Absolutely love this content and the results makes a ton of sense. Beyond that, I appreciate it when analysts combine the business side of sports with the usual numbers analysis. Sports are a business after all, and understanding the financial side of these businesses is huge to an overall understanding of the ecosystem. This is something that most fans/pundits have no awareness of at all and fail to identify and appreciate when they criticize smart moves driven by valid business considerations.
Thanks also for calling out the Guardians. As a one-time Cleveland resident, I tend to still follow them and have always felt that their front office was stellar and every bit as good as other big market teams that are lauded ad nauseam by the media. I include in this their quick decision to dump Lindor on the Mets...a decision that led to an immense amount of criticism on the MLB Network and elsewhere by professed experts. Lindor struck me as already regressing a bit at the time and heading towards an enormous contract that his declining play would likely not justify - a poor business investment. The media was myopically viewing it as simply a lost "star" with zero appreciation of the fuller context for the transaction. I loved the move for Cleveland and what it said about their front office philosophy, and I continue to believe they won that transaction by moving a declining overpriced asset a year early rather than a year late for valuable pieces.
Finally, a pure suggestion. What I would love to see added to this great work is an overlay of farm system excellence and how it impacts roster expense. Part of that is obvious. If you have great young talent - I'm looking at you Baltimore - your performance will be a value play for some time. However, a robust pipeline can have many other financial benefits to the roster build.
For example, the LA Dodgers seem to have an incredible player identification and development system that leads to a constant stream of young talent. It also converts talent from other organizations. Max Muncy after being dumped by the lowly A's became a star after a short period in the Dodgers' system.
That pipeline is also an asset that can be leveraged to create greater outcomes than might be expected from roster expense alone. The Dodgers can certainly better address injuries as they arise and sustain performance during disruptions (see 2024), but they can also quickly trade these pieces to obtain established talent in the marketplace as needed. That's much tougher to do for teams that have few pipeline assets because teams that will trade good established talent are likely rebuilding for a future window where your young talent will entice a trade. Teams without a good pipeline will have to spend more for less results because the marketplace is less available to them to solve needs.
Thank so much again and appreciate the great work here.
Thanks so much, Grant! I love the idea of a farm system analysis. Maybe in the future I’ll analyze how farm system rankings affect future club success. Or maybe if it’s more effective to have a strong farm system or go the free agency/trade route? Something I’ll definitely consider, thanks for the idea!
I appreciate your support of my work, glad you enjoy it!
In MLB, I think the only time it doesn't make sense for a competitive team to spend money is when that team is going to sign a free agent the next offseason who received a Qualifying Offer, because the draft penalties are pretty severe. Otherwise, spend it!
Absolutely love this content and the results makes a ton of sense. Beyond that, I appreciate it when analysts combine the business side of sports with the usual numbers analysis. Sports are a business after all, and understanding the financial side of these businesses is huge to an overall understanding of the ecosystem. This is something that most fans/pundits have no awareness of at all and fail to identify and appreciate when they criticize smart moves driven by valid business considerations.
Thanks also for calling out the Guardians. As a one-time Cleveland resident, I tend to still follow them and have always felt that their front office was stellar and every bit as good as other big market teams that are lauded ad nauseam by the media. I include in this their quick decision to dump Lindor on the Mets...a decision that led to an immense amount of criticism on the MLB Network and elsewhere by professed experts. Lindor struck me as already regressing a bit at the time and heading towards an enormous contract that his declining play would likely not justify - a poor business investment. The media was myopically viewing it as simply a lost "star" with zero appreciation of the fuller context for the transaction. I loved the move for Cleveland and what it said about their front office philosophy, and I continue to believe they won that transaction by moving a declining overpriced asset a year early rather than a year late for valuable pieces.
Finally, a pure suggestion. What I would love to see added to this great work is an overlay of farm system excellence and how it impacts roster expense. Part of that is obvious. If you have great young talent - I'm looking at you Baltimore - your performance will be a value play for some time. However, a robust pipeline can have many other financial benefits to the roster build.
For example, the LA Dodgers seem to have an incredible player identification and development system that leads to a constant stream of young talent. It also converts talent from other organizations. Max Muncy after being dumped by the lowly A's became a star after a short period in the Dodgers' system.
That pipeline is also an asset that can be leveraged to create greater outcomes than might be expected from roster expense alone. The Dodgers can certainly better address injuries as they arise and sustain performance during disruptions (see 2024), but they can also quickly trade these pieces to obtain established talent in the marketplace as needed. That's much tougher to do for teams that have few pipeline assets because teams that will trade good established talent are likely rebuilding for a future window where your young talent will entice a trade. Teams without a good pipeline will have to spend more for less results because the marketplace is less available to them to solve needs.
Thank so much again and appreciate the great work here.
Thanks so much, Grant! I love the idea of a farm system analysis. Maybe in the future I’ll analyze how farm system rankings affect future club success. Or maybe if it’s more effective to have a strong farm system or go the free agency/trade route? Something I’ll definitely consider, thanks for the idea!
I appreciate your support of my work, glad you enjoy it!
In MLB, I think the only time it doesn't make sense for a competitive team to spend money is when that team is going to sign a free agent the next offseason who received a Qualifying Offer, because the draft penalties are pretty severe. Otherwise, spend it!