profit vs. contention

["Nathan A." <nj13@navix.net>]

Jonathan wrote:

>These teams are losing money just like all those teams in M.L. Baseball
>were losing money.  If you're losing money, sooner or later you either sell,
>move or close up shop.Not one team in MLB has moved in years, there
>have been almost no changes of ownership and not one team has gone
>broke.  As is usual in most management/labor negotiations, management
>is crying poverty.

This may be true, but look at how many MLB teams have teams essentially of
lower level major leaguers and AAA talent that make small enough salarys so
the the owners can pay them. Case in point: my former favorite team and now
eternal non-contenders, the Kansas City Royals. Sure they aren't going to
move, they may be making money, but that comes at the price of a permenate
seat in the cellar. The Royals will never be able to pay players like the
Yankees, etc. can. As soon as a young talet improves enough to demand a
decent salary, the Royals trade him away for a couple of minor league
prospects. The owners may not be crying poverty, but that is because they
aren't paying out what it takes to win. I don't want to see this happen any
more than it already has in the NBA. Maybe the Celtics aren't losing money
and are not going to move under currect circumstances, but I would rather
have them be able to afford to contend for a championship!

Did anybody follow that argument? It was so clear in my mind.

Nathan A.
___________________________________________________________
Release, Rotation, Splash!

The North Bend Sports Page: http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/2430

Nebraska Cornhuskers, Simply the best.
1994, 1995, 1997...

Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon.