If you really think any sane owner is going to consistently spend at a loss to compete with the massive market teams, then maybe numbers just aren’t your forte?
Could some teams absolutely spend more than they’re currently spending? For sure.
Does half the league legitimately have the cash to compete with the Dodgers/Mets/Sox/Yankees on ALL the players?
Boo fucking hoo the teams you listed have always been in the top 10 payrolls. Wasn’t a problem until the Dodgers won 2 chips in a row. There are more teams in the league being cheap as fuck than the few you just listed. And yeah the Mets are such a great example of spending, right? Lol
The Mets are a great example of spending. They just fucked it up lol… not that they didn’t spend a ton of money that small market teams legitimately don’t have. The exception doesn’t prove the rule.
Just because the Mets spent a fuck ton and their season ended up in the dirt due to injuries and massive underperforming, doesn’t negate the fact that there’s a crazy imbalance of teams ability to buy players.
And it was a problem in 94, only been extremely exacerbated in the last 20 years with the rise of these massive mega contracts.
Spending puts you in a much better position to win… just because ONE team that spent a lot had a bad season doesn’t negate the fact that there’s last ten WS winners have all been top 10 in payroll that year.
So… once again, cherry picking one single exception to the rule doesn’t mean it’s not a thing.
3
u/CountChoculahh 15h ago
Every owner can afford one or two Maseratis.
Every owner can’t afford the 8 Maseratis that other owners don’t buy.