BatDad sent on an interesting article from The Wall Street Journal, Baseball's Critics Are Blaming the Wrong Millionaire (log-in required). The thrust of the matter: Why blame George Steinbrenner? He just wants to win, while Carl Pohlad, apparently, does not. (The blame-worthy millionaire seems to be Bud Selig, which makes Batgirl happy.)
...It's not that the Red Sox couldn't afford A-Rod. Like several other major-league owners, including several in the so-called small markets, the Red Sox bosses have personal wealth far greater than Mr. Steinbrenner's. Unlike Mr. Steinbrenner, they seem loath to risk their own money on their teams.Posted by Batgirl at April 22, 2004 12:10 PMWhy should they when they get welfare from the Yankees? The Yankees could be paying out as much as $75 million in revenue sharing and luxury tax this year. Between that, the payroll and other team costs, the Yankees began this season not knowing whether they would show a profit. All Mr. Steinbrenner wants to do is win.
One of the absurdities of the current system is that it rewards some of the wealthiest men in the country for not investing in their own baseball business. For instance, the payroll of the Minnesota Twins, owned by billionaire Carl Polhad, ranks 23rd out of 30 teams. Mr. Polhad isn't required to spend any of the money given to him by the Major League Baseball central fund on players' salaries. He is required to spend it on team improvements; the catch is that those team improvements are defined by the commissioner, himself a former owner.
Baseball's critics are right: There is a ridiculous imbalance in baseball spending. But it hasn't been caused by Mr. Steinbrenner. It's been caused by a system created by men who, in the words of the former players' union head Marvin Miller, "pay lip service to competition and free enterprise, and shudder when they see it in action."
All George Steinbrenner wants to do is win.
While el diablo doesn't tend to agree with the WSJ, this does bring up an interesting point. Though the fact that Pohlad is a tightwad is nothing new.
Posted by: el diablo at April 22, 2004 12:19 PMBut wait... doesn't this mean that Red Sox fans will have to stop whining about "The Yankees buy their team?"
Posted by: ManDown at April 22, 2004 12:57 PMYeah.... all Polhad did was save Minnesota the Twins by personally keeping them from moving. For that, he is continually demonized.
MLB is a joke sport now because about 1/3rd of the league is out of contention at the beginning of the year due to a salary race that some have refused to play.
The players don't want less money, the owners collectively don't want less money, they want you to complain about someone not spending enough.
$2 million per year pay for being average - name another vocation where you get $2 million per year for being mediocre.
Posted by: Jon Johnston at April 22, 2004 07:46 PMPolitics?
Posted by: mmmarkiep at April 23, 2004 08:09 AMJJ,
Mr. Polhad was about to happily pocket a contraction payout to wipe the team off the face of the earth. He cares nothing about the game or the fans. He doesn't put his revenue sharing $$$ back into the team via players and is content to float along in a division he could be dominating given the talent his front office staff has developed in recent years. Don't blame the players because their average salary is $2 million. The owners have signed off on every one of those contracts, for better or for worse. These are smart businessmen who made fortunes in various industries. If they can't figure out how to run a successful or profitable baseball team, I for one am not going to cry about the salaries they've agreed to pay to the people who produce all the revenue in the first place. You and I don't pay our hard earned money to watch Carl Polhad (or more to the point, his lawyers) read over the fine print on Torii Hunter's contract.
Also, the "1/3 of the league is out of contention because of money" crap doesn't wash with the results on the field. Baseball is a zero-sum game: every win for one team is balanced with a loss by another team. so by definition, if there are some good teams, then ther have to be bad teams. despite the Yankees recent dominance, it it is not always the same teams who are good or bad. you had a number of teams in contention last year from the supposed "have not" side of the field such as the A's, Expos, Royals and Marlins. Meanwhile teams with large revenue streams like the Mets and Rockies and even the Angels played poorly. If you look at MLB since 1982 (22 years), you'll find that 15 different teams have won the World Series, which is a pretty good percentage compared to other sports. No one complained about the NFL when Dallas, SF and the Giants were winning the Super Bowl every year.
Sorry to be so long-winded.
Posted by: jamie at April 23, 2004 04:30 PM1/3 of the league!?
the brewers who rank LAST in sallary are currently above .500 with few problems, just to name the first team with a low budget that popped into my head(haha i'm speaking with twins fans about the brewers)
and !?average!? i maybe average for mlb but they are most definitely not average for baeball players. come on now.