Quote:
Originally Posted by JMDurron
Isn't that kind of the point of the reserve clause era? Teams had no issues making money...
|
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questdog
The owners had gobs of money in their pockets but every penny they paid out in salary was a penny that was not in their pockets anymore. In OOTP money has no use other than to sign ballplayers, but the baseball magnates had no problems thinking up other uses for that money rather than giving it to ballplayers. They could build mansions and hunting lodges and new ballparks and buy cars and chase women...
|
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.