MLB Dodgers

[Guest]

You guys think there is any chance in hll that the Dodgers could find there way to Omaha?

When the Expos went under the MLB bought them and sold them to a wealthy investor in DC. Do we have anyone in Omaha that has the cheddar and could offer to buy them? If OKC can support a pro team, it is definitely feasible Omaha could. TD Ameritrade would definitely need a few expansions, or they could keep it on the low end capacity wise similar to Tampa Bay.

[Guest]

You guys think there is any chance in hll that the Dodgers could find there way to Omaha?

When the Expos went under the MLB bought them and sold them to a wealthy investor in DC. Do we have anyone in Omaha that has the cheddar and could offer to buy them? If OKC can support a pro team, it is definitely feasible Omaha could. TD Ameritrade would definitely need a few expansions, or they could keep it on the low end capacity wise similar to Tampa Bay.

No way.  

OKC Nielsen ranking: 45
Omaha Nielsen ranking: 76

Stadium capacity would have to be doubled, plus KC would never allow it to happen.

[ThatGuy]

Let's put this to bed quick. The Dodgers are going nowhere. They are one of the most storied franchises in baseball. They play in one of the largest markets in the world. They will sell for a billion+ dollars and be in LA forever. End of story.

[Omababe]

You guys think there is any chance in hll that the Dodgers could find there way to Omaha?

More likely back to Brooklyn!

[Linkin5]

No, they are not leaving.  Although I have heard Mark Cuban may be interested in possibly acquiring them.  The only team that I think may leaves its market are the Devil Rays.

[OmahaBen]

You guys think there is any chance in hll that the Dodgers could find there way to Omaha?

Lol. The Dodgers won't be leaving LA.

[iamjacobm]

Omaha isn't getting a MLB, NFL or NBA team any time soon.  NHL maybe(and by maybe I mean not happening, but less of an impossibility than the big 3).  MLS is the best chance Omaha has and even that has a slim chance of happening.

[Guest]

Somebody left the cap of the sharpie off too long at their desk. Thanks for the laugh. Not gonna happen.

[Stargazer]

Our remotest of remote chances for NHL was lost when our community collectively |expletive| on the Knights.

No major league franchise of any kind in my lifetime... not going to happen, no way... certainly not with our being in KC's shadow.

[MrPoloShirt]

The best chance of a pro team coming to Omaha is a toss up between the NBA and NFL.

The NFL teams are easy to support, you only need to sell out maybe 10 games a year and then that's that.  But having the Cheifs so close would be a roadblock for Omaha.

As far as an NBA, it's hard to keep attendance up, we couldn't even keep up the Racers.

In the end, Omaha is a long ways from getting a pro sport, but it could certainly happen within the next 3 decades.  Most likely NFL.

[S33]

The NFL teams are easy to support, you only need to sell out maybe 10 games a year and then that's that.  But having the Cheifs so close would be a roadblock for Omaha.

As far as an NBA, it's hard to keep attendance up, we couldn't even keep up the Racers.

.

Very little to do with attendance. It's television viewers and the sales of any sort of copyrighted materials including jerseys or anything displaying the team logos. That said, Omaha can look to KC as to why they will never be a major league city, KC can barely support the teams they have.

[cdub]

This is my nomination for silly thread of the year.  And on this board, that's really saying something.

[MrPoloShirt]

Very little to do with attendance. It's television viewers and the sales of any sort of copyrighted materials including jerseys or anything displaying the team logos. That said, Omaha can look to KC as to why they will never be a major league city, KC can barely support the teams they have.

KC can support those teams just fine, you're oversimplifying the issue.

The Chiefs are just fine, it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

St Louis does just fine with their team because they have star players, a storied history, and everything from the logo, the colors, the new stadium, is very marketable and appealing.

The Royals feel more like a AAA team, like they belong in Omaha.

[iamjacobm]

Why would you even compare St. Louis and the Royals?  The Cardinals are arguably the 2nd most storied franchise in baseball in a metro area the size of KC and Omaha's population.  Nearly every MLB team looks bad compared to the Cardinals.  And Kauffman doesn't feel like a AAA stadium after the renovations.  That place is one of the best places to watch a baseball game in the league.

[MrPoloShirt]

Why would you even compare St. Louis and the Royals?  The Cardinals are arguably the 2nd most storied franchise in baseball in a metro area the size of KC and Omaha's population.  Nearly every MLB team looks bad compared to the Cardinals.  And Kauffman doesn't feel like a AAA stadium after the renovations.  That place is one of the best places to watch a baseball game in the league.

