Baseball 2018

shoeless said:
Why do you expect 2018 to be different from any other year? The Nats will have the best record in the NL, then get eliminated early in the playoffs like every year. :grin:

Edit: also the Caps.
Click to expand...

and the Tigers will look great right up until the first week of august and then crash & burn.
the Indians will get into the playoffs, and blow it.
getting to be an old book.
 
shoeless said:
Why do you expect 2018 to be different from any other year? The Nats will have the best record in the NL, then get eliminated early in the playoffs like every year. :grin:

Edit: also the Caps.
Click to expand...

But this time it'll be due to lack of talent, not crummy managing.
 
While on the road, the Astros will be eating at a Japanese restaurant and come down with pee pee fever after drinking urinated ice cubes. Thanks, Gurriel!
 
I don't have a lot of hope for the upcoming Orioles season. They need a heck of a lot of starting pitching to be competitive.
 
The Mariners will have a good run or two, duping the Seattle hopeful into believing again, then fall short and remain irrelevant.

I will instead go to a Rainier's game in Tacoma. Mebbe try a Boise Hawks game, but that looks hot and dusty.
 
tiger roach said:
Damn. Can't we enjoy our championship a week or two before digging into the next season? :tongue:
Click to expand...

Regular season has been over for a month and teams have already made managerial decisions, tendered extensions and qualifying offers, and the hot stove is about to fire up officially. Get over it. :tongue:
 
A R.I.P. to Hall-of-Famer Bobby Doerr.

99 years old, the longest-living HoF'er so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
The Rockies have a year or two before their talent pool salary demands starts to outstrip their budget. No way they retain Holland, but 'top' closers are so vastly overpriced . As for the division.....they had three teams in the playoffs last year. And the Dodgers are going to outspend everyone so I'm not overly optimistic that the Rocks will win the division anytime soon. But making the play in game was huge last year. And if their very young pitching staff can continue to improve I think they can be very competitive for the next two to three years. Then all their top players will all go sign with the Dodgers/Nats/Yankees.Red Sox/ ect. Teams with a lot of money.

Actually - the Astros success last season showed that an organization built the right way can win it all. But STAYING on top is tough without a big budget. Just look at the Royals. They had their two or three seasons and now the top players are leaving and they are back to mediocre.
 
I don't think the Red Sox / Dodgers / Yankees / Nats / etc. do well just because they have a lot of money. If you disagree, I think someone would like to trade you David Price (and his contract).

It's that they have developed top-to-bottom organizations that have a sustainable success profile. I can speak for the Red Sox's approach. Their starting outfield is considered one of the best in baseball, and is homegrown. They got Chris Sale because they had prospects to trade for him.

As for the Royals, that's a great counter-example ... but why is it that they can't spend on big free agents? Are they really a 'poor' team? Does such a thing exist any more?
 
Danhedonia said:
As for the Royals, that's a great counter-example ... but why is it that they can't spend on big free agents? Are they really a 'poor' team? Does such a thing exist any more?
Click to expand...



The biggest difference between the smaller market and the larger market is tv money so yeah, it makes a difference. Profession sports is one of the few scenarios where you have to pay your employees as much as your dumbest competitor. Once guys become established and can command the biggest contracts, only the large markets can compete for them. Whether they pan out is a different deal but a large market may have room for multiple giant contracts where the smaller markets don't.
 
Johnny N. said:
The biggest difference between the smaller market and the larger market is tv money so yeah, it makes a difference. Profession sports is one of the few scenarios where you have to pay your employees as much as your dumbest competitor. Once guys become established and can command the biggest contracts, only the large markets can compete for them. Whether they pan out is a different deal but a large market may have room for multiple giant contracts where the smaller markets don't.
Click to expand...

The problem with the TV money argument is that every team receives $50 million every year from MLB's tv deals. Yes, while having a home tv deal helps, not having one isn't as much of a detriment as it was 10 years ago. So essentially, any team not spending $150 million on their payroll and putting significant efforts into developing players, is putting profits over winning.
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
The problem with the TV money argument is that every team receives $50 million every year from MLB's tv deals. Yes, while having a home tv deal helps, not having one isn't as much of a detriment as it was 10 years ago. So essentially, any team not spending $150 million on their payroll and putting significant efforts into developing players, is putting profits over winning.
Click to expand...


I knew they had made some changes but wasn't aware of exactly what they had done with the tv contract.
 
Johnny N. said:
I knew they had made some changes but wasn't aware of exactly what they had done with the tv contract.
Click to expand...

The $50 million is only from MLB. This chart is from April 2016, but it should give you a good idea of who needs to renegotiate their tv contracts:

MLB-TEAM-OWNERSHIP-STAKES-IN-CABLE-NETWORKS-1-e1461607670807.png


Then there's the actual revenue itself:

MLB Team Estimated Television Contracts
2016 Revenue Deal Deal Start Deal End Ownership More Info
Dodgers $204 M 25/$8.35 B 2014 2038 100% LINK
Angels $118 M 20/$3 B 2012 2031 25% LINK
Yankees $98 M 30/$5.7 B 2013 2042 20% LINK
Red Sox $80 M 2006 80% LINK
Mariners $76 M 18/$1.8 B 2014 2031 71% LINK
Cubs $65 M 2004 2019 20% LINK
Phillies $60 M 25/$2.5 B 2016 2040 25% LINK
Astros $60 M 20/$1.6 B 2013 2032 No LINK
Rangers $56 M 20/$1.6 B 2015 2034 10% LINK
Tigers $55 M 10/$500 M 2009 2018 No LINK
Giants $54 M 25/$1.75 B 2008 2032 30% LINK
White Sox $51 M 2004 2019 20% LINK
Diamondbacks $50 M 20/$1.5 B 2016 2035 Yes LINK
Mets $46 M 25/$1.3 B 2006 2030 65% LINK
Nationals $46 M Arbitration 2006 2028 18% LINK
Orioles $46 M 2006 2028 82% LINK
A’s $41 M 21/$1 B 2009 2029 No LINK
Indians $40 M 10/$400 M 2013 2022 No LINK
Padres $39 M 20/$1 B 2012 2031 20% LINK
Twins $37 M 12/$480 M 2012 2023 No LINK
Braves $35 M 2008 2027 No LINK
Cardinals $33 M 15/$1 B 2008, 2018 2017, 2032 30% LINK
Reds $30 M 2007 2016 No LINK
Pirates $25 M 2010 2019 No LINK
Brewers $24 M 2013 2019 No LINK
Royals $22 M 12/$240 M 2008 2019 No LINK
Marlins $20 M 15/$270 M 2006 2020 No LINK
Rockies $20 M 10/$200 M 2011 2020 No LINK
Rays $20 M 2009 2018 No LINK
Blue Jays 100% LINK

Here's the original article: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/
 
The above (very interesting! - thanks) seems to confirm that market size is not the driving factor behind team successes.

I really think it's more about ownership and organizational structure. The Cardinals are not in a 'huge' market, but have been successful across many years. And if we go outside baseball, the Packers certainly aren't in a large market.

As for having to pay as much as the dumbest competitor -- yes and no. I think that's true for some players in some sports, but then you get guys who will take restructures on deals (like Brady) because they're in a good situation. Or they want to go to a good situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top