Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
If winning begets winning then the Royals wouldn't have been in this 25 year slump, dumbass. The Pirates would have also continued to run through the old NL East, and the Yankees would have never faltered even as the core four aged.
If you want to win in baseball, you need a few things: the first is a good owner. That means someone who is engaged, willing to spend but not overspend, someone who is patient but requires standards. The second thing you need is a good development system and the final is a good scouting system.
The Cardinals have all three. The Royals used to. The Yankees were fortunate enough to have it for a few years when Steinbrenner was banned from baseball, which is what allowed them to build the team that won 4/5 titles.
Right now the Royals don't have much of any of that. Like the Angels from a few years ago most of their prospects are extremely overrated. I'm not sure why that is; perhaps it's due to the national influence of Royals fans like Rob Neyer and Rany, although I doubt it. It's not a coincidence that there hasn't been a single Royals hitting prospect who hasn't disappointed when promoted to the big league club in at least five years, probably longer. Hell, Aviles is the last over-performer I can remember.
The Royals can't develop talent from within their system. Because of that, it probably appears that they can't draft. I think there is an element of truth to that (Hochevar, and a few others to lesser degrees), but it's hard to tell because a lot of that falls on the player development side.
Obviously, they Royals have spent little over the last two decades, but Kansas City has shown that they'll support a winner. Arrowhead was a ghost town in the 80s and then it became nearly impossible to get STs in the 90s. Did the nature of sports fans change in KC, or are they willing to support teams that appear competitive? KC had great attendance in the 70s and 80s. The town just didn't start hating baseball. The Chiefs are the perfect example.
If you put Tampa's org in Kansas City they'd draw 2.5 million fans a year.
Ultimately, you're looking for excuses that make it easier to sleep, b/c the assumption that St. Louis has all of these ingrained advantages is just a fantasy. The Cardinals have more success than the Royals because they have better ownership, and that ownership has built a better franchise. There isn't a regional or financial roadblock, and there is no such thing as a small market team, only small market owners.
|
I made 1 claim: the Royals could not support the payroll STL does because it is an inferior MLB market. All your bluster here fails to address my point either way. My point is either true, or false. Nobody brought up David Glass, Dayton Moore, the farm systems, etc etc. If you stick to the topic it'll greatly help the discussion we're having.
I'll stay on topic even if you won't. That's why I posted the actual data: (1) STL is top-5 in ticket revenue, and (2) they generate $75 million more in overall revenue. Did you refute either fact? Because bringing in ancillary crap into your rebuttal is irrelevant. I don't like David Glass or Moore or the stadium or our farm system or whatever. My observation on the market differences was in no way any defense of Glass although it seems you took it that way.
(Somebody above went way off the reservation and posted something about a booklet the Cardinals produce. I have no idea how that relates to an economic trade market but I only skimmed it)
Here's my challenge to you: go post on Vivos Los Birdos or any Cards site. Ask if STL is a better baseball town than KC. Just ask. See what the Cards fans say. If they all back you up and say "Same, all dependent on the owner brah", I'll concede your point. But I know they won't.