Mookie Betts Trade Underscores NL West Imbalance
On Tuesday night, the Los Angeles Dodgers traded for Mookie Betts and David Price. Assuming the parties involved can hammer out the details, the deal obviously makes the Dodgers a better baseball team, both in the here and now and, to a lesser extent, in the future. For Los Angeles fans tired of October flameouts and agonizing World Series defeats, this is fantastic news: Betts alone is something like a five-win upgrade and he’ll make a long lineup that much more daunting come the playoffs.
As far as simply reaching the playoffs goes though, Betts barely moves the needle. Of all the teams in baseball, it’s not like this one “needed” to get better, at least when it comes to maximizing its playoff chances. Dan Szymborski took great pains to express that the ZiPS projections he’s cooking up are still under-baked and not yet fit for public consumption; that caveat aside, he has the Dodgers projected to win the NL West by 12 games without Betts. With him in the fold, that jumps to 16. Los Angeles has already won the division seven times in a row; with a loaded roster, and a deep farm system, their streak wasn’t in any jeopardy this year and won’t be for some time yet.
Whether or not the trade looks redundant in a competitive sense for the Dodgers, it must feel like just another body blow in Phoenix, Denver, and San Diego. Through the realities of geography, vagaries of expansion, and a league-wide desire to limit travel costs, four other franchises are stuck perpetually competing with the West Coast’s foremost superpower. The Giants have the resources to remain competitive in spite of their southern rival, but the other three teams have looked comparatively hapless. The Giants and Dodgers have captured all but one division title since 2007. In that period, the Padres, Diamondbacks, and Rockies have only reached the playoffs five times combined, never escaping the NLDS. For the little three, the Dodgers are an immovable barrier blocking any real chance of sustained success. That’s a problem in a league that emphasizes postseason glory first and foremost, particularly in a sport that is primarily consumed locally.
The arbitrary unfairness of divisions isn’t a new problem. We hear about it whenever a club or two outgrows its neighborhood, most notably with the Braves at the turn of the century, or the AL East in the mid-aughts when the Yankees and Red Sox were swapping pennants while their division mates mostly failed to tread water. The point was as salient then as it is now, and the proof is in the results: Over the last 15 years, in a period where the Red Sox and Yankees each went through something like a slump by their standards, those two still managed to capture 11 division crowns and four championships.
This isn’t an easy time to mount an argument against divisions, or really do anything else to address competitive balance. In an age where too many teams are willfully uncompetitive, the reflexive answer to any club crying about the big bad bully in their division would go something like “Well, have you really tried beating them?” There’s certainly no reason to feel badly for the perennially cellar-dwelling Marlins, a glorified hedge fund that happens to employ baseball players, or even a team like the Mariners, who have sporadically shown they have the financial wherewithal to compete, even as October baseball still dangles stubbornly out of reach.
But that’s not really the case in the NL West. The Padres, at the very least, are battling. In recent years, the club has assembled arguably the top collection of minor league talent we’ve seen this century. That in and of itself isn’t a ticket to anywhere — the Friars headed a lot of 2012 prospect list rankings and got very little out of that core — but this system is already bearing fruit, in the form of stars like Fernando Tatis Jr. and Chris Paddack, with the promise of more on the way. San Diego has also been the rare bird active on the free agent market in recent years, having signed Eric Hosmer for $140 million prior to the 2018 season and Manny Machado for another $300 million the following winter. I don’t know if you could earnestly describe any major league club as financially “maxed out” or “all in.” But the Padres have been as aggressive as anyone lately, having combined big investments in free agency with a stellar crop of minor leaguers. And after all that, they’re probably stuck hoping for a spot in a Wild Card game some time in the next few years.
It’s a similar story for the Diamondbacks. Arizona’s farm system is also one of the best in baseball, even after dealing from strength to acquire Starling Marte earlier this winter. The club has deftly moved on from the Goldschmidt era without tearing everything down, or even getting appreciably worse in the interim, and they’ve also busted out the checkbook in free agency, adding players like Madison Bumgarner and Kole Calhoun. In another division, they’d be legitimate contenders for the title. In this one, not so much.
Colorado faces even greater competitive disadvantages. Rockies pitchers already have to work half of their games in the most difficult ballpark in baseball, which presents an undue burden on young pitchers acclimating to the big leagues and a significant obstacle to recruiting free agents who can help manage the load. Their hitters are also challenged by the altitude, especially on the road, when they must adjust to breaking balls dipping and spinning and dropping far more than they do at home. That they must also contend with a well-run financial behemoth like the Dodgers seems like at least one obstacle too many.
