- This topic has 2,871 replies, 53 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MLB came under scrutiny a few years back for “lack of competitive balance”. I don’t know if that was actually happening or not but nevertheless they implemented measures such as revenue sharing and competitive balance picks. By the way, the Cardinals receive competitive balance picks. Is it ok for our team to receive some of this “corporate welfare?”
So 2016, you are going to base your argument on a rounding error of 3000+ fans? Your link proved nothing. And before you acuse me of things you should make sure you know what you are talking about.
Were we talking about the Cubs or the Royals? Nice try changing the subject because you dont have the facts to back up your original argument. The fact remains that even when the A’s have won (and the have been in the playoffs far more than most teams since 2000) they still have not attracted a significant fan base. There last 6 playoff teams have all been in the bottom 40% in attendance. The A’s have problems that winning doesn’t seem to solve. And those are facts from your link!
Well I got two of the three paragraphs regarding revenue sharing posted. Still trying to get it to accept the third.
I know how much people have averages even though it is the foundation of statistics, but in the 10 years prior to the introduction of revenue sharing, the Oakland A’s averaged nearly 240,000 more fans per year than the San Francisco Giants.
It wasn’t until the year 2000 (4 years after the introduction of revenue sharing) that San Francisco began to consistently outdraw the A’s.
Moneyball is a con to get money by not playing the best ball.
The NFL has had revenue sharing for years. I don’t know what their formula is but it does seem to allow small markets to be competitive with the larger markets assuming you want to boil it down to population, which I doubt is the only criteria of the formula.
Goldschmidt, Harper, Machado are going somewhere soon. Cards may be wise to look at the players that these three (possibly others) will be replacing to get a piece that will help and could be had at a price that the Cards can (will) pay. A lot depends on the FO thinking ’19 or ’20.
MLB had revenue sharing for decades even before they had revenue sharing! For many, many years they have divided gate receipts. They equally divided national tv revenue. The game changed when the Yankees and others figured out how maximize local, non shareable revenue through local TV and luxury boxes. After that, new ways to revenue share had to be put in place (including some local sharing of local TV revenue).
If the Cards end up doing very little, my prediction is that some will spin it that the Cards are waiting for Arenado next year. Of course, the team can’t say that because it would be tampering so it gets hinted upon and beat writers do the bidding (not because they are colluding – just doing their jobs).
The flaws in that logic are huge. 2019 doesn’t get help and the odds of Arenado reaching the market AND the Cards being willing to top all offers seems remote.
By then, the spin will be that they don’t want to block Montero and/or Gorman. There will always be a future excuse. At some point, they have to address NOW.
I remember last August I was irritated that the Cards didn’t block the Cubs from getting Murphy I was scolded and told that teams really don’t do that anymore. Oh really?
JeffWilpon said part of reason to do deal now was a “block” on the #Phillies. Said #Mets intel was if Diaz didn’t come to NYM was going to Pha.
— Joel Sherman (@Joelsherman1) December 4, 2018
I dont know who scolded you gscott but I believe trams do do that on waivers (such as Murphy). I dont believe they do it much in trades as the Mets appear to have done but it is the Mets so I doubt that is a behavior we want to emulate.
Whether it is trades or waivers I’ve never believed in the “we don’t pay attention to what our rivals are doing” garbage. Maybe we should start paying attention.
Corbin to the Nationals. So much for them sitting back.
Source: Corbin six-year deal with #Nationals is above Yu Darvish’s $126M guarantee with #Cubs. Pending physical.
— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) December 4, 2018
You can sure tell that 2018 was Corbin’s walk year:
2018 2017 2016
WHIP 1.050 1.418 1.561
ERA 3.15 4.03 5.15
SO/W 5.13 2.92 1.98No sense in saying the Nationals leadership is inept until we see what Corbin does going forward. But just looking at this makes me think the Nationals have fooled themselves.
Mets and Phils, two teams going in opposite directions. Met’s hopes rest on Cespedes maybe being motivated enough to put his uniform on.
So 2016, you are going to base your argument on a rounding error of 3000+ fans?
Ha! You said they never broke 2 million. They did. All you had to do was take a 3 second glance at the data to see the trends and actual numbers.
