World Series is fun for big markets, just a show for others...

[madinmaryland]

The World Series works best as a concept in Cincinnati and places like it. It's a TV show. When I was in grade school, my teachers would stop instructing long division long enough to let us watch the latest Apollo launch on the black-and-white Philco. We knew we'd probably never get to visit outer space, but it was cool to see the blast-offs. That's what the World Series is like in Cincinnati in the fall of 2009. Strictly vicarious.

We have a major league team in Cincinnati, mainly because the Phillies, Mets and Dodgers need somebody to play. The Reds do what they can, which is never enough, because unless you are perfect or the Minnesota Twins, you can't pay enough to keep enough good players to win more than once in forever.

Baseball praises its revenue sharing, believes it's working quite well. And it is, if you live in Boston, New York, Chicago, L.A. and Philly. Elsewhere, it's strictly hand to mouth.

Commissioner Bud Selig and his acolytes will point to the wide variety of MLB mutts that have crashed the postseason in recent years. They will wheel out the Twins, poster children for Have Not hopes. They will say this, as Selig did to SI.com's Jon Heyman, in late September: "I still think the basic tenets we have in place will lead to the best competitive balance we've ever had.''

Too bad Selig couldn't have taken in a few games of the final series of the year in Cincinnati. The Reds hosted the Pittsburgh Pirates, in front of a few thousand friends and relatives. The two teams have combined for 26 consecutive losing seasons, and counting. Let us all pause to admire the competitive balance.

Here's why baseball's economy is seriously out of whack, and needs a drastic tweak in the way it does business: Pittsburgh has had zero winning seasons in the last 17, a record for futility. Cincinnati has 2 in 14. Kansas City, 1 in 15; Tampa, 2 in 12, Milwaukee, 2 in 17; Montreal/Washington, 3 in 15.

That adds up to 10 winning years out of a possible 90 for six of the lowest-paying clubs in baseball. That means 20 percent of your members have an 11 percent chance of even marginal success. That kills hope. When hope disappears, can your fan base be far behind?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/paul_daugherty/11/03/small.market/index.html

Thanks, $elig.

For cboy's attendance fetish...

[Auggie]

1. Castellini: "It is not a good business model...''

:thumbsup:

[madinmaryland]

2. I remember the 70's and 80's when there was much more competition in the league.

Nearly every team, put together a few good years during that era.

Now... it really never happens that way.

[joeybee12]

3. Oh no, trumad said money doesn't matter...

...so there!

[madinmaryland]

5. No. He was blaming it on poor officiating!

:)

[Capt. America]

4. +1

[PVnRT]

6. Yes, but how much is the fault of the owners?

When they have fire sales every two years, how the fuck can you possibly hope to build a good team?

[madinmaryland]

7. Primarily because of the revenue distribution does not allow a club

to keep their good players.

[trumad]

8. The Marlins were 6th in the league this season with wins...87

and placed second behind the Phillies in the East. They almost captured the wild card...

Oh and guess what---- they're 30th in a league of 30 for payroll.

Why? because they have a great farm league and great management year end year out.

[madinmaryland]

9. You are missing the point, tru. The Marlins have had good years and then bad years.

They develop the players have a good year or two, then unload them. Look at the teams that are ALWAYS in contention. If Pittsburgh held onto their players that extra year or two, they probably would have similar luck as the Marlins, but no long term consistent success.