That rings especially true when you compare the divisions. The Dodgers have won an average of 101 games over the past three years, and could well top that this season. The NL Central and NL East winners, meanwhile, have averaged 93 and 94.6 wins respectively over that time, with no club hitting the 100-win mark. The Central looks like a particularly flimsy division in 2020, where none of the five teams — three of which either got worse or were mostly inactive — look like a good bet to reach 90 wins.
The fairness of a divisional system is predicated on an even distribution of talent, at least in the long run. That’s hard to achieve in any sport and it’s pretty clearly not a reality in baseball, where the biggest markets are densely concentrated on the coasts and a few huge teams can consistently squat atop the pile. Big franchises will always win disproportionately no matter the setup, and there’s only so much that can (and should) be done about that. But that doesn’t mean it’s fair for some challengers to have a taller hill to climb than others. The absurdity of the current setup from a competitive standpoint should be readily evident: It makes no sense to consistently handicap the Orioles and Diamondbacks with a tougher landscape than the Nationals and Tigers.
The fairest fix is to eliminate the divisions. Most fans have embraced the second Wild Card, and there’s no reason you’d have to eliminate the play-in game in a new format. You’d simply line up the five best teams in each circuit, and have the fourth-best host the fifth for the honor of traveling to the league champ. The benefits are clear: It’s much fairer, and it also offers a chance to enhance the prestige of the regular season by conferring a greater importance on — and subsequently appreciation for — winning the most games in the league. Best of all, if the Diamondbacks win the third most games in the league, as they did in 2017, they won’t have to worry about gutting their way through the coin-flip round.
Of course, to do this effectively you’d have to make everyone travel more, which costs time and money, something neither the players nor ownership seem likely to embrace. That’s the reality and with no shortage of pressing issues on the horizon before the next collective bargaining negotiation, divisional imbalance is not a subject likely to garner much air time. Sooner or later though, Padres fans are going to see their top farm system and big free agent outlays on one half of the division, and LA’s star-studded roster and financial might on the other, and think that there must be a better way to run things. They’ll be right about that.
Brendan covers prospects and the minor leagues for FanGraphs. Previously he worked as a Pro Scout for the Pittsburgh Pirates.
I don’t agree with this point: “the deal obviously makes the Dodgers a better baseball team, both in the here and now and, to a lesser extent, in the future.”
I understand why the Dodgers made the trade and think it was probably a good move, but they traded five years of Alex Verdugo for one year of Mookie Betts. Obviously they could extend or sign Betts in free agency, but they could have done that in nine months without giving up Verdugo. I think this trade pretty unequivocally makes the Dodgers better in 2020 and worse in 2021-2024. Obviously they won’t mind if they win a World Series in 2020, and they’ll still almost certainly be the best team on paper in the NL West in 2021, but this trade definitely made the 2021 Dodgers worse than they would have been without making it.
And of course there are many more pieces than that. Stripling and Maeda moved out to make room for Price, which is a relatively break-even place to be performance-wise, but FAR more expensive dollars-wise in the years 2021+
If the LADs extend Betts then it probably does help them some in the future, but it will be at a massive cost that will almost assuredly necessitate moving out some other parts.
If they do not extend Mookie, then I struggle to see how it makes them better in 2021 even a little bit.
That is, of course, the counter argument to why the Red Sox side of the deal looks good over the longer term. The Red Sox, already facing a potential Yankee powerhouse this year, will be weaker in 2020 but potentially stronger in 2021-2025. A very reasonable trade-off from the Red Sox point of view.
I wouldn’t go so far to say it unequivocally makes them better in 2020. Joc Pederson was a pretty good hitter. He’s not that far off of what Betts does at the plate….
However pitching wise. Lose Maeda and Stripling, and gain Price. Regular season Maeda has been a better starter than Price. Stripling gives you solid innings. And you get to the playoffs, and while Price will probably be a starter, how good will he be, and also you have the rather huge hole in the bullpen from what Maeda gives them.
Joc Pederson has a career 120 wRC+ and is an average corner outfielder and average baserunner. Mookie Betts has a career 135 wRC+ and is an excellent fielder and excellent baserunner. Joc is a good player, but Mookie is much, much better.
120 vs 135 is a bit more than 10% better….
I think people think of Betts and think totally of what has been his career year.
Unless a fan has had an opportunity to watch Betts play every game for the past 5 1/2 years it is very difficult to realize just how good he is at every aspect of the game. His defense in RF is sublime. Great range, great jumps and a cannon hidden inside the right sleeve. His base running is equally superb. While this part of the game doesn’t contribute as much as his bat and glove he never lets an opportunity to advance go by and often makes things happen with his daring. I was privileged to have watched Jackie Robinson change the game with his flair on the basepaths and Mookie is in the same class.