St Louis isn't the 2nd more storied, by far.

The Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, and the probably the White Sox all have bigger fan bases with a more storied past.

Plus, St Louis' stadium is in a great spot, downtown and is brand new.

KC's stadium is in the middle of the worst area of KC and is surrounded by crime.  The stadium is also old and IMO, very ugly.  (I go there for a game probably once every year or two.)

[iamjacobm]

The Cards have the 2nd most World Series title and the 2nd most wins.  They are absolutely in the conversation for 2nd most storied.

Also have you seen the new renovations?  It is like a brand new ballpark good enough to host the All Star game next season.  The K is also routinely ranked in the top 10 for MLB stadiums.  You may not agree, but you are the definite minority in this situation.

[Bosco55David]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

[bmt]

First off, the Dodgers are not going anywhere.  Secondly, I think that Omaha could support an MLB team if that team was not a bottom dweller like Pittsburgh or KC, however that is a big if.  With the exception of the Tampa Bay Rays these last few years, winning teams of any professional sport can draw a crowd.
Also, as a KC Royals fan I can tell you that the organization putting the money in towards becoming relevant again (paying prospects, stadium renovation, etc.), whether they become relevant in the next few years we will see. But I expect to see larger crowds in KC as their prospects continue to get called up.

[Globochem]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

The Royals payroll has been over $70 million for the last three years.  Tell me what basement dwelling franchise could afford to dump that kind of money in a miniscule TV market like Omaha with a VERY spotty track record supporting even successful teams in uninteresting leagues.  Omaha could begin to think about a "major" franchise as soon as an investment group can pony up $500 million to $1 Billion to acquire it.  Then, the city would need to invest nearly as much in a new or substantially update arena.  Of course, selling enough merchandise to 1.5 million Nebraskans to pay back that and ongoing investments is absurd.  As is convincing an owners group that has never heard of Omaha, let alone spent time here, to expand an elite league into a tertiary market with almost no demographic upside.  

But...Calgary once had an NHL team.  And Omaha split an NBA one with KC once upon a time.  So who knows.  But the Dodgers will come to Nebraska as soon as the NFL has an expansion team in Beijing.

[OmahaBen]

St Louis isn't the 2nd more storied, by far.

The Yankees, the Red Sox, the Cubs, and the probably the White Sox all have bigger fan bases with a more storied past.

One of these things is not like the other...

The White Sox are a middling franchise still best known for having thrown a world series and the disco demolition night riot that is still, I believe, the last time an MLB team forfeited a game.

[Greg S]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

The Royals HAVE been spending money lately.  I think over the last 4 years they are in the top four on spending on the amateur draft.  They added an extra farm team that many teams do not have.  They have spent millions in latin america on players.  Added to the front office staff and scouting.

Greg

[Greg S]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

Here's another example of why people that say that Royals are not spending money are clueless:

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/a ... kc&c_id=kc

[OmahaJaysCU]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

Here's another example of why people that say that Royals are not spending money are clueless:

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/a ... kc&c_id=kc

And this....

http://royalsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/750

[Bosco55David]

Here's another example of why people that say that Royals are not spending money are clueless:

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/a ... kc&c_id=kc

Really?

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

Last in the league with just over $36 mil in payroll.

[iamjacobm]

For the record Bosco that was opening day payroll.  The Royals have called up a lot of guys since then that are getting paid pretty well.  It is true the Royals aren't spending money in the majors, but why would they spend for expensive free agents when they have a stacked farm system that will be in the majors soon.

[Greg S]

Here's another example of why people that say that Royals are not spending money are clueless:

http://kansascity.royals.mlb.com/news/a ... kc&c_id=kc

Really?

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/teams

Last in the league with just over $36 mil in payroll.

Yes really.  

You talking about opening day payroll only.  And only one year.  The Royals have finally and fully committed to a youth movement.  They just spent $3 million on a 16 prospect and outbid several of the big boys for him.  They did the same thing a couple years ago and spent $7 million on Noelle Arguelles, a Cuban defector.  They are building from within.  You miss so much if you go by the MLB payroll only.  They have spent there as well though recently.  They spent $55 million on Mike Sweeney, free agents Meche ($55 million) Guillen ($36millon), along with inking their own players to extensions, Soria, DeJesus, Greinke, Butler and Gordon will probably be next.  Some of the money spent at the MLB level failed miserably.  I hope they don't go out and do another big free agent deal until they have a core group developed in house (hopefully Moose and Hosmer lead this charge).  Once they get their house in order in house then they can go outside for the rest.  It does not work the other way around.

