I didn't compare anything at all. I made an observation about the Rangers front office.Lesson wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:19 pmI understand the FO needs to spend more, but you're comparing an organization that's a top 4 metro area vs one that's 21st or 20th (depending on how you look at it).MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 12:15 pmI won't pretend Jon Daniels didn't have his warts, but his successor is going to likely get Executive of the Year because the guys that Daniels signed "too soon" are playing well and left Chris Young with a new GM's dream of a locked-in middle infield, a good farm system and a lot of payroll flexibility.
Cardinals should spend more, but I don't think it's fair to compare the payrolls of teams in much larger markets vs ones in St. Louis in a non-capped sport.
Mind you, I loathe how Mo said this week that they were involved with Ps in FA but all the ones they were interested in are currently injured now as a way to justify doing nothing and how disingenuous the FO was when saying payroll would go up in the off-season and then backtracked on those comments after people realized it did via only accounting maneuvers and not signing people.
Degrom to Rangers
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Degrom to Rangers
-
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 10724
- Joined: November 6 10, 10:58 am
Re: Degrom to Rangers
I'm not sure the metro size having anything to do with it, when the cardinals draw more fans and have more eyeballs on the games, than the rangers. their revenues are similar and the value of the cardinals is higher than the rangers (even though that's hard to quantify unless you actually sell the team)Lesson wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:19 pmI understand the FO needs to spend more, but you're comparing an organization that's a top 4 metro area vs one that's 21st or 20th (depending on how you look at it).MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 12:15 pmI won't pretend Jon Daniels didn't have his warts, but his successor is going to likely get Executive of the Year because the guys that Daniels signed "too soon" are playing well and left Chris Young with a new GM's dream of a locked-in middle infield, a good farm system and a lot of payroll flexibility.
Cardinals should spend more, but I don't think it's fair to compare the payrolls of teams in much larger markets vs ones in St. Louis in a non-capped sport.
- Lesson
- Grandmaster Flashchat
- Posts: 6549
- Joined: February 4 10, 4:35 pm
Re: Degrom to Rangers
I acknowledge that, but how the Rangers performed and operate are dramatically different than the Cardinals. They lost 90+ games in Daniels' tenure after winning the pennant in consecutive seasons, as well as having Young inherit a team that would lose 102 games.MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:33 pm
I didn't compare anything at all. I made an observation about the Rangers front office.
For as much (admittedly, a majority of it is justified) criticism as Mozeliak gets, that hasn't happened in his reign and his edict from ownership is to field a team that's just above average, which he has done his entire tenure(with this year TBD).
Sure.phins wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:24 pmCan you explain why? DeWitt is a billionaire. The Cardinals actually turn a rather nice profit, so it doesn't cost the owner anything but profit in his DeWallet.
The size of the metro isn't the focus in my view. The amount of revenue they generate and how the owner chooses to run the team are the focus.
If you're a billionaire, my expectation is you spend and then spend some more. Most billionaires tend to want to make more money, which is their right, but the Cardinals being in a smaller market than the Rangers isn't what's preventing the Cardinals from winning, it's the owners refusal to spend his profit on the club.
(As well as fundamental flaws in how the club is run, the GM's decision making skills etc.)
Normally, billionaires either stay billionaires or become billionaires by making decisions that improve their bottom line and nothing else, including investing in endeavors that are more-so hobbies (which for the majority of owners is what owning sports teams is). The only three teams I can think of where that doesn't apply and owners currently do not give a [expletive] if they pay the luxury tax or not in order to improve the team's chances of winning are the Dodgers, Mets, and Padres(which is an anomaly and I don't believe is sustainable).
Theoretically, I would want an owner to spend all of their team's profit on payroll to be break-even as the majority of the time a team isn't their primary source of income. Alas, that isn't the case.
TLDR: Human nature is why the FO doesn't spend as much as it should. And spending more for the marginal wins would improve the team's chances of being in the 3 game PO prior to the NLDS.
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Degrom to Rangers
Again, I made no comparison to the Cardinals and would like you to stop saying that I am. If I want to take a [expletive] on John Mozeliak, you’ll know.
- Lesson
- Grandmaster Flashchat
- Posts: 6549
- Joined: February 4 10, 4:35 pm
Re: Degrom to Rangers
I acknowledged that in my previous post.MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 2:31 pmAgain, I made no comparison to the Cardinals and would like you to stop saying that I am. If I want to take a [expletive] on John Mozeliak, you’ll know.
Taking the Mozeliak component out of it, Daniels was fired for having mediocre to bad teams 5 times over the course of 7 seasons.
The only GM I can think of that did recently was Luhnow, in which Houston openly tanked and Crane embraced that.