Nah dude, it’s easy enough to pull up their respective player pages here at FG and see how awesome Mookie Betts is at every aspect of the game. His worst season (so far) might be considered a career year for Joc Pederson. Joc is a good player, and a worthy OF for a playoff team, but Betts is next level superstar.
This comment thread is awfully confusing.
That’s not a fair calculation. You need to subtract the expected wRC+ of a replacement player (the kind specified by WAR) from both figures, and only then should you calculate the ratio.
10% is a lot at this level.
“Joc Pederson …[is] … not that far off of what Betts does at the plate….”
Yes he is! Even taking a relatively down year for Mookie, last year he was 6.6 WAR, .380 wOBA, vs Joc at 3.0, .362 and BIG platoon splits.
The pitchers are a big wild card. Comes down to health really since both Maeda and Price have been iffy on that front lately. If one gets hurt and the other’s healthy that obviously skews things quite a bit. But if they’re both healthy I’d take Price.
So yes, I think this makes the Dodgers better this year.
I do agree that I don’t see how this necessarily helps them past 2020.
Kind of curious why you didn’t use wRC+ instead of WAR. Obviously the fielding is a big advantage for Betts….. BUT at the plate, .380 vs .362 is not a big difference…..
Also, not sure why you are saying it’s a Down year. Here are his wRC+ for his career….
120, 136, 107, 185, and 135. What it looks like is the 185 was a huge outlier. you say use wOBA. .351, .379, .339, .449, .380. Once again the .449 was a huge outier.
Sorry but Betts looking at the numbers looks really propped up by a huge career year(where he had a babip of .368, some 54 points above his career average.
Maeda been far healthier than Price the last few years. 2 of the last 3 years, Price hasn’t even made 110 innings.
So aside from the fact that Mookie Betts is an excellent baserunner and defender–far better than Joc Pederson on both points–the big difference for them is that Joc Pederson hits well against lefties, and Mookie Betts hits well against everyone.
The result is that the rate stats here are misleading because the Dodgers never play him against left-handed pitchers, and when they do, he subtracts value instead of adding to it. Joc Pederson and Mookie Betts had kind of similar wRC+’s last year, but Mookie’s 37 Off is literally double that of Joc Pederson’s 18.4.
Add it all up and Mookie Betts is a 5.5-6-win player and Joc Pederson is a 2.5-3-win player, and that’s an unbelievably large difference. Betts is more or less twice as good as Joc Pederson in anything you can measure, partly because he is better on a rate basis, and partly because he can play a lot more. Joc Pederson is a really good baseball player who can be part of an exceptionally productive platoon, but Mookie Betts is a Top 10 position player in MLB, some would say higher.
Well, why are you only comparing their hitting values while ignoring their defense and baserunning in the first place?
2019 wasn’t a down year for Mookie. That was about what you should expect in a good year from him. In his other 4 full seasons, he’s exceeded that 2019 twice and underperformed it twice. The range of outcomes is all very good, but he’s a solid 6ish WAR player overall.
Joc is propped up by a strict platoon. Give him the no. of at-bats Betts gets and watch that wRC+ plummet.
but what has the other side of the platoon done for the Dodgers there? That’s what you need to compare- what the Dodgers have gotten total there compared to what Betts will give you.
I think there is this thought that Betts is one of the 5-6 best batters in MLB. Last 5 years he’s #16 in wRC+. Right between Rizzo and George Springer.
Also Betts on defense has slipped. In 2 years, his defense part of the WAR calculations has gone down from 14.3 to 11.6 to 6.3.
Which proves again that defensive WAR is GARBAGE.
Defensive metrics are notoriously unreliable at the season level. Also, WAR in general does not account for the huge RF at Fenway. You need a CF to play RF well at Fenway.
Betts would be a CF on any other team, and a good one.
And…Joc is a platoon player. Your comparison was Betts/Pederson, not Betts/both sides of that platoon.
You keep changing your argument.
If you’re judging whether the Dodgers got better with this trade then you need to include who will be replacing Maeda and Stripling as starters, and that will likely be Price and May. Plus the Dodgers have already addressed their bullpen. The 2019 version of Ryu will be missed, but I doubt the Dodgers would have seen that level of pitching over the next four years. Better to make way for May and Gonsolin.
Ummm, Joc is as good as Mookie is from both sides of the plate, from only one side of the plate: he’s essentially a platoon player.
I will agree that, IF Stripling goes, the Dodgers have some potentially VERY serious pitching issues.
In 2019, Price put up an fWAR that would have been 5th in the Dodgers rotation, and LAD looks poised to move 3 of their top 5 arms.
Given Wood’s and Price’s injury histories, this team could end up looking very early 2000s Yankees: all pop and no pitching.