The fact remains that even when the A’s have won (and the have been in the playoffs far more than most teams since 2000) they still have not attracted a significant fan base.
They lose their fan base because whatever periods of winning they go through are followed be severe and sudden dropoffs in winning caused by selling off the team.
Do some basic trend analysis and plot their wins against their attendance! Do they follow each other or not? Why yes, they do!
2016, i am surprised that has a statistics nut you would present correlation as causation.
Fact is, the A’s were outdrawing the Giants in the Bay area until revenue sharing was introduced. The A’s made a business decision to milk revenue sharing for all it is worth and invented the concept of moneyball, which the Rays and Marlins have copied. The idea is to plead poverty, accept welfare, and sell of high dollar players on a continual basis.
When they go though these sell-offs, they lose their fan bases (big surprise).
The Giants invested in their team (you can compare payrolls), invested in a new ballpark (AT&T park opened in 2000 – do you see the correlation)?
This is why DeWitt has built a model where he wants to consistently contend and NOT go through teardowns.
The history of gaming revenue sharing
TV Contracts
Oh, and look at that, before the TV contract that kicked in for the Cardinals this past year, Oakland actually had a larger TV contract than the Cardinals.Such a poor, small market team…
Oh, and one more thing. In the 10 years prior to revenue sharing, the A’s averaged 2,050,802 fans, while the Giants average 1,811,738. That is a difference of 239,064.
To put it another way, the A’s averaged 13% more fans per year. That is statistically significant.
Moneyball is a con.
Also the city of Oakland is notoriously difficult to make a deal with. Their city politics is a con. In fact, it is almost impossible for sports franchises anywhere in California to get through the monolith of bureaucracy. Kudos to the Giants for getting a new stadium done but the Chargers bolted (pun intended) from San Diego to be a tenant of Stan Kroenke. And the only reason Kroenke got the deal done for the Rams is that it is almost all privately financed and he got help from Jerry Jones.
The Raiders are leaving Oakland, the Warriors are leaving Oakland, and the A’s are at least trying to get something done in that city but if I were the A’s I would tell Oakland to shove it.
Oakland Approves Stadium for Raiders
San Diego Chargers left San Diego because the citizens voted down the funding of a new stadium, because they were still subsidizing the old stadium and would have been on the hook for more than $2.3 billion over 30 years for a new stadium. San Diego Stadium Proposals
Voice of San Diego reported on March 11, 2015, that a new Chargers’ stadium would likely not make San Diego money, citing that the city still owed millions in tax dollars for the renovations to Chargers’ Qualcomm Stadium repairs from 1997, and is currently paying about $12 million yearly for Qualcomm. The article stated that San Diego taxpayers subsidize Qualcomm stadium with over $10 million a year because the Chargers and other stadium events didn’t generate enough revenue to cover costs. Qualcomm stadium also cost taxpayers almost $2 million each year for police and fire services at Chargers games, as well as repairs to the stadium, costs which were not compensated for by the Chargers.
On August 15, 2016, the Public Resources Advisory Group published an independent report which estimated the stadium plan would have required a public contribution of $2.3 billion over 30 years, which was more than twice as much as the estimate of $1.1 billion by the Chargers.
Why people think welfare for billionaires is a good idea is beyond me.
I’m very familiar with the Raiders, Chargers, and Rams saga. I followed it closely. The city of Oakland “approved” a Raiders stadium deal way too late in the game. The Raiders had already received approval from Nevada for funding in Vegas. If Oakland had been serious about building a stadium they would have done it long before December of 2016. They tried to save face at the 11th hour but it was too late. They thought Mark Davis was bluffing about leaving but they were wrong. Same with the Warriors.
The Warriors has nothing to do with getting stadium funding. It has everything to do with moving to a richer environment, where they can cater to a wealthier crowd.
Self-Financed
The Players
The fansAs for the NFL teams: There is absolutely, positively, no way a community can ever recoup the money for building a stadium for an NFL team. They only play 8 regular season games per year, a couple of preseason games. Public funding of an NFL stadium is the worst idea ever.
Oh, and about that Chargers move:
Owners discussing viability of LA Chargers
- The topic ‘Trade Ideas/Acquisition Ideas/Non-Cards Rumors – 2017-2018’ is closed to new replies.