MLB, concerned that the Marlins are not using their money from revenue sharing to improve on-field performance (as it is supposed to be used), is going to be keeping a more watchful eye on their balance sheets for the next three years.
Does the saying of “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” apply in this situation? Possibly – I’m certainly inclined to at least think there might be some validity to MLB’s concern.
Thinking about this story got me wondering: could it simply be time to rethink what keeps a team eligible to play at the MLB level? It’s horribly impractical to think about implementing a system of relegation and promotion as is found in European soccer – between the farm systems that are in place, civic dollars that get tied up in bringing or keeping an MLB team in a city, stadium funding and availability, local fan base support – it’s all too much to just blow up in favor of a new system. But should MLB consider a new way to punish losing?
I have no desire to implement either a salary floor or a salary cap – while there may be correlation between spending and winning, it’s certainly not an absolute correlation. And if you can win while spending less money, more power to you.
What if there was a proposal that said you have to win your division once every decade, or face some kind of monetary fine? Or you have to make the playoffs twice per decade? Or maybe win your division once or the wild card twice in any 10-year period?
The discussion has to start with what it means to be successful – and what are we setting out to punish. My basic assumption is that because fans like winning teams, we would want to reward winning, or at least steer teams away from just losing and cashing the check without repercussion. MLB would seemingly benefit from having as many winning teams as possible – increased fan interest, greater perception of teams making the playoffs, etc.
So given that mandating winning a World Series isn’t really feasible, and that I don’t believe that winning the World Series is the sole determinate of a successful season, there needs to be another way to judge success. The playoffs provide enough objectivity and opportunity to do that, at least at first glance.
Since four of the six divisions have five teams, and there is one six-team and one four-team division, the availability of winning a division title is certainly there. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. Two wild-card berths would be a bit harder, but again, it’s conceivable.
Looking back over the first ten years of the 2000s, Baltimore, Toronto, Kansas City, Texas, Detroit, Washington/Montreal, Florida, Milwaukee, Cincinnatti, Houston, Pittsburgh and Colorado all failed to win their division at least once. Colorado and Houston would get a pass by winning the NL wild card twice, but that still leaves ten teams that failed to make the proposed cut. Detroit and Milwaukee each fall one wild-card short of the mark.
The way I see it, winning is already full of incentives, or at least has the potential to be full of incentives – increased fan interest, increased interest among players to sign with your organization, and of course the potential for increased revenue if a team is able to capitalize on the opportunity.
So then what becomes the punishment for failing to make the playoffs? Certainly financial punishments seem plausible – although some teams could just see it as an operating expense and factor it into the cost of doing business. Could you take away draft picks? Possibly, although I’m not sure if that helps the situation or is damaging enough to motivate a team into building a winner. Could you force an ownership to sell? Possibly, but that would be a seemingly huge condition to implement, although it’s certainly intriguing. There’s probably other ideas out there as well.
Winning – and winning enough to have some regular appearances in the playoffs, seems to be an easy enough way to judge if a team is making progress. Win once in a while and we’ll leave you alone, MLB could say. But don’t just think you could sit back and cash the checks without repercussion.
Thoughts?
The question becomes how do you objectively define success? two world championships since 1993 isnt bad. Finally getting your own home- that too is a bonus- and will likely raise the investment. How the marlins shop for players is likely how you and I shop for a car- you want the best you can get- for the money- and wont throw big bucks at something when you know you can get the same performance at a lower rate. $ on contracts does not always = player performance. We complain about the high end of the salary piece on this. What if Jason Bay hits 230 with 20 homers? is this a failure? If Chris Coughlan hits .300 and has 15 big flys on a substantially lower salary… who are the smart ones? Money should be spent in player development- and acquisition of winning performances- not always- big name stars.
If the question becomes how do you objectively define success, then the answer is winning the World Series. In athletic competition, there is a clear indicator of the truly successful season – in this case, winning the World Series. But as mentioned in my original post, it’s impossible and silly to mandate that every team wins a World Series. But it is possible and responsible to mandate that every team be competitive.
In theory, each of the 30 teams was started with the idea that they would be competing for a World Series title each and every year. That’s the goal, that’s the objective, the business plan, whatever you want to call it. That’s what they’d have fans believe as well. Clearly it doesn’t always work out that way – injuries happen, players have bad years, the ball just doesn’t bounce your way, etc. But good teams continue to be pointed in the right direction and can bounce back from adversity and off years.
However, it has clearly been shown that there are teams that are not committed to winning a World Series. Take the Pittsburgh Pirates – they haven’t won their division since 1992, and dead last in their division eight of the seasons since then, with only one second place finish in 1997, yet they were still four games under .500 – hardly a playoff caliber team.
The premise as it is presented to fans is that every team has a shot to win it all – yet we all know (or we should know) that’s not the case at all. When you step back and look at the bigger picture of organizational direction, the Pirates are pointed anywhere but the playoffs – and thus successful – as a franchise in the context of competitiveness.
However, they may be very successful from a business standpoint – which is measured generally by profits and cash flow. This is where the disparity lies.
Professional sports, while a business, does not operate in the same exact contexts as the larger business world. There is no trophy for most profits in the semiconductor industry. But there is an award for the team that rises above the rest when it comes to on-field performance. That is what fans are sold, that is what they expect (for better or worse), and that is what MLB should attempt to ensure the teams are delivering to their constituents.