By the Steamer projections, the Dodgers are sending out 8.7 fWAR (Verdugo, Pederson, Maeda, and Stripling) and receiving 8.8 back (Betts + Price). Obviously these are median projections, but that doesn’t make the Dodgers “obviously better” like every writer and fan seems to just assume.
If Betts plays like his 10-win season in 2018, then yes, this will be a win for the Dodgers. But what if he plays closer to the projection? What if Price’s injury woes continue and the stuff stays diminished? Suddenly, it’s pretty likely that this ends up more as a wash than an improvement, as the projections are saying.
This trade gives the Dodgers more upside – if Betts and Price can play above their projections, which they are capable of doing, then it’s good. But the Dodgers just traded away their biggest strength: depth. Losing Pederson and Verdugo is really significant – do you REALLY expect a full season from AJ Pollock???
And look at the rotation – Kershaw, Buehler, Price, Wood, and Urias. Price and Wood are walking IL stints and have massive question marks for 2020. Wood has not been very good since he lost velo in the middle of 2017. Kershaw hasn’t made more than 28 starts since 2015!!
In the past few years, the Dodgers have been so good because of their depth. They’ve mastered manipulating the injured list for their starting pitching. Any time they had to fill another hole, they had another really solid player coming in. That’s no longer the case. In the almost certain case that one of their pitchers gets hurt at some point, now they’re turning to a rookie (May or Gonsolin) instead of someone like Rich Hill, Maeda, or Stripling. And while it’s likely May ends up being a good pitcher, is that what you really want to count on in a 2020 playoff push?
This trade, simply put, does not make the Dodgers better. It has the potential to make them better, but it also adds a lot more risk and question marks to their roster. It’s mostly likely that this trade ends up being fairly neutral, as the projections show, except that LA gave up 4 years of control for Verdugo (already projected for over 3 WAR), for 1 year of Betts.
Concentrating more WAR in fewer players also allows you to make upgrades or have greater contributions from more different sources. That’s why the game’s best players are so coveted, because they represent concentrated value.
I know the point you’re trying to make about comparing WAR, but a 4 for 2 comparison of values should really be 4 for 4, but we don’t know who the other 2 are.
very much the case – my Cardinals tend to have an excess of 2-2.5 WAR type guys, and except for that 1 season we got from Heyward (who was fantastic) – it’s been hard to wrangle a serious upgrade.
Yeah, mostly it’s about upgrading the top end of the roster. They shipped out useful depth and added one of the few guys in MLB with a puncher’s chance of out WAR-ing Mike Trout.
They can probably replace the useful depth with other guys that might not have made the roster otherwise. Guys that can help win 100 games but don’t have much of a role in the postseason.
The cost in years 2021+ is enormous. This isn’t just a win-now trade. This is a 2020 World Series or Bust move like no other.
I’d argue that the cost isn’t enormous – given the Dodgers flexibility, depth, and minor league resources. I’d say the cost of the Chris Sale trade was enormous when regarding the future.
I agree that it seems to be a 2020-or-bust move for sure, but doesn’t it feel like the Dodgers are also saying “Well, we always seem to get the pitching side of the equation wrong, so hopefully we’ll just be able to outscore everyone now”?
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that they get the pitching side of the equation wrong?
Also, Betts is a great defender, it’s not about outscoring on offense.
Maybe because pitching, and Dave Roberts’ management of such, is what has been their downfall in every playoff run… There’s really not much room to argue against that.
I think the players they traded away are eminently replaceable, far more so than a player like Mookie. I like that they’re not fetishising years of control when they know they can just pay money and get a Verdugo-like player back. With their top-level prospects, how much would they have needed Verdugo anyway?
Yes, it sucks being in the same division as the Dodgers or the Yankees, sure. These are semi-permanent powerhouses who will always be strong contenders for their division. But with three divisions instead of two, and the wild cards, this is not quite as big of a deal as it used to be. Besides, divisions breed rivalries, which are one of the best parts of sports.
If you’re really that concerned about the Dodgers or Yankees or a reconfigured Red Sox team, what you should be really focusing on is financial resources and its impact on competitive imbalance. If the Rays were projected for 100-win teams many years instead of the Yankees, everyone would intuitively recognize that there is no problem that needs to be fixed. This article wasn’t written about how unfair it is that the A’s play in the same division as the Astros.
Exactly what does better redistribution look like, one that leads to more competitive balance? I don’t know. It’s really hard to come up with good systems that don’t incentivize bad behavior. But all this angst over the Dodgers being good permanently is better thought of as “it isn’t fair that some teams have so much more margin for error than others” rather than “it isn’t fair that some teams are stuck playing ‘the Dodgers’ for the division title every year.”
I strongly advocate going to four 8-team divisions (once the next inevitable round of expansion happens), for better pennant races and more balanced schedules. Probably end up with 4 wild cards in each league then.
