Hilarious. The Cards are in the top 5 of ticket revenue and have the highest tv ratings of any baseball team in MLB. Their loyal fans make up for their small MSA. They earned $239m in revenue to KC at $169.
http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/


The Royals get a ton of revenue sharing that gets them to that figure anyway. Nobody woul choose to have a team in KC over STL

They're also on a small Fox Sports deal. It's not like they own a network like NESN or YES!.

You're unsuccessful because your ownership is cheap and stupid. Tampa can field better teams with a payroll 2/3 of yours.

If you want to look at why the Royals aren't successful look at their inability to develop talent consistently and maintain the talent that does develop.

The Cardinals bring in tens of millions less than the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies, yet have had more success over the last ten years than all of them. They bring in less than the Cubs, who have $100 million more than the Royals, but are a worse franchise. They bring in the same as the Mets.

It's just another bullshit excuse. Eighty thousand people didn't have problems forking out hundreds to thousands every year to go to Chiefs games in the same parking lot, but 35 thousand can't afford tickets that are 10% of the cost?

When Ewing Kauffman was the owner of the Royals and the brewery was taking a machete to the team in the 70s, how many people do you think would rather have had a team in St. Louis?

When the Royals were innovators in signing and developing cost-controlled talent they were one of the model organizations in baseball. When they turned the organization into a welfare check for ownership they sucked.

OK then, by this logic Columbia MO is the same size Lawrence KS is. Ergo Mizzou should be the same baskeball market that Kansas is. Oh and they used to outrdraw Kansas in the early 80s when they were winning the Big 8 and Kansas was struggling. Proved my point right?



Cards tv deal is only small right now because they signed it early. When it comes up for renewal they'll get a good bump. I'll bet you any amount you have in the bank it will be significantly higher than what hte Royals get.



The Chiefs are a bad example because we've always struggled at the gate, save for a 10-year period with Derrick Thomas and Neil Smith. When you remove that time period, the other 40 years has been a real uphill battle to draw fans. STL Rams sold out with Warner & Faulk. Winning begets winning. And it's way easier to do in STL where there are more resources. $75m extra to spend on payroll matters and saying it doesn't is nonsense.

Hamas is spot on.

The Royals have failed because of incompetence. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Cubs have spent millions on failure. It's not what you spend, it's how you spend what you can.

This is spot on.

I have no doubt that if Kauffmann were still alive today (or had he survived into the early 2000s), the Royals would have been one of the teams at the forefront of the SABRE movement.

Royals leadership has been incredibly poor for most of the 90s and 2000s. Dayton Moore has been successful in many ways and had some significant failures as well, but no one can argue that he has been successful in getting the Glasses to open the wallets for amateur talent and increase the payroll of the major league roster. Both used to be a joke (Marlins-esque) and are at least respectable now.

Now, I'm going to sit back and watch you verbally eviscerate PB in this thread. Where's my popcorn?

You have to be intentionally blind or ignorant to not understand this.

You were looking in Prison Bitch's general direction when you posted this weren't you.

Just cut your losses here pal. Hamas will only own you worse.

You guys should be doing what the Cardinals are doing in the minor league and draft. We consistently draft in a worse position than KC but the results couldn't be any different.

Throw out player evaluations and development of players.

• KC should have a seamless transition from the minors to the majors. The Cardinals have a book called the "Cardinals Way". Its used to teach players the same way to play baseball from Single "A" all the way up to the majors.
• The minor league coaches teach the same thing as the major league coaches.
• They give the minor league's plenty of playing time in spring training. The minor leaguers get to the majors, they know the major league players, they have shared a locker room, they already know how to conduct themselfs.

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.

Wow, Gast picked a good night for a MLB debut.

Cardinals hitters to Met pitching:

Yo' wife is my baby momma/
God Damn, Mother****a/
She's a...good dick sucka'

I'm noticing a trend. How many times did a Larussa coached team play down to its opponents talent?

No research to back up this opinion. It just seems to me that Matheny coached teams take care of business better than Larussa teams. Although they do share the same affinity for just winning series's instead of going for the sweep.:banghead:

FYP