Look at their drafts recently.  They've been drafting (Boras clients that other teams are afraid to draft) and signing big time players.  Hosmer $6million, Moose $4.5million and now Starling.  Not too mention first round talent in later rounds that other teams did not want to pay, like Melville, Myers (might be the best player in their entire system), and Jason Adam.

Also just last year they had a payroll over $70 million so this year's is the exception, not the rule.

Greg

[Bosco55David]

You talking about opening day payroll only.  And only one year.  The Royals have finally and fully committed to a youth movement.  They just spent $3 million on a 16 prospect and outbid several of the big boys for him.  They did the same thing a couple years ago and spent $7 million on Noelle Arguelles, a Cuban defector.  They are building from within.  You miss so much if you go by the MLB payroll only.  They have spent there as well though recently.  They spent $55 million on Mike Sweeney, free agents Meche ($55 million) Guillen ($36millon), along with inking their own players to extensions, Soria, DeJesus, Greinke, Butler and Gordon will probably be next.  Some of the money spent at the MLB level failed miserably.  I hope they don't go out and do another big free agent deal until they have a core group developed in house (hopefully Moose and Hosmer lead this charge).  Once they get their house in order in house then they can go outside for the rest.  It does not work the other way around.

Look at their drafts recently.  They've been drafting (Boras clients that other teams are afraid to draft) and signing big time players.  Hosmer $6million, Moose $4.5million and now Starling.  Not too mention first round talent in later rounds that other teams did not want to pay, like Melville, Myers (might be the best player in their entire system), and Jason Adam.

And they still have the lowest payroll in all of baseball, hence they are not "spending money" like the competitive teams, and their play on the field reflects it.

Also just last year they had a payroll over $70 million so this year's is the exception, not the rule.

No, 2010 and 2009 were the exceptions. Those are the only years they have spent more than $70 million or more, and over the last 12 years they have broke out of the bottom third in payroll exactly three times.

[OmahaJaysCU]

So they need to spend money like they did in 2007?  Signing guys like Gill Meche and Jose Guilllen for the sake of spending money is not worth a damn.

[iamjacobm]

So they need to spend money like they did in 2007?  Signing guys like Gill Meche and Jose Guilllen for the sake of spending money is not worth a darn.

Exactly they are building to compete for division titles and possible World Series runs in 2013 and beyond.  When Dayton Moore took over the general manager job for the Royals that franchise was in shambles.  They had an awful farm system and weren't winning in the majors obviously.  Moore was one of the lead minds behind the Braves incredible run of division championships in the 90s and early 2000s.  The Braves did it right and built through the draft like the Royals are doing now.

Since Moore started as GM and VP of baseball operations in '06 their farm system rankings have gone from 23 to what some called the most talented farm system in history.  Yes Royals fans have gone through decades of mediocrity now, but that is very close to coming to an end.  The 2013 Royals will be a very similar story to the 2008 Rays team that made it to the WS.  The Royals should be competing for division title for the better part of this decade.

Another fun fact.  Dayton Moore is a disciple of John Schuerholz.  John Schuerholz was the GM that crafted the Royals '85 World Series team and the Braves hired him away from the Royals in 1990.  In 5 years he took the Braves from the worst record in baseball to World Series champs.  Dayton Moore joined the Brave franchise in '94 and worked under Schuerholz working his way up to being his right hand man in 2005.  In '06 the Wichita native was hired as the GM of the Royals and has been doing things the right way ever since.  The Royals are on a major upswing just you wait and see.

[Greg S]

I do understand.  I'm just saying if you are judging how they spend and only looking at the MLB payroll you are debating from an incomplete standpoint.  You also need to look at how much and the size of their front office and scouting departments, international spending on free agents, spending on the amateur draft, spending on their farm system etc.  My second point was there is not a lot of success spending money just to spend money at the MLB level unless you have strong contributors that have come up through the system.  

You seem to be basing your argument soley on the MLB payroll.  To me that is naive way to judge a team.

Greg

[Bosco55David]

I do understand.  I'm just saying if you are judging how they spend and only looking at the MLB payroll you are debating from an incomplete standpoint.  You also need to look at how much and the size of their front office and scouting departments, international spending on free agents, spending on the amateur draft, spending on their farm system etc.  My second point was there is not a lot of success spending money just to spend money at the MLB level unless you have strong contributors that have come up through the system.  