What rivalries? The Padres, Diamondbacks, and Rockies arent the Dodgers rivals, they are doormats.
I prefer to call them punching bags.
I never understood what was wrong with a salary floor & ceiling.
The MLBPA, historically, has made “keep the salary cap out of MLB” the #1 priority at all times. I think this could absolutely work, particularly with better revenue sharing, but it’s not likely not happening.
Someone the other day proposed that guaranteed contracts be subsidized by a central fund that all teams pay a certain percentage into, which would be perfect if you could calibrate it right, but the devil is in the details.
Because it’s never accompanied by a profit ceiling.
“Of course, to do this effectively you’d have to make everyone travel more, which costs time and money, ”
Boo hoo, lol. Seriously, in the battle of “have to travel more” vs “stop downward trend of people not caring about baseball because the system is broken”, then get on the dang plane, you self-entitled wimps.
The problem is that by designing a system where the playing field is only equal in peoples imaginations, you need to come up with solutions, and if “have to travel more” is really an actual reason that’s preventing a solution from being implemented, that speaks volumes itself.
It makes me think of playing Zelda and you want that treasure but you can’t walk over this stupid little bush or a 2 foot tall fence or something.
Have to travel more is a real thing. Forget costs. Forget the impact on a player’s actual life. Just try to fit more travel into the existing 162 schedule and you can’t do it.. You either do:
1) Extend the season to build in more travel days
2) Tell the players to suck it up and deal with more days where they end a game, get on a plane, and start another game as soon as they land.
3) Drop back to 150 games to allow more travel days
4) Make every series a 5-game set. You play every team in your league once at home and once on the road and if you, the fan, can’t get out to the ballpark that one week the Cubs host the Cardinals well that’s too damned bad.
Your last point is strange considering you only see teams from the other league at home like every 5 years. You only see teams in your league, that arent in your division once a year anyways…..
The real solution to travel is to have 4 divisions of 8 teams each with no team more than 1 time zone difference:
West
Angels, Dodgers, Padres, Giants, A’s, Diamondbacks, Mariners, Rockies (or Portland?)
Central
Royals, Rangers, Toronto, Brewers, Cardinals, Royals, Tigers, Twins
Northeast-ish
Mets, Yankees, Cubs, White Sox, Red Sox, Indians, Reds, Pirates
Southeast-ish
Orioles, Nationals, Phillies, Braves, Marlins, Rays, Charlotte (?), Astros
It’s not perfect, especially Toronto to Rangers (yikes). And doing Montreal instead of Charlotte would make things tricky.
You could put the Reds in the Central, move the Rangers to the Southeast, and have Montreal in the Northeast.
But it means most games will start at the same time for both the home and away fans and travel would be a lot less than it is now. You could drive a lot of these easier than flying.
Sorry, but that would mean a universal DH, and I can’t accept that (nor any setup that places the Cardinals and Cubs in separate divisions). People may say it’s inevitable anyway, but there’s no proof that it is and plenty of NL owners and other executives who will fight against it. I won’t give up hope that the watered-down strategy of the DH stays out of the NL indefinitely until and if it actually happens.
That’s the point of my post. It doesn’t matter if you can accept it or not, or if anyone can. They HAVE to accept it, otherwise, the game is going to fade in popularity as more different diversions for your entertainment dollar come into the world, and people will naturally move away from something seen as old, long, dull and stagnant in comparison to mobile phone games that can be completed in seconds.
If the choice is between making small allowances to ensure continuity, or having nothing to continue, you make the small allowances. It’s not even a difficult choice.
To allay basic concerns, even in a changed divisional makeup and schedule, odds are certain “traditional rivalries” would get more games than the regular.
Expanding the DH is NOT a SMALL allowance! There are plenty of things they can do to keep the game popular without merging the leagues or otherwise expanding the DH. Baseball’s future isn’t dependent on eliminating the divisional setups, and it would in fact hurt it more over the long run without the superior strategy of a non-DH league to entice fans.
Besides, during the commercials are when you play your mobile games.
How do you put a list like this together with Toronto and Detroit in the Central and both Chicago teams out of it?
If travel time and money was really a big deal, then they’d drop the AL/NL and realign the division around where the teams are.
If travel time and money was really a big deal, then maybe we’d have 6-8 game series instead of multiple 3-4 game?
What about breaking the leagues into two divisions to keep travel sane, then do something like the top 1-2 in each division, plus the best #3, advance. Or you could do something funky (haven’t thought this through of course)…like the top 3 make it in, the two #3s are the WCs for the playin game, and give the overall #1 a bye on the first round? Not sure how the math would work, plus there’s the concern about a long layoff hurting the #1 more than helping. But this would cut down the number of divisions while not eliminating them entirely.
