Quoted for Truth

[ChrisLDuncan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/who-wants-to-subsidize-a-billionaire/

[digglahhh]

"What the Pohlads are saying in effect is that the loyalty means that a kid from Venezuela who worked at his profession for 14 years to get to this point in his life should subsidize one of the wealthiest men in one of the richest countries on the planet. "

Word!

And, this dynamic is at play far beyond baseball, my friends.

College students take heed - especially those with hefty loans...

[ChrisLDuncan]

I am sick and tired of listening to bitching from "small market teams" it's not like there is a city that has an MLB team, that has a population so small that they can't support a team. The Dolphins just finished putting perhaps the worst product on a field in recent memory, yet they had no problem putting 65K+ every game, yet the Marlins can't fill the stadium. The Rangers? Give me a break I can guarantee you that they will have no problem filling the new Texas Stadium, which will be right next door to Ameriquest. It's not that these teams can't afford players, the owners just don't want to pay.

[SamtheBravesFan]

*claps* Great article. We shouldn't expect athletes to do something that we would most likely never do.

[digglahhh]

In their defense, CLD, just because the owners are rich - from multiple business ventures - that doesn't mean they should be obligated to subsidize one venture with the profits of another.

This may or may not apply to the case at hand, as I don't have a Minny financial ledger in front of me (nor do I really care to do the research). But, hypothetically, if Pohlad isn't profiting from the Twins, then he shouldn't necessarily be obliged to keep investing at levels that net him losses within that specific venture.

Of course, our dream owners would put winning at the paramount of the hierarchy of goals. He/She would be willing to take a net loss for a ring, considering that person is likely extremely wealthy as is and doesn't "need" the money. How many owners would actually do such a thing?

All I'm saying is just because I'm rich from making orange juice, that doesn't mean that I should keep operating my ice cream business at a loss simply because you happen to like my product better than Ben and Jerry's.

I'm not sure if we know enough about specific owners' situations to make certain judgments, that's all.

[_Joseph_]

That's one of the best articles I've ever read.

[philkid3]

In their defense, CLD, just because the owners are rich - from multiple business ventures - that doesn't mean they should be obligated to subsidize one venture with the profits of another.

This may or may not apply to the case at hand, as I don't have a Minny financial ledger in front of me (nor do I really care to do the research). But, hypothetically, if Pohlad isn't profiting from the Twins, then he shouldn't necessarily be obliged to keep investing at levels that net him losses within that specific venture.

Of course, our dream owners would put winning at the paramount of the hierarchy of goals. He/She would be willing to take a net loss for a ring, considering that person is likely extremely wealthy as is and doesn't "need" the money. How many owners would actually do such a thing?

All I'm saying is just because I'm rich from making orange juice, that doesn't mean that I should keep operating my ice cream business at a loss simply because you happen to like my product better than Ben and Jerry's.

I'm not sure if we know enough about specific owners' situations to make certain judgments, that's all.

I agree. Owners should not be expected to pour everything in to their team.

But they should not complain about poor attendance, competitive balance, performance, etc. when they don't.

Nor should they be the ones questioning a player's loyalty.