Hack Wilson wrote:He'll be a DH in 5 years.
Only a handful of teams now with the kind of spending money necessary to win a World Series. Many franchises will never sniff it, a trend that's accelerating. Since 1995, 48% of the champions and 38% of the contestants in the World Series have had top 5 payrolls. 93% of the champions and 83% of the contestants have been in the top half of payroll. Only two low-payroll teams have won it all -- the 2002 Anaheim Angels and the 2003 Florida Marlins. It has been two decades since that has happened.
Baseball, like all the other major sports, needs a salary cap.
I think half the problem is that 3/4 of the teams don’t even make an attempt to spend and compete. The problem I see or one of the problems at least is a lot of these teams make no effort to spend money and improve their team. The Athletics just signed Luis Severino to the biggest contract in franchise history totaling a whopping 67 million dollars. Sotos signing bonus is worth more money. there’s whole teams in the Soto per year range. I get the Mets the dodgers, Yankees Red Sox etc have both more money and resources but they all make enough money to have a 100m+ payroll per year. Better players and competitive teams also helps fill your park and create more money for the teams also. I know that without some type of hard cap or whatever it will never be equal but I’m happy the Mets are one of the teams at least committed to trying to win. I think it’s more of an issue that we can just cross off 15-20 teams because we know that they have no interest in spending money.
Just to expand on this a little further…… a team like the reds could go out and sign Alonso , Teoscar Hernandez, Santander and Burnes and become the favorite to win the NL central. The reds made 314m last year as a franchise. This would probably be like 70m extra a year in payroll and probably add 200m in revenue if they win the central