Another thought (I don’t like it, I like the traditional leagues) would be to go NBA style and make a single East and single West division, and then do the playoffs for each like you suggested…
My preference would be no divisions, just NL and AL. Top four teams in each league make the playoffs, 1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3, no play-in game.
Why is it that so many are lamenting this deal from a BOS standpoint, and not more “wow, GREAT for the Dodgers, pushing their chips to the middle?”
One thing that I think gets lost in the weeds is that winning the division – and going from “strong favourite” to “overwhelming favourite” is a big freaking deal.
I think we’d all agree that the shorter the playoff series, the more variability (i.e., what might be a 60/40 series in 7 games is much closer to a true 50/50 in 1 game takes all).
So, even for a team as strong as LAD (or BOS in the reverse example) – a wild card berth is basically 50 cents on the “potential championship” dollar, as opposed to a divisional title.
That is why LAD are foolproofing themselves, and why BOS wasn’t convinced “going for it 1 more year” was worth the downside, given how strong a divisional favourite the Yankees are.
Dude. The Dodgers were never not winning the NL west.
Before the Betts deal I would have given the Dbacks and Padres both about an 8% chance to win the West. After this deal that drops to around 4% each. That’s not a huge deal, but it is something.
“That’s not a huge deal, but it is something”
Doc: I have good news and bad news.
Patient: What’s the bad news?
Doc: We’re going to have to amputate your leg.
Patient: What’s the good news?
Doc: We only have to cut it off below the knee instead of just above the knee.
Patient: Thank god. At least it’s something.
This deal means nothing in terms of the NL West. The Dodgers are just hoping it helps them outscore everyone in the playoffs.
Your comparison is off. They were already overwhelming favorites. What does this do for them, exactly? BOS won this trade, if it actually happens, and LAD only comes out net positive with a WS title in 2020. Anything less and this didn’t accomplish its purpose.
LAD needed pitching, and a new manager that knows how to handle pitchers. This is an acknowledgment that they don’t see either of those things improving.
What a banal article. All you did was restate something that has been talked about for years. Even you yourself in the article recognize that this isn’t a new problem, and yet you failed to include any interesting analysis or new perspective. The solution you proposed has legitimate drawbacks and counterarguments which you briefly acknowledged in the last paragraph but didn’t make any effort to refute. I am just confused at what your point in writing this was. Did you just want to say that you feel bad for the Padres?
He’s not actually standing on your lawn, right?
I dont know any padre fans who care the Dodgers got betts. They went from winning the division to winning the division. I agree on everything else though. Baseball would do well to increase the amount of postseason teams and games. 162 game season for a 1 game playoff! Dafuq.
I’m not really a Milquetoast, wishy-washy guy, but as a Padres fan I can see both perspectives. It’s unfair to Dodger and Yankee fans to see their teams penalized for being established in the financial powerhouses of NYC and LA. MLB could pull both teams out of those cities and move them to Podunk, USA, and they’d still rake in a pretty good gross income. The MLB could move an unknown expansion team to either city, and within five years, those new franchises would share many of the same financial advantages that LAD and NYY currently have, just because of the location.
On the other hand, fans of teams like the Padres see a team like the Dodgers rake in over $1 Billion gross. That kind of money doesn’t just buy them a team (remember, LA is below the CBT/lux tax right now), it insures them against bad decisions, both in terms of management hires and players. They can eat a bad contract in six months that can set back a smaller franchise, six years. The small to medium market teams are essentially playing without a (financial) safety net, in comparison to the big boys. The margin of error for these teams is razor thin, yet they have to take fairly significant risks to have any chance of competing. The financial risks for the Dodgers … well, there really aren’t any. The franchise owns Chavez Ravine. It owns a legacy franchise, something that the Padres will never have. The Dodgers could exist financially simply by selling products emblazoned with their storied team logos.
My real problem is the subtle inequity with which the MLB front office treats these teams. I’ll give one, significant example here: Both the Dodgers and the Padres ran into ownership troubles at about the same time. Both teams negotiated long term (20 year, I believe) multi-Billion dollar media contracts at nearly the same time. LA’s was about 8x larger than the Padres, and that’s to be expected, given the size of the LA media market. LA’s owner was accused of unethical dealings (won’t go into it here), essentially using the Dodgers as a piggy bank to bail out his other business investments. The MLB forced him to sell, and to leave the Dodgers legacy cash with the franchise. However, when the Padres ownership purchase was nixed, it was THREE YEARS into that deal, where Moorad was executing a “pay as you go” plan, hollowing out the Padres financially to pay Moores for the team. Why did the MLB act so late? Second, when Moorad and Moores both left town, they BOTH pocketed $200M each in FUTURE MEDIA EARNINGS from the Padres $1.2B contract with Fox Sports. The MLB front office didn’t blink an eye. The Padres were crippled financially for at least six years, something that Ron Fowler pretty much admitted this last year, because of the future money that Moorad and Moores took out of the franchise. Different treatment, for two different franchises. Why did MLB show preferred treatment for the legacy Dodgers franchise, preventing them from losing capital to their wayward owner, yet in the identical circumstance, say “yeah… well, whatever” to Padres fans, when Moores/Moorad road out of town with their saddlebags $filled$ with the Padres’ financial future? I could go through a dozen different examples of how Major League Baseball props up its rich, legacy teams, in order to enhance the overall sport, at the expense of smaller market teams.