You seem to be basing your argument soley on the MLB payroll.  To me that is naive way to judge a team.

Greg

And yet you continue to try to move the goalposts by pointing to expenditures that have little to no effect on the on field play. Question for you Greg. Can you post up some links showing total (player & front office) spending by team? I sure can't find that, and yet MLB payroll numbers are readily available from a number of sources and is the number compiled by the Associated Press and referenced in similar discussions in media and sports forums all across the net.

[Greg S]

Here's the international draft for 2010, Royals in top 10:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... nuses.aspx

Here's where the Royals added an 8th team to their farm system in 2008.  Only the Tigers in the AL Central have 8.  Other teams have 8, most seem to have 7, the Braves have dropped to 6:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullp ... Affiliates


Here's the Royals spending dollars on a very successful front office position for someone credited with building the Phillies.  This is a new postion created, not replacing an existing position:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3702801

$3 million just spent on teenager in the Dominican could be two more to follow including Raul Mondesi's kid:

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/02/29 ... ached.html

$7 million on Cuban defector a couple years ago, had surgery last year but it progressing nicely this year:

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... p&c_id=mlb

Here's where the Royals signed Cuthbert to a seven figure contract believed to be the highest ever given to a Nicaraquan player:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/pro ... -cuthbert/

Article earlier in the year about the Royals having the best farm system and the investments they've made in it, between 2008 and 2010 it states the Royals are fifth in bonuses spent:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/s ... id=6057996

Greg

[Bosco55David]

All those links and not a single one giving me what I asked for. Suffice it to say you couldn't find it, right?

[iamjacobm]

All those links and not a single one giving me what I asked for. Suffice it to say you couldn't find it, right?

Not a single team releases their player development spending.  

If you cannot tell that the Royals have spent the 5th most money between 2008 and 2010 on draft bonuses and have been out bidding the teams like the Red Sox for international prospects then you are refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence against your claim.  

Here is evidence you were looking for.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/bas ... 39113.html



So the Royals have 36 million in MLB pay roll and 90 million total.  So they are spending about 54 million on players NOT in the majors.  If that isn't enough for you nothing will be.

[Bosco55David]

All those links and not a single one giving me what I asked for. Suffice it to say you couldn't find it, right?

Not a single team releases their player development spending.  

If you cannot tell that the Royals have spent the 5th most money between 2008 and 2010 on draft bonuses and have been out bidding the teams like the Red Sox for international prospects then you are refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence against your claim.

 

There is no overwhelming evidence, just you and Greg trying to use one of the most |expletive| backwards arguments I've ever seen in a sports discussion, and that's a serious accomplishment considering some of the sports forums I've posted on over the years. Your argument has about as much merit as trying argue that person A makes more than person B because A got a bigger bonus this year but ignoring the fact that B makes five times the salary.

Here is evidence you were looking for.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/33/bas ... 39113.html



So the Royals have 36 million in MLB pay roll and 90 million total.  So they are spending about 54 million on players NOT in the majors.  If that isn't enough for you nothing will be.

Awesome. Numbers from Forbes, which has been called out by the league and the Padres President for basically pulling numbers out of thin air. http://www.gaslampball.com/2011/3/23/20 ... ident-says

Even if we give credence to what Forbes says here, how does that change the fact that the current player payroll, the number representing the actual on the field product, is the lowest in the entire league?

[iamjacobm]

I don't think anyone has argued against KC have the lowest payroll this year.  The argument is that KC is actually spending money and lots of it.  I haven't seen Greg or myself say KC is spending the most money in the league either.  The argument has been that KC isn't simply leeching off of the revenue sharing like you claimed when they clearly are not doing that.  

