tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610014.post1875935551342126419..comments2024-01-31T17:51:12.213-05:00Comments on Swing and a Miss: Follow The MoneyTom Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00816668232837298444noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610014.post-73678024979450459562007-11-17T01:29:00.000-05:002007-11-17T01:29:00.000-05:00I agree that a lot of teams have a harder road sim...I agree that a lot of teams have a harder road simply as determined by the size of the markets they play in - a fact which seems most immediately reparable by implementing a salary cap. However, the immensely damaging strike of 1994-95 virtually ensures this will never again be placed on the table. In the meantime, we've learned that certain teams have been able to mitigate the competitive breach between themselves and the larger-market teams by being extremely diligent, competent, and progressive organizations. Every smaller-market team which has won in the last decade or so has done so by this virtue, and even though their chances of sustaining long-term success is not as great as that of a large-market team, there have been enough instances of small-market success around baseball that I'm inclined to think the game has not in fact been reduced to a state of Only the Rich Survive. <BR/><BR/>A team's level of success can be merited by two standards other than market size: the quality of the organization, i.e. in efficiently and consistently producing its own players or in effectively assessing and resourcefully acquiring low-cost options from elsewhere; and the level to which a particular ownership is *determined* to win, the level to which winning actively takes top priority. <BR/><BR/>If we look at the Phillies, we see a team of above average market-size, which boosts their ability to spend, but an organization of below-average caliber, and a disinclination to give primacy to winning - or an unwillingness to drive their team's chances of winning over the top. That logically enough boils down to a competitive team, good enough to find itself on the bubble and perhaps slip into the playoffs an odd year here and there, but one that is not in any position to achieve greatness. Teams like the Red Sox and Yankees, meanwhile, have all three factors - market size, organizational quality, full commitment to winning - in their favor, and the resulting dominance is no accident. On the other end of the spectrum are teams like the Pirates, Reds, and Royals, who are deficient in all three categories. I believe you can go down the line with all major league teams and find that their performances fall in line with the median measurements of these three categories. Let's take Baltimore - a team whose smaller-market status is offset to a degree by a highly determined, monied owner, both of which aspects are nevertheless further offset by the incompetence of that ownership.<BR/><BR/>I am convinced that what compromises the Phillies' willingness to spend proportionally to their revenue intake is that Bill Giles and David Montgomery have extremely close ties with the MLB offices. Now wanting either the portions of shared revenue or the built-in disadvantage between large and small market teams to further increase, Selig has an moderate economic structure in mind which these two rigidly apply to their own franchise. As long as these men are spearheading the organization, the story will always be the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com