Originally Posted by mahagga73
The problem is the poorer teams . A lot of them have the money to field competitive teams but the owner chooses to pocket the profits.
I'm not so sure about that. Yes, information has come out in recent years showing that "poor" teams like Pittsburgh have indeed made a profit. And of course, there are terrible owners like Loria in Miami.
But, I just find it too much of a coincidence that all the "cheap" teams that simply refuse to spend money on MLB talent also happen to be all the small market teams while, the bigger the market, the more "willing" (incredibly)teams are to spend on a winner.
No, a big payroll doesn't guarantee postseason success (see the Cubs and Mets), but over all, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Rangers, etc and spend more and more on astronomical contracts and it's simply more and more likely that they'll make the playoffs over and over and not have to go too many years in between postseason appearances. Smaller market teams can compete if they develop talent from within just right, but most often they see they're big stars say goodbye once they hit free-agency.
The Twins bucked that trend by keeping Mauer and signing him to a huge long-term contract. But, now they seem to be hamstrung somewhat by that deal while Mauer seems to be heading toward the downward side of his career. If that was the Yankees, they could absorb that contract and still buy a few all-stars to fill up holes in their lineup. Does that make the Twins ownership one of the "cheapskate" owners while making the Yankees ownership one that puts victories over profit?