Photo

PressBox: Tim Kurkjian: Tanking Isn't The Only Option


  • Please log in to reply
125 replies to this topic

#121 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,646 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:29 PM

I'm all for capitalism, but not with professional sports teams.  I don't think there should be league wide rules against taking a profit, but I'll never side on the side of ownership vice the city and team when it comes to where the money should go.

 

If there weren't anti-capitalistic rules in places for the players, maybe I'd feel differently and have a bit more willingness to think that the owners should be entitled to a profit share and not just to be the caretaker of something that truly belongs to everyone.

I just don't think they are mutually exclusive.  You can pour a ton of resources into the team and still make money.


@BSLRobShields

#122 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,989 posts

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:37 PM

I just don't think they are mutually exclusive.  You can pour a ton of resources into the team and still make money.

 

Sure.  That'd be better than the way I think a lot of owners operate and I wouldn't be super critical of an owner who did that.  What I'm talking about is more of a platonic ideal of a team owner that I know doesn't and likely won't ever exist.  Sure would be great if it did, though.

 

If it's unfair of me to hold the Orioles owners to an ideal that no owners actually meet, I'm ok with that.



#123 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,646 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:39 PM

Where I have an issue is the owners who are strictly doing this to make money.

 

Not that I care they make money but I do agree that owning a team should be more than that.

 

But look no further than the NFL w/r/t greed and the need to make money.   


@BSLRobShields

#124 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,989 posts

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:42 PM

But look no further than the NFL w/r/t greed and the need to make money.   

 

Not to defend NFL owners, but at least in that case there is a league-mandated maximum amount of resources that you can realistically pour into the team.  I don't expect or demand Bisciotti to spend all his revenue on hiring extra scouts and trainers once he's already maxed out the salary cap and is paying his coaching staff a top rate. 

 

There is a very low cap in the NFL where any extra money spent is mostly just wasted or at least has very diminished returns.  I think you can spend a ton more in baseball before that is the case.



#125 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 82,646 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 15 July 2019 - 12:48 PM

Not to defend NFL owners, but at least in that case there is a league-mandated maximum amount of resources that you can realistically pour into the team.  I don't expect or demand Bisciotti to spend all his revenue on hiring extra scouts and trainers once he's already maxed out the salary cap and is paying his coaching staff a top rate. 

 

There is a very low cap in the NFL where any extra money spent is mostly just wasted or at least has very diminished returns.  I think you can spend a ton more in baseball before that is the case.

No, I agree...I just meant as a general thought of greed and how these guys are looking out for the bottom line more than anything else.


@BSLRobShields

#126 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,911 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 15 July 2019 - 03:41 PM

I don't think selling naming rights is antithetical to the type of "fans first" attitude that we are talking about.  If he pockets the money, then sure.  But if it goes towards winning baseball, then it's just an argument of collective cost vs benefit, same like ticket and concession pricing would be.

 

I wasn't even referring to the naming rights.

 

There's a partial chapter in the new book Ballpark: Baseball in the American City (highly recommended, by the way) where the author discusses Tiger Stadium, and how despite the city of Detroit being willing to do quite a bit to support keeping that park open, and there being a reasonable cost to renovation over replacement, Illitch was dead-set on building his new ballpark, damn the torpedoes. And while I don't remember it being explicitly discussed, there is at least a tacit reference to the later decisions of the Red Sox and Cubs to not build new ballparks, and the overall benefits to the teams, cities and sport those decisions had.


  • Mackus and mdrunning like this
@DJ_McCann




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners