It's crapping on the fans who spend their hard-earned money on the team. "Vanity project"? Oh, please. Who actually loses money over the long term owning a franchise in a major sport? No one these days. Even when teams are cash-flow negative, franchise values keep going up, often at a remarkable rate. And cities often shell out tens of millions to help build stadiums--more than they make back in increased tax revenues according to just about any study.
Plus, it's a stupid strategy. Gut the roster and alienate fans with comments like that, and attendance drops like a rock--which, according the Cubs ownership when Covid hit in 2020, leads to 'biblical losses." That'd be the same Ricketts family who are now vying to buy the Chelsea football club.
I understand it's more difficult for small market teams to compete consistently, but barely trying at all as the Reds and others are now is garbage.
As someone who has lived near New York for my life, I see the difference in income streams. I actually remember taking a tour of the Cincinnati stadium. They were showing us the seats/club behind home plate, which were sold for about $300/game. I told the usher giving the tour that the Yankees were charging $5000 at their new stadium for the same deal. He almost fainted.
As a Met fan, I finally have an owner who cares more about winning than making a big profit. It's very nice (obviously).
I'm not saying smaller market teams cannot win (see Rays), or that some some smaller market teams haven't been sucking the test (same with some larger market teams - see Mets under former ownership, and yes, in the past the Reds are an example). But as someone who studies this pretty closely:
1. Without a minimum and maximum salary limit, and national, rather than individual, television contracts (latest data I could find was 2020 - Dodgers get $239 million, Marlins get $20) which would level the playing field, the rules favor the rich teams.
2. Smaller market teams can compete, but not constantly. When was the last time the Yankees or Dodgers weren't "going for it"? Successful smaller market teams have to follow a Cleveland/Oakland model of money all - keep a core of younger players, trade off players prior to them becoming free agents, and if you have a successful core, spend bigger for those few years and try to win "in your window". Tampa is an outlier, and frankly, can only do it constantly because no one else does.
3. No owner wants to lose money, but there are teams where owners wanted to win even if they made less money:
- look at Cohen with the Mets. He's a lifelong Met fan. The team has gone from spending like a mid market team to the league having to change the salary structure rules just to put the brakes on him (the "Cohen tax").
- the elder George Steinbrenner would do crazy stupid things to try to win - firing (and paying) multiple managers per year, being the first one to go hog wild on free agents.
- the Dodgers, because of their huge TV contract, well off fan base, etc , also simply have more money to spend on players (and player development).
It hurt to see VanVleet leave the game with an injury, but a win is a win, and this team won't shy away from a challenge. Game 5 in Philly is going to be TOUGH! But I think the Raps have figured a few things out now, so it shouldn't be easy for the Sixers either.
