Lack of parity becoming a problem for MLB?

There are some stars that are willing to stay with the club that gave them their shot, loyalty is rare, but it exists.  40 Million is still a great deal, and baseball is still an any given day game, but it has changed.

Try this article...the differences in baseball between 1987 and now....pretty shocking how much the game has changed. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/...ve-happened-baseball

CaCO3Girl posted:

There are some stars that are willing to stay with the club that gave them their shot, loyalty is rare, but it exists.  40 Million is still a great deal, and baseball is still an any given day game, but it has changed.

 

You mean it was a great, even unbelievable, deal for the Dbacks, right?  For Goldy it was horrendous. His value is comparable to guys making $25-30M per year. Obviously, he put a huge value on the security of that contract back in 2013 (he hadn't made any real money yet), but he left millions on the table. I'm guessing by the way he's performed that he's not the type of person who lets missed opportunities tear him up inside.

I prefer a post season with quality teams. Parity equals mediocrity. It’s why there are so many bad NFL games now. The Patriots are the favorites to win the Super Bowl. In many other years they would be a 10-6 wild card team with all their holes. 

The other sports have salary caps. For the most part the same teams are at the top and the same teams are at the bottom every year. Smart, successful people run winning franchises. Dumb assess lose year after year.

You can change the history of a franchise by hiring the right people. Friends and I once asked each other if you could take over a franchise and turn it around which would it be. I chose the Toronto Maple Leafs. Hockey is Canada’s sport. Toronto hasn’t won it all since 1966. It must kill Ontarians inside when warm weather, expansion teams with unknowledgeable fans win the Stanley Cup.  I’d be the first American elected Prime Minister of Canada when they win the Stanley Cup.

MidAtlanticDad posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

There are some stars that are willing to stay with the club that gave them their shot, loyalty is rare, but it exists.  40 Million is still a great deal, and baseball is still an any given day game, but it has changed.

 

You mean it was a great, even unbelievable, deal for the Dbacks, right?  For Goldy it was horrendous. His value is comparable to guys making $25-30M per year. Obviously, he put a huge value on the security of that contract back in 2013 (he hadn't made any real money yet), but he left millions on the table. I'm guessing by the way he's performed that he's not the type of person who lets missed opportunities tear him up inside.

30 Mil, 150 Mil....how much many can one person USE in a lifetime?

Really? How come there were 8 teams who made the playoffs and anyone of them could have legitimately won the WS? Colorado and Arizona were legitimate contenders, the Cardinals and Angels are not far off. The Braves will be strong this year, I actually think there is more parity (in terms of high performing teams) than ever before. Yes there are poorly run franchises but there will always be crappy teams, look at the Mets ....

But was there really parity? Or is it because the post season is a crapshoot? 5 of the 6 divisions were over in August.  Baseball had great parity but it might be about to end at least for a couple years.

Among teams that contend in MLB there are two kinds. There are the big spenders who perennially content. There are the well run franchises with less money who contend and fade out and continually go through this process as the lose their home grown studs to free agency. Then there are the Padres who couldn’t win if you spotted them ten games in the standings.

MLB is returning to the concentration of the window from 1995 to 2010.  The major market teams:  Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers Astros and  Cubs are loaded with young stars and are now getting under the cap.  That will result in the ability to address holes or buy top end talent at will.  These teams will be there for the next 10 seasons. 

The smaller market teams Pitt, KC, Minn, Miami, TB etc. are going to go back to being the occasionally competitive feeder teams.   Machado is the poster boy for this group.

Then there are the tweeners, Giants, Nats, Angels, etc who will try and play with the big boys but are probably destined to come up short.

The great equalizer is the playoff system.  A team with  2 high end starters and 3 good relievers can make a run and win it all.  In the pre wild card days you couldn't be a slightly better than 500 club and win a world series - you can now.  

Luv,

How does this logic explain the Giants winning 3 WS in 7 years? 

You are correct the great equalizer is the difficulty in winning the WS once in the playoffs, which keeps it interesting for smaller market teams. This does not exist in other sports which helps create more "parity" and interest late in the season when considering the wild card teams. 

My point was that the parity of the last 7/8 years is going away and we are returning to the window where the Yankees, Cards and Red Sox dominated.  This time around though they are being joined by Astros, Cubs & Dodgers.  The big market "haves" if you will and most years they will be locked in as playoff teams leaving Wild Cards or the odd division title for everyone else.  For now you can pencil in Nats and Indians but that will probably rotate to Braves and White Sox in the next couple of seasons.  But year in and year out expect 3 or 4 of these to be in the LCS.

The time of the Tigers, Jays, Rays, Bucs, Royals etc. is passing again.  These guys might pop up for a wild card every once in a while but unless someone gets 8-10 high level prospects all at once - they will be heavily out gunned.  They will never be in the Machado/Harper sweepstakes and to the extent they unearth one of these guys they will have 3/4 year windows to put a whole team together around them before they will be gone.

There are a few places where they will try to keep up and the Giants are one of them - but I think they will be playing uphill against the Dodgers over the next decade which puts them in the 86 win category a lot of years.  They will get in along the way but with loaded Cubs and Dodgers they will win a few wild card games with MadBum outdueling Syndergaard or somebody like they did 2 years ago and then they lose.  They will try to keep up and won't fall off to a 72-90 club or anything but unless they find couple more Posey types in their system they have too many holes to be on top. 

That's how I see it at least. 

don't forget what the Astros did to get here,   they burned it all down to the ground.   It looks like a few other teams have decided to go that direction now.   (Marlins?)

Did the Astros burn it down or were they just that bad? It’s not as if they had ever been winners. I looked back at their 2008 season (last winning season before sucking) and 2010 season (last season with 70+ wins). They didn’t trade off guys who had much left in the tank except Hunter Pence who was known as a flake. Everyone else they traded was at or near the end of the line and playing at a level far below their career averages (example Berkman). Oswalt contributed to the Phillies for a half season before his arm blew up. If anything the Astros turned a 90 game loser into a 100 game loser. Younger players got their shot while the Astros got a little better draft position.