Well with the latest exodus of a superstar from the Minneapolis St. Paul area we have to ask, is baseball in the much the same situation economically as Association Football? What we have now is essentially the super elite wealthy teams: Boston Red Sox, New York Mets and Yankees which essentially equal the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, Juventus or Real Madrid in their respective leagues. Then you have the wealthy teams, but not quite super star wealthy, like: Seattle Mariners, LA Angels, Detroit Tigers, Texas Rangers, SF Giants etc They seem to be something like the UEFA Cup of baseball teams. Like Tottenham, Werder Bremen, Parma or Villareal. Competitive and in the market to spend alot of money. Then there seems to be the rest of the league. Teams like: Florida Marlins, Minnesota Twins, KC Royals etc These teams would have been relegated a long time ago if this where football, but realistically they have absolutely no chance of winning. Now for me, baseball is not my favorite sport, but I can't fathom what it would be like to be a fan of the Twins or Royals. Every year you know you have no chance and whenever you get a quality team together like the Twins did a few years ago, they have to break up the team. So I have to wonder, is this bad for baseball? We know economically the league is doing well, much like football. But I personally feel sorry for fans in some cities as the league becomes a three or four team race.
I disagree that every year the small market teams feel they have no chance. True, going into Spring Training in about 3 weeks for P and Cs many teams aren't busting at the seams with World Series hopes. However, most of the 30 teams can say they at least have a small shot at making the playoffs. From my recent memory, the Florida Marlins come to mind. Your mention of the Twinkies is also valid. If a small market team can make it into the playoffs, then I'd equate them to Greece in Euro 2004: Once you're "in", then anything can happen. This is very true in MLB baseball playoffs as, often times, a team can succeed with only 2 or 3 quality starters and a stud closer. I do agree completely with the fact that it's tough to keep those small market teams who do succeed together after a championship. What happens, in my opinion, is that the studs from those teams are a hot commodity for the "haves" like the Evil Empire, Mets, BoSox, Dodgers, etc. and the role players who shine in the WS can then look to make big-time money, so they too leave the club. Too bad really, but it's no different from the way that any other big business works.
Well the twins have been in the playoffs or in the race for the playoffs for about 5 year now i think and the Marlins are tied with Boston for the 2nd most post-strike world series titles with 2. But for the most part you are right and hopefully MLB willb ridge the rich teams and the poor teams like the NFL and NBA have done. But we still have some parity, in 2003 the tigers had the second worst record in the history of baseball, three years later theyre in the world series.
It is possible for a small-market team to succeed by developing young talent in its minor-league system and by finding nuggets among second-tier veteran free agents. Look at the Indians last year. But it's much easier for a team like the Red Sox or Yankees to simply buy success by gobbling up the top free-agent talent.
I suppose you are right. It just seems that if you are a fan of one of the smaller teams, you basically spend 5 years or so losing badly until you build a team. Then you get one shot to win the World Series and you get a fire sale and a new 5 year plan.
Or worseyoure a fan of the Pirates or Devil Rays. I wouldn'y say MLB is bad as european soccer leagues but it's getting there and hopefully something will be down before we can the same exact teams making the playoffs every year.
Not really, Football would be a lot more interesting though if the players had cludgeons made of ash wood though.