So, it's literally impossible?

 

Without a salary cap and a league-wide TV deal like the NFL has, yes.

 

To clarify: They couldn't compete on a regular basis, year-in and year-out. There might be a year every so often when everything just clicks, but smaller franchises don't have the money to get in an arms race with a big-market club

So, it's literally impossible?

 

Impossible? No, probably not.

 

The difference is that the Yankees (and other big market teams, such as LA, Boston, etc.) have a seemingly endless well of money to draw from.

 

The Reds (and other "small market" teams) have a payroll of around $70 million (moderately sized payroll.) The Yanks can give that much money (more, actually) to ONE player.

Without a salary cap and a league-wide TV deal like the NFL has, yes.

 

To clarify: They couldn't compete on a regular basis, year-in and year-out. There might be a year every so often when everything just clicks, but smaller franchises don't have the money to get in an arms race with a big-market club

 

Thank you. :thumb:

Small markets.........

 

MLB needs a salary cap like football.

 

Thats a debate itself. The Pirates and Marlins owner/s do not want to have to pay a certain amount.

Technically it is a level field for all teams. If the rules (or lack of rules) apply to all then its a level playing field. Its up to the teams to figure out how to compete.

 

However, reality says that the vast majority of MLB teams are not going to be able to compete. Its why the NFL and NBA have gone the salary cap route as should MLB.

Because it is ruining baseball and the reason no one watches anymore.

 

Thats not the Yankees fault. I mean I am not a Yankees fan, but if there is no salary cap, I wish my team would go out and do whatever they can and spend what whatever they can to do well. I don't see why any fan wouldn't want their team to do what the Yankees do. I mean until there is a salary cap, I wish my team would do that.

So would you say it's akin to "class envy"?

 

Sorta, I mean with KY sports it's supposed to be equal, in the MLB I don't see how anyone could argue that's supposed to be equal.

I will address a lot of these comments specifically later tomorrow as I'm very tired right now. But I think all the small market fans in here need to remember who my favorite team is.

A good front office, and good scouts certainly helps, but when the great players you scouted, signed and developed thru your farm system leaves for the big market money after a few years then you have to start all over again while the big market teams can simply reload year after year.

And that's one of the problems. They let these guys leave without doing the most important thing---trading them for MAXIMUM value and getting a good return on the players you get back. Too often I see a team trade away a superstar for a bunch of crappy prospects that don't amount to anything. If you continually get the good prospects back you will have a winner sooner than later. Being a small market team you have a lot more obstacles but it can be done. And I know from experience that it is that much sweeter when you win the big one with an uber low payroll.

This decade...

 

23 of 30 MLB teams (76.7%) have made at least one playoff appearance. Nineteen teams have made multiple playoff appearances. Seven teams have made 5 or more playoff appearances in that span. The Yankees lead with 9 and the Cardinals are second with 7. The Red Sox, Angels and Braves have 6 appearances, while the Twins and A's round out the list with 5.

 

There have been 14 different teams in the World Series out of a maximum of 20. The Yankees lead the way with 4 appearances. The Red Sox, Cardinals and Phillies have all appeared twice. The other ten teams have one appearance each.

 

Of a possible 10, there have been 8 different World Series winners. The Red Sox have won two and the winner of the Phillies/Yankees series will claim their second this decade. That leaves six teams with one World Series title each.

 

Conversely, the NFL has seen 29 of its 32 teams (90.6%) in at least one post-season this decade. The three exceptions are Buffalo, Houston and Detroit. Its possible Houston could make that 30 of 32 by the end of this season. Twenty-six teams have made multiple playoff appearances. Ten teams have made 5 or more playoff appearances. The Colts lead with 8, the Eagles are next with 7, the Patriots, Steelers and Giants have 6 each, and the Ravens, Titans, Packers, Bucs and Seahawks all have 5 appearances. (Note: The Broncos are a good bet to make that 11 teams this season, and the Jets and Chargers are also possibilities.)

 

To date, of a possible 18 teams, there have been 13 different Super Bowl contestants. New England has appeared 4 times. The Giants and Steelers have two appearances each.

 

Of a possible 9 champions, there have been 6 to date. New England leads with 3, Pittsburgh has two, leaving 4 teams with one Super Bowl win.

 

 

The actual results on the field do not support the myth that the "Yankees" are destroying baseball.

 

These teams are doing what anyone would do. They're doing what they can to win with the system in place. Even if two new teams play in the Super Bowl this season, the NFL will have one more team make it to the big show, while having one less different team win a title.

 

But, I won't argue that the NFL executives are doing a better job with their product and they have a better system in place. However, small market baseball teams can be successful with good management. Too often, I think they use it as an excuse so they can make a profit without actually attempting to put a good product on the field.

As usual you have delivered an excellent post!

I think people hate the Yankees because it's vogue. MLB has never been the same after the strike and the lack of salary cap has hurt it too. The NFL is sooo much better IMO and I'm a guy that grew up with baseball teams as wallpaper in my room lol. I love the Reds but I pretty much know it's going to be about once every 20-25 years they have a shot at the World Series. That's why I like the Reds and Yankees (Braves too but that's from childhood). The Reds are my all time favorite but I like having somebody to pull for in the post season. I loved Mattingly growing up + I had class under Steve Hamilton. He pitched when Mantle, Marris etc were there. One of the best story tellers I've ever known. I love the tradition.

I don't blame the Yankees or anybody that spends. It's baseballs fault bottom line! I do get tired of people killing the Yankees when BoSox, Cards, Philly, Dodgers etc spend.

Look at Philly's starting rotation. Two of the 1st three pitchers weren't on the roster to start the season but people don't talk about that.

Honestly I think if the Dodgers hadn't blown it and had paid for Halladay then they would be in the WS! I like having somebody that has the desire to win so they are going to pay to put the best product on the field they can. Definatly not always right but it's nice to know they try!

I don't thiink its just the fact that the Yankees spend more than the other teams, its how much more they spend. For instance, coming into the season the Yankees payroll was $65 Million more than the second place team the New York Mets. So the #2 team on the spending list only spent 67% of what the Yankees spent. The Mariners, who were the 10th highest spending team spent 72% of what the Mets spent. To find as big a disparity between spending as exists between the #1 and #2 spenders you have to go from the Mets at #2 all the way down to the Cardinals at #13. Some posters pointed out that the Red Sox have no room to complain, and I'm not--the Sox have the infrastructure in place to compete and actually outdo (at least the last 6 years) the Yankees with a smaller payroll. But to say they have the same advantage is just untrue. The Red Sox payroll is only 60% of what the Yankees pay out. Meanwhile the 10th place team on the list, the Seattle Mariners, spend 80% as much as the Red Sox. The other teams in the top 10 in payroll are much closer in percentage spent than the Yankees are to their closest spender and it just rubs people the wrong way.

There's the perception that the Yankees approach things from the same angle as a certain political party - throw money at problems.

I don't thiink its just the fact that the Yankees spend more than the other teams, its how much more they spend. For instance, coming into the season the Yankees payroll was $65 Million more than the second place team the New York Mets. So the #2 team on the spending list only spent 67% of what the Yankees spent. The Mariners, who were the 10th highest spending team spent 72% of what the Mets spent. To find as big a disparity between spending as exists between the #1 and #2 spenders you have to go from the Mets at #2 all the way down to the Cardinals at #13. Some posters pointed out that the Red Sox have no room to complain, and I'm not--the Sox have the infrastructure in place to compete and actually outdo (at least the last 6 years) the Yankees with a smaller payroll. But to say they have the same advantage is just untrue. The Red Sox payroll is only 60% of what the Yankees pay out. Meanwhile the 10th place team on the list, the Seattle Mariners, spend 80% as much as the Red Sox. The other teams in the top 10 in payroll are much closer in percentage spent than the Yankees are to their closest spender and it just rubs people the wrong way.

If the disparity were 1 million dollars, the same complaints would exist and you know it.

I agree that it is more fun when they lose, but when they bring in 3 players for 420 million in one offseason it gets a little annoying.

 

True, but it's not like the huge payroll makes them unbeatable. It's funny to see such a huge payroll come up short.