The articles posted are actually pretty straight forward.  They all say how KC is spending more money than they ever have on prospects.  You are right that KC has the lowest MLB payroll, but you are flat wrong saying KC isn't spending money.  Like mentioned before baseball is much more than just the MLB.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

This comment is the basis of this argument and there has been plenty of evidence laid out here that show that this comment you made is wrong.  Your claim of >$60 million is vastly too high also.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/w ... index.html

• If you had to pick one team out there that is TRYING to win, you probably would say the New York Yankees.
• If you had to pick one team out there this is NOT TRYING to win, you would probably say the Kansas City Royals.
OK, well, last year, according to the Forbes numbers, the Yankees made $441 million in revenue* and spent about $416 million on baseball. That means they spent 94.4% of their revenue on baseball, a nice high percentage.
And the Royals? Well, they only made $155 million in revenue, and they spent about 146 million. That means they spent 94.3% of their revenue on baseball.
*According to Kurt Badenhausen over at Forbes, revenue figures INCLUDE revenue-sharing -- that is to say the Yankee revenue numbers are calculated AFTER the $100-plus million they give to revenue-sharing. And the Royals revenue numbers are calculated AFTER the $30-plus million that they took out.
So as impossible as it seems, according to the Forbes numbers, the Royals and Yankees in 2009 spent almost exactly the same percentage of available money on winning baseball games. Sure, there could be some accounting tricks involved -- I'm not clever enough to pick these out -- but even so I think this would absolutely shock most people. It shocked the heck out of me.
The truth seems to be that the Yankees are NOT spending some out-of-control amount of money on payroll. Quite literally the opposite is true. The Yankees payroll is almost exactly in line with their revenue.

So this says KC got about 30 million half of what you proposed.  AND KC spent the same percentage of the money they had available on baseball as the Yankees had available.  Your claim that "they spend half of it on players" is flat wrong.

[Bosco55David]

I don't think anyone has argued against KC have the lowest payroll this year.  The argument is that KC is actually spending money and lots of it.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that and again I find myself pointing out that their payroll, the amount spent on players who actually take the field for them and the same number used in this discussion by everyone else, is the lowest in the league.

This comment is the basis of this argument and there has been plenty of evidence laid out here that show that this comment you made is wrong.  Your claim of >$60 million is vastly too high also.

So this says KC got about 30 million half of what you proposed.  AND KC spent the same percentage of the money they had available on baseball as the Yankees had available.  Your claim that "they spend half of it on players" is flat wrong.

Ok, my numbers were wrong. My bad.

[iamjacobm]

Yep it is the lowest and this season is really starting to suck.  They gave me hope for a few months at least.  I am glad the Royals are only spending 36 million for a bad season instead of the nearly 113 million the Twins are dropping this year for 3 more wins at this point.

Most years I would be pretty upset about the Royals spending so little, but I do really believe in the building they are doing.  If 2013 or 2014 rolls around and they start shipping off Hosmer or Moose for some more prospects I will pretty much give up on the Royals though.  They have a huge commitment to these guys in Omaha and Arkansas, but the real test will be if they decided to sign these guys after the rookie contracts are up.  I think the Royals are committed now, but the Royals have been rebuilding for a long long time.

That is really the biggest snag here.  As a fan I believe they are working on something good really good, but from an outsider perspective it is still the Royals spending a fraction of what the contenders spend.  Sure there is a commitment to the rebuilding process, but as of now there hasn't been a commitment to the contending process other than the GM's word.  I think it would pretty much put a fork in how much I invest in the Royals if this current process fails.

I would still root for the Royals, but not be the die hard I am now if the Royals don't keep their word on this youth movement.  I tell myself watching 50+ Royals games a year is worth is b/c they will be good soon.  If it comes 2015 Bossco and the Royals are still spending 40 million and "rebuilding through the draft"  I will probably go down to a game once a year instead of 5 times and hardly watch them on TV instead of the 10 times a month I watch them now.  Heres to the future.

[Guest]

Wow, that was quite a dramatic argument about...  the Royals?  Who knew people cared that much?!  

I can top all the arguments and bolster any positive feelings Royals fans have about the direction their management is taking by saying the one name that gives me nightmares and should make every other team thankful they don't have - Peter Angelos.  
Without regard to spending, if you don't have him, you are better off than I am.

[Greg S]

it's the Royals that lag and it's NOT because of the city, it's because of the team's management, add to that the fact that the Royals are a very boring franchise with little marketing appeal and very few fans outside KC.

Exactly. The Royals are one of those teams that get >$60 million in what equates to welfare from the better teams, and then they spend less than half of it on players. Since there is no salary floor in MLB they are free to do so and it's pretty unrealistic to expect the fans to care about a team when it's own management doesn't.

This was the initial quote I've been responding too.  You said players (maybe you only meant players in the majors?).  I showed you not only players in the MLB but others (draft, international and an additional minor league team they are now funding).  I also showed you that they are spending more on front office.  It also looks like your numbers were incorrect.

Greg