A Farewell to Reason

Wrigleyville raises an excellent question in a recent post: What’s the beef with spending? Seriously, why is it that teams that spend are universally castigated for doing so? Is there a “right way” to build a ballclub? Of course, we’re tempted to answer “yes,” but only because we fail to recognize the careful equivocation on “right.” A simple, small word, “right;” in one sense, it carries the connotation of “correct,” but in another, it carries, as WV23 points out, the moral connotation, i.e. that there’s an objectively good (in the sense of “the good”) way to build a ballclub. And that’s the notion I mean to combat today. Is there a right way, in the first sense? I’m not sure. But there might be a cost-effective way, building a team from the farm system, using superior advance scouting and the benefit of cost-controlled players to construct a solid team (see: Rays, Tampa Bay), or, varying slightly, one might also use a superior coaching staff to build a successful team out of reclamation projects and veterans (see: Cardinals, St. Louis). And then there’s everyone else who uses some combination of the two to win. And then there’s the New York Yankees, who have all three, really, but are regularly branded with “buying a title,” as if doing whatever possible to win is some sort of pejorative. To my mind, such ignorance springs from the odd assumption of purity that baseball fans seem to carry, and it’s exacerbated by the bilious ruminations of the BBWAA and the booya’s, who fuel fandemonuim with their tales of how the game used to be, and slide back and forth between the two senses of “right,” which only serves to confuse the issue at hand. Poppycock. Rubbish. Bullshit. There’s no “right way” to build a club, at least in the second sense, if not in both senses. I suppose one could argue for a “right way” in the first sense, but that’s only right in an economic sense, and would not carry the moral implications of the second sense. So the foolish bloviating over teams “buying” a championship, as if that phrase alone somehow taints the title, is, simply put, fucking stupid. There is no moral axiom for winning. The point is to win, plain and simple. And whether that’s accomplished by a farm system, a coaching staff, or a checkbook is tangential, at best, and irrelevant, at worst. So, to fans who bemoan the Yankees, the Red Sox, and many others “buying” their success: read a book. Preferably one on ethