Baseball's perfect financial setup vs. the dreaded NFL

[TheSportsPredictor]

Let's play twist the stats to fit your argument! My turn:

The reason football has so much turnover is teams only play 16 games. Therefore, a one- or two-game swing changes everything. Baseball, not so much; you have to be good for a damn long time to make the playoffs.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Hmmm...I wonder who that somebody else is.

I agree that it should have its own thread, just to avoid the potentially nasty threadjacks elsewhere.

And to address buckweaver's point above regarding the Arizona Cardinals and the Pirates, yes it would help tremendously if both teams started making better decisions.

But if such a miraculous change were to take place, the Cardinals would be in a much better position to contend because they already have the same resources as every team they compete with in terms of roster-building resources. The Pirates would still be at a disadvantage to the franchises that have more revenue coming in.

The Cardinals will be favored to win their division in 2008.... will the Pirates?

The Cardinals have drafted guys like Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, and others who have been good players and contribute in a division that is dreadfully bad.

The Pirates have not drafted well even when given advantageous draft position, have not signed free agents who can help, and prefer to pocket money that would otherwise be spent on improving the team. The entire organization, including the minor leagues and scouting, has been a shame the last few years. Player development isn't something the NFL typically has to worry about. They use the NCAA for that. The Pirates have that additional worry, and thus, one more thing to **** up by being a bad organization.

Guess what?

When you are tight on finances, the first thing that gets socked is scouting.

The seamheads are about to lose the one whipping boy the NFL has to offer... funny, the ownership didn't change.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If that's the case, how come teams like Colorado and Cleveland, with payrolls in the bottom third of the league, did so well? Hell, Arizona is also at the bottom of the league in payroll.

The teams that slash scouting are the dumb ones. It isn't like the Pirates don't have the money for it, they just didn't spend it. They used a top-10 pick on a pitcher who went 0-7 this year, after just finally making the big leagues. Of course, most every other team said that John Van Benschoten was a better hitter than pitcher, but who cares? They have the money. They just consciously choose not to spend it. And it only makes them look worse when you see other teams with comparable payrolls do substantially better.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

In fact, in terms of baseball payroll this year, you have, in order...

22 Kansas City
23 San Diego
24 Cleveland
25 Colorado
26 Arizona
27 Pittsburgh

That's four teams who were either in the LCS, or one game away from the playoffs, ranked well in the bottom third. So it's possible to succeed if you spend your money wisely. The Pirates simply don't.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

If that's the case, how come teams like Colorado and Cleveland, with payrolls in the bottom third of the league, did so well? Hell, Arizona is also at the bottom of the league in payroll.

I'll do this slowly:

The difference between being historically good in the MLB and historically bad is a mere 30 winning-percentage points.

The game fosters anomaly.

Also, the NL's payroll expenditure as a whole (less than $75 million per team on average in 2007) is worlds less than the AL and its $93 million per team.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

In fact, in terms of baseball payroll this year, you have, in order...

22 Kansas City
23 San Diego
24 Cleveland
25 Colorado
26 Arizona
27 Pittsburgh

That's four teams who were either in the LCS, or one game away from the playoffs, ranked well in the bottom third. So it's possible to succeed if you spend your money wisely. The Pirates simply don't.

Again, it isn't whether you can get lucky one year with extremely young, pre-free-agency players.

The system grabs hold in a few years.

Will these teams you reference be able to keep their players?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

So what? I just showed you that payroll is an overstated advantage. Otherwise you'd have teams like Baltimore and San Francisco, which checked in at 10 and 11 on the highest payroll list, much more competitive than they were and have been for the past few years. They've tried to spend their way into contention and it hasn't worked.

The teams I listed didn't spend their way into contention. They did it the right way. It's not an anomoly either. They've built themselves a good foundation for continued contention much like the Twins and the A's did for several years prior. Those aren't flukes. That's smarts.

In the NFL, the Browns had one of the highest amounts of incoming revenue and yet they sucked for years and years before this one. If you think everyone deserves a chance to win, the NFL pretty much makes sure you can do that unless you're a total ****up, much like Arizona and Detroit have been. In baseball, good decisions are rewarded, and bad ones aren't.

And btw, historically Cleveland, Colorado, and Arizona have all been big spenders. There's little reason that they can't keep what they have. But the great sham of free agency is that teams overpay for players on the downsides of their career, more often than not. In many cases it's better to cut bait and go cheaper.

I'm not saying one system is better than the other. But baseball's isn't as bad as you make it out to be, and it's comparing apples to oranges. I'm starting to think you're Wayne Huizenga or something.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

So what? I just showed you that payroll is an overstated advantage. Otherwise you'd have teams like Baltimore and San Francisco, which checked in at 10 and 11 on the highest payroll list, much more competitive than they were and have been for the past few years. They've tried to spend their way into contention and it hasn't worked.

The teams I listed didn't spend their way into contention. They did it the right way. It's not an anomoly either. They've built themselves a good foundation for continued contention much like the Twins and the A's did for several years prior. Those aren't flukes. That's smarts.

In the NFL, the Browns had one of the highest amounts of incoming revenue and yet they sucked for years and years before this one. If you think everyone deserves a chance to win, the NFL pretty much makes sure you can do that unless you're a total ****up, much like Arizona and Detroit have been. In baseball, good decisions are rewarded, and bad ones aren't.

And btw, historically Cleveland, Colorado, and Arizona have all been big spenders. There's little reason that they can't keep what they have. But the great sham of free agency is that teams overpay for players on the downsides of their career, more often than not. In many cases it's better to cut bait and go cheaper.

I'm not saying one system is better than the other. But baseball's isn't as bad as you make it out to be, and it's comparing apples to oranges. I'm starting to think you're Wayne Huizenga or something.

Spending a lot doesn't ensure any success over the long term if you have a moron doing the spending.

Not being able to spend ensures minimal success over the long run.

You getting the concept?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

So then you're agreeing with me that making smart decisions is the most important part of success and that your payroll argument is not standing up? I've already told you that the Pirates can spend, they just choose not to. That's a fact.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Teams in the top five slots in the 2007 payroll figures have represented the AL in the WS 10 of the past 12 years.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

How is that different from the Patriots going four times since 2002 or whatever it is?

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

So then you're agreeing with me that making smart decisions is the most important part of success and that your payroll argument is not standing up? I've already told you that the Pirates can spend, they just choose not to. That's a fact.

The Pirates cannot spend within their business model and turn a profit.

Or, better, you tell me how much they can spend to get you believing they would be "breaking even".

Smart decision-making and ZERO injuries to embryonic MLB players is the most important combo required for 75 percent of the teams in the majors to have a chance to win any year.

And even so, those teams LOSE THEIR PLAYERS after a few years purely because of the pay system. Right?

If you have injuries, you had better have a payroll above $100M so you can cover them up and do a lot of praying.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

How is that different from the Patriots going four times since 2002 or whatever it is?

You have the NFL payroll figures?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I'll do it even more slowly.

Less

games

in

NFL

equals

more

parity.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

I'll do it even more slowly.

Less

games

in

NFL

equals

more

parity.

Fewer, not less.

And, fewer games means MORE parity?

zeke might want to have a mathematical word with you. This week he has been learning about regression to a mean.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

If you spend your money outside of the ML payroll, you can get substantial returns. It's what the Twins and A's did most of this decade, and it's what Colorado, Cleveland, and Arizona have been doing the past few years and are seeing the results of. Milwaukee, in the lower half, has also begun employing that method.

And the Patriots are a member of the group of 7 or so teams considered the "haves" of the NFL. Joining them are Washington, Dallas, Cleveland, and others.

Listen... you are probably a nice guy, but forgive me if I don't trust your omniscience.

List the NFL payrolls, please.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Teams in the top five slots in the 2007 payroll figures have represented the AL in the WS 10 of the past 12 years.

Apparently, incredibly, worth repeating.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

How is that different from the Patriots going four times since 2002 or whatever it is?

You have the NFL payroll figures?

Last season, the number 1 payroll was Indianapolis with $131 million, while the smallest was Oakland at $72M, a $59M difference.

The No. 1 paid team in MLB is at $190M. Subtract $59M from that and you have a team with $131M.

In the NFL, all teams are within $59M of the leader.

How many such teams are there in MLB?

Oh.... ONE.

 

[spnited]

Simon, I think your thread title is backward.
None of us is saying baseball has a perfect financial setup and the NFL's sucks. But you are saying the NFL has a perfect system and baseball's sucks.

Of course, we can always debate the merits of the NBA's system where you can exceed the cap by a billion dollars and still suck as badly as the Knicks do.

I am opposed to salary caps in any way, shape or form in any sport because all they do is allow owners to make a profit without caring if they are competitive.

And the Pirates could be more competitive if they took some of their $30 million in revenue sharing and spent it on players instead of pocketing it.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

How is that different from the Patriots going four times since 2002 or whatever it is?

You have the NFL payroll figures?

That is not an answer.
Judging by the standards applied here -- the number of different teams who make the playoffs, which is a dumb standard, but it's the one under discussion -- there is as much parity in MLB than there is in the NFL.