Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
Actually, some teams had no issues making money. Others did have issues. Indeed, some were even perennial money-losers.
Over the 28 seasons spanning the 1923-1950 time period, here's what each MLB club's profit-loss result looked like, expressed as a win-loss record:
New York (A): 24-4
St. Louis (N): 23-5
Detroit: 23-5
Cleveland: 22-6
Pittsburgh: 22-6
New York (N): 21-7
Chicago (A): 21-7
Washington: 20-8
Chicago (N): 19-9
Brooklyn: 18-10
Cincinnati: 17-11
Philadelphia (N): 16-12
St. Louis (A): 16-12
Philadelphia (A): 14-14
Boston (N): 9-19
Boston (A): 6-22
Then as now, the Yankees could be counted on to rake in revenue. The Cardinals reaped the rewards of its minor league system. On the other side of the ledger, the Athletics only turned a profit half the time; the two Boston clubs were both perennial money-losers. (The Red Sox lost money ten years in a row from 1931-1940.)
Clubs did also have lots of legitimate expenses. Then as now, clubs had to pay for travel, hotels, front office staff, scouts, working agreements with minor league clubs, salaries of minor league players, front office staff, ticket takers, ushers, grounds crews, advertising, power, insurance, telephones, equipment, taxes, etc.
|
I had no idea, this was quite educational, thank you.
Yet another way that my Red Sox sucked historically, yay!
On the plus side, out of the "losers", only the Red Sox still exist today where they were during that time period, so I suppose that's a win on a larger scale.