time ever. The Twins, A's, and Braves still have a chance to win 100. Still, six 95 win teams is probably a record too.
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 22 September 2019 06:09 (two months ago) link
The Indians and Rays might win 95 as well. Eight 95 win teams!
― NoTimeBeforeTime, Sunday, 22 September 2019 06:11 (two months ago) link
!n 2002 there were four 100-loss teams and three 100-win teams.
― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 22 September 2019 14:06 (two months ago) link