No, I am not referring to social issues that inevitably end up in political disputes. Instead, the focus is on the payroll inequality that is currently rearing its' ugly head on America's great pastime.
The breaking news today came from Los Angeles, where the Dodgers inked their superstar south paw to the largest contract for a pitcher in the history of baseball. Kershaw's annual average value for the next seven years will be north of $30 million, a line that everyone knew (and some dreaded) would be crossed eventually. No one deserves that kind of deal more than Kershaw; combine otherworldly talent with a charitable heart, and you want to see the guy prosper.
What you do not want to see is a team become trigger happy with nine digit deals. The Dodgers' spending habits resemble that of the Yankees on steroids (no pun intended). Blazing a new frontier into the land of ludicrous spending, the worst part may be that it seems that they will feel little--if any-- hurt. The billionaire group with their lucrative new TV deal seems to have no monetary limits.
In other words, nothing will stop the Dodgers from coming hard and fast for any small market talent that they can get their hands on. Hell, they could take on the entire Miami Marlins payroll if they so chose to. Ask yourself: in what world is it fair that one team can spend upwards of $250 million on their payroll, while many others are spending $200 million less?
Ironically enough, though, seven of last years top 10 spending teams missed out on the playoffs. The Dodgers flamed out in the Championship Series against Saint Louis, and Detroit lost in the Division Series against the eventual World Champion Boston Red Sox. The Sox ranked fifth in spending last year, and yet still stand well more than $100 million behind the Dodgers.
MLB.com senior writer Richard Justice, during an interview on MLB Network's Intentional Talk, said that even though it may not be fair, baseball is better when the Yankees and Dodgers are winning. It is a healthy sign for baseball when they are doling out deals that few, if any, athletes deserve. In what way is this good for baseball?
For one thing, the Dodgers and Yankees are already extremely marketable, and become even more wide-spread when they win. Believe it or not, more people will tune in to a Yankees World Series game than they will if the Milwaukee Brewers or Oakland Athletics make it. There is no disputing that a larger market is satisfied when a larger team wins.
Big spending doesn't always impact the mid to small sized market teams either. Look at the Cardinals, who are as consistent a contender as their is in the National League. The Cardinals get by on player development and some, but not much, free agent interaction. The Oakland Athletics are another exception to the destruction caused by major markets.
Big spending has led to statistical analysis unprecedented by other sports. Basketball and football have some fancy formulas and efficiency data, but neither can hold a candle to the accomplishments of Bill James and the ever-evolving world of sabermetrics. These in-depth numbers have adjusted the game to counteract the negative effects of The Evil Empire big markets.
Conversely, the toll that big market spending sprees take on small markets can be extremely damaging. Whereas the team may be losing a player, the fans might be losing the sole reason that they come to the ballpark. In Milwaukee, the Brewers are a middle of the pack team when it comes to attendance, usually ranking between 10th and 15th. Since losing Prince Fielder to Detroit, though, attendance has steadily dropped each year. The team isn't good (and wasn't for most of his Brewers tenure), yet people came to Miller Park to see him crush baseballs. If Ryan Braun is bought up by a big spender in a more attractive market, that attendance will likely nosedive.
Whether or not a fan believes the big market, big spending approach is justified depends on where his or her priorities lie (or what team they are a fan of). There are some deep philosophical theories that could be harkened on for both sides of the debate.
The way that I see it, though, is that baseball is only as big as its' fans. Big markets winning will make the most amount of people happy; but small markets losing their players can and will turn small market fans off to the sport.
No comments:
Post a Comment