I don’t believe in Socialism, not in government, nor in business. The CBT is no real solution. A salary cap, balancing player salaries back towards the vast majority of professional ball players who never have two nickels to rub together (i.e. minors), and a system which recognizes the financial rewards legacy teams have through no actions of current management, but simply because those teams were the first franchises, those are the sort of realistic moves the MLB would need to make to balance out the system. A lot of the money that LAD, the Yankees, the Red Sox, Chicago teams, are hard earned, hard won money from work they do today. However, a lot of their money is also a result of “MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, INC.”. Those teams wouldn’t exist without competition of a 30 teams combined league. A smaller league, perhaps a 10 team league of no one but the megabuck financial power house teams, would draw a fraction of the interest or money that the 30 team league enjoys today. That money needs to be properly assessed, and distributed throughout the entire system annually. It’s not a competitive balance tax, it’s a joint reward for the health of the MLB in general, to every franchise playing in the league. (Why should the MLB reward failure?!)
To offset that, perhaps the smaller franchises will need to pay a larger franchise fee, an “entry” fee, when new owners join, since they are buying into an established, profitable business. The 31st and 32nd franchises, for example, may require a whole lot more ownership cash just to buy into the MLB system, besides the start up costs stadiums, adding players, coaches, management, and the business system.
I’m not sure how it would all work out financially, but these are knowable figures. It’s just simple math. However, it won’t happen for two reasons: 1) The majority of baseball owners like the system as is, and 2) the majority of highly paid major leaguers, like the system as is. The only people out of the decision tree, are the fans. You may have noticed that there are fewer fans of major league baseball today, than 20, even 10 years ago. It requires a lifetime to “raise” a new fan. You don’t go out and introduce baseball to non-baseball fans, like introducing a new cell phone. I would wager that 80% of baseball fans, either played the sport as youngsters, or maybe as parents, had kids involved in the sport. Lose a generation or two of baseball fans, and there’s at least a 20 year recovery cycle, if it can be done. So in my mind, both the MLB and MLBPA are just killing off baseball as a major professional sport, by supporting the status quo. They are burning fans, losing them, but neither seem to really care.
“The Dodgers could exist financially simply by selling products emblazoned with their storied team logos.”
The vast majority of MLB apparel earnings is licensing revenue that goes to the Central Fund. That money is distributed equally among all teams. The exception to that is sales from physical team stores, such as in stadiums, where the retail mark-up is local revenue for the team.
This is one of baseballs Achilles heals. It’s a major reason why it’s not a national sport. The other is Blackouts. Young kids whose parents are not into baseball can’t watch games regularly cause they can’t afford an expensive baseball package. Fix those two things and you won’t need shorter games. Baseball would eclipse football cause it’s a better game at its core.
Agreed on the blackouts (although people with cable packages who live close enough to the market areas aren’t affected), but how are the market imbalances any worse than the NBA? How does it have bigger drawbacks than the NFL’s lousy combination of insane revenue sharing, tight salary caps, and non-guaranteed contracts that result in so many of your team’s favorite veterans getting released every year and all those distracting hold-outs?
Besides, baseball may be in a small decline, but it’s still a “national sport,” still very easily one of the four biggest sports in North America.
Probably 3rd at this point, down from 2nd not long ago, down from 1st as recently as the 70s maybe?
Unlikely to move below hockey ever, but maybe overtake someday by NCAA football or soccer, which is unfortunately loved by lots of misguided people. 😀
Hockey being #4 is a travesty.
Not really. Its a winter sport and like 3/4 of the US doesnt even really have winter. its also SUPER expensive to play. Those two things are always going to put a hard ceiling on how popular hockey is in the US because people dont play it as kids.
I’m Canadian so I’m legally obliged to like hockey and it is a fantastic sport but it will never be super popular outside of northern countries.
Pretty much.
Think about the major sports requirements:
Hockey: Ice, armor, goalie, etc.. even having a proper surface is near impossible
Baseball: Giant field, lots of players to make a team, lots of standing around waiting, very small equipment cost
Football: Giant field, body armor, brain injuries.. but the cult of football will continue its dominance
Basketball: 2 people, a ball, and a hoop attached to a building on a parking space or lot.
