Big bucks for MLB megastars mean big team profits, but fewer wins
Posted in GSW on February 6th, 2012 by higginshttp://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-big-bucks-mlb-megastars-team.html
“With sports teams you don’t hear it talked about very often: ‘Should we get a bunch of OK players or get one or two really good players?'”
This is a question that is most likely very hotly debated in nearly every front office in baseball. Distribution of money is a dilemma that most teams face. How do you decide whether you want a balanced team with no great players, or a team with a couple all-stars and also some below average players. This article presented a very interesting stance on the issue. Teams that spend their money on a couple of great players tend to make a solid profit for the season, but do not seem to win as many games. On the contrary, teams that balance out their payrolls see more wins, but less of a profit. This is where greed comes into the equation. First and foremost, the game of baseball is a business. Owners want to make money. So if the most effective way to make money is to pay for a sub-par team that features a couple superstars, then why not just do that? Some owners I believe or at least I hope would say that their number one priority is winning. In the long run, winning equals money in nearly all circumstances.
The business of baseball seems to lack integrity and morals in a lot of instances. Sport in general is a cut-throat world, where only the strongest and most brutal survive. This carries over to the front office of baseball teams, where owners and general managers may decide at some point that turning a profit is more important that fielding a winning team. And to be honest, signing two superstar players and paying them outrageous amounts of money will seem to the fans that they are doing there best to bring wins to the team. Regardless of these statistics, the owner and GM both win. They make their profit and make it seem to the fans like the are willing to spend whatever it takes to be a title contender. It seems that according to this article, less is more. Spend a little less on individuals and everyone benefits. It’s an interesting concept to consider.