- MrCrowesGarden
- 'Burb Boy
- Posts: 23630
- Joined: July 9 06, 11:33 am
- Location: Out of the Loop
Re: Degrom to Rangers
Correct. But the signings he made that this board loves to poopoo are a big reason why this year’s Rangers are really good. His successor will probably win an award because he inherited a good situation.
- SunnyJim
- Veteran Player
- Posts: 763
- Joined: December 25 20, 4:03 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Re: Degrom to Rangers
I think you always have to look at the acquisitions a team makes in aggregate.MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 3:51 pmCorrect. But the signings he made that this board loves to poopoo are a big reason why this year’s Rangers are really good. His successor will probably win an award because he inherited a good situation.
There's always a risk of injury or decline when a team goes for one player.
If a team decides to add to depth by signings or trade they are better off.
- Famous Mortimer
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 3636
- Joined: November 14 14, 5:23 am
- Location: Cherokee
Re: Degrom to Rangers
Completely agree. How many fans do the Cardinals draw to the ballpark? What are their TV ratings? Merch sales? To just keep saying "St Louis are a small market team" as if there's some cast-iron legal reasoning behind those words is a bad argument.phins wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:24 pmCan you explain why? DeWitt is a billionaire. The Cardinals actually turn a rather nice profit, so it doesn't cost the owner anything but profit in his DeWallet.Lesson wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:19 pmI understand the FO needs to spend more, but you're comparing an organization that's a top 4 metro area vs one that's 21st or 20th (depending on how you look at it).MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 12:15 pmI won't pretend Jon Daniels didn't have his warts, but his successor is going to likely get Executive of the Year because the guys that Daniels signed "too soon" are playing well and left Chris Young with a new GM's dream of a locked-in middle infield, a good farm system and a lot of payroll flexibility.
Cardinals should spend more, but I don't think it's fair to compare the payrolls of teams in much larger markets vs ones in St. Louis in a non-capped sport.
The size of the metro isn't the focus in my view. The amount of revenue they generate and how the owner chooses to run the team are the focus.
If you're a billionaire, my expectation is you spend and then spend some more. Most billionaires tend to want to make more money, which is their right, but the Cardinals being in a smaller market than the Rangers isn't what's preventing the Cardinals from winning, it's the owners refusal to spend his profit on the club.
(As well as fundamental flaws in how the club is run, the GM's decision making skills etc.)
-
- Sobbing quietly during Fox programming
- Posts: 10246
- Joined: June 9 06, 3:51 pm
Re: Degrom to Rangers
You're certainly correct in the sense that is how owner's operate. I just wish they didn't.Lesson wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:46 pmI acknowledge that, but how the Rangers performed and operate are dramatically different than the Cardinals. They lost 90+ games in Daniels' tenure after winning the pennant in consecutive seasons, as well as having Young inherit a team that would lose 102 games.MrCrowesGarden wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:33 pm
I didn't compare anything at all. I made an observation about the Rangers front office.
For as much (admittedly, a majority of it is justified) criticism as Mozeliak gets, that hasn't happened in his reign and his edict from ownership is to field a team that's just above average, which he has done his entire tenure(with this year TBD).
Sure.phins wrote: ↑June 8 23, 1:24 pmCan you explain why? DeWitt is a billionaire. The Cardinals actually turn a rather nice profit, so it doesn't cost the owner anything but profit in his DeWallet.
The size of the metro isn't the focus in my view. The amount of revenue they generate and how the owner chooses to run the team are the focus.
If you're a billionaire, my expectation is you spend and then spend some more. Most billionaires tend to want to make more money, which is their right, but the Cardinals being in a smaller market than the Rangers isn't what's preventing the Cardinals from winning, it's the owners refusal to spend his profit on the club.
(As well as fundamental flaws in how the club is run, the GM's decision making skills etc.)
Normally, billionaires either stay billionaires or become billionaires by making decisions that improve their bottom line and nothing else, including investing in endeavors that are more-so hobbies (which for the majority of owners is what owning sports teams is). The only three teams I can think of where that doesn't apply and owners currently do not give a [expletive] if they pay the luxury tax or not in order to improve the team's chances of winning are the Dodgers, Mets, and Padres(which is an anomaly and I don't believe is sustainable).
Theoretically, I would want an owner to spend all of their team's profit on payroll to be break-even as the majority of the time a team isn't their primary source of income. Alas, that isn't the case.
TLDR: Human nature is why the FO doesn't spend as much as it should. And spending more for the marginal wins would improve the team's chances of being in the 3 game PO prior to the NLDS.
Generally, when you're that rich you're wired differently and money is a driver in all areas of your life. We see the normal distribution of a few being completely open to spending whatever, a few not wanting to spend unless dragged into doing it, then the majority right in the middle somewhere in-between.
I just don't have any expectation but if you want to own a sports team you do so without regard for profit. Which is why almost all owners fall short of my expectations. Ha.