Soccer: A team, a ball, a net, a field or even half field.
Tennis: Structured court, 2 players, rackets
See what I’m getting at here? You require NOTHING for basketball compared to the others. You can play it basically anywhere, with almost no participants. Therefore, it will at some point if not already become the most popular sport, because it’s so easy to play with so few requirements to do so, so it gets played more. It’s simple logic.
If you’re going to devolve basketball requirements to 2 people, you can also play baseball with just 2 people (and some invisible baserunners). All you need is a ball, a bat, some way to mark bases, maybe a glove, and depending on the age and/or skill of the players either a decent-sized backyard or a small field.
The main problem with baseball is MLB’s self-inflicted malaise. It’s a perception problem. They could embrace the inherently slower pace of baseball in their advertising. Build it up. And stop shooting themselves in the foot (hi late-career Selig. Manfred).
Hmm, that’s an interesting idea. I personally prefer the slower, more analytical style of play in baseball and (American) football over the nearly always moving gameplay style of basketball, hockey, and soccer, where as a spectator it’s hard to keep track of everything that’s happening.
I don’t agree with this analysis.
Baseball’s core problem for national viewership and keeping the interest of relatively casual fans is that it’s not a superstar-driven sport in the same way as football or basketball. It’s inherent to the game and can’t really be altered absent massive rules changes – e.g., fundamentally changing line-ups to let star players bat more and come to the plate in high-leverage situations – that are such massive changes that they’d (rightfully) alienate existing fans.
Assuming we can’t just can’t eliminate the second wild card and go back to the previous playoff format, they should just make the wild cards play a best-of-three series. A one game play-in, and giving more importance to winning the division were both stupid ideas from the very beginning.
Eliminate the wild card? If anything, MORE playoff spots will be added.
Teams in this day and age need more reason to compete, if that isn’t obvious, and what better way to do that than have a more comprehensive playoff experience? Sure, you can reduce regular season games, but it’s a great trade to keep fans interested for longer.
Not eliminate it, either bring it back to one in each league, or expand it to a best-of-3 series.
Nobody wants even more playoff teams, or it’s going to wind up like the stupid systems in the NBA and NHL, where teams with losing records will sometimes get in, and the playoffs last well over a month long! It takes away from the special experience of being a playoff team and a chance at a title if they only have to be an average team to get in, so both fans and players appreciate it more when it does happen under MLB’s current system.
With a division-based schedule, the playoffs should reward winning the division more than pure win totals.
The Braves winning 97 last year is more impressive than the Twins winning 101 with 19 games each against the White Sox, Royals, and Tigers.
In that case, there’s even less reason to reward division winners who feasted on bad division teams compared to the Wild Card winners who are often in tougher divisions.
The Dodgers have won the division seven years in a row….
Where were those stats that supposedly show little correlation between spending and winning?
They’ve won due to player development. I’m sure someone has run an analysis on the surplus value they’ve benefitted from. Most of their money has gone to overpaid veterans who didn’t contribute a corresponding value (with the exception of Kershaw).
You think Kemp, Crawford, Kazmir, Ethier, AGon, etc. are the reason they’ve been winning? Hah.
They’ve been winning mostly due to low-paid young players, not highly-paid stars.
The only way to reduce the disparities between the big market teams and the other teams is to share more local revenue between them. The only way to prevent certain owners from taking that additional money as profits is to require a minimum salary cap that’s much larger than the lowest payroll spent today. There would also have to be greater financial controls to prevent owners from siphoning off profits for non-baseball uses. The only way this works is that more owners would have to understand that their teams compete on the field but are business partners off it. Easier said than done.
Wouldn’t it be something if the Dodgers didn’t get Mookie? Now they are saying the Twins are out of the deal and Dodgers need to add another player, or pay more of Price’s contract, or the Sox may field offers from other clubs (of which they’ve reportedly received several proposals since the Twins fell out of the deal).
This could get really interesting…
I just want to give props to Brendan for acknowledging that the Giants are still legitimate competition in the NL West in the long-term. Obviously they aren’t challenging LAD for the next couple of years, but they are still the biggest threat over the next 3-10 years. Baseball works in cycles.
The Padres are just opening their window of contention and will likely be really strong contenders 2+ years from now, and the Diamondbacks may also still be competitive for a while.
Mookie deal updated! Now includes Jeter Downs and Connor Wong in addition to Verdugo, & Sox still paying half of Price’s contract. From the Sox side, I like this deal better than the initial one. Downs has more upside than Graterol, imo.
I think eliminating the divisions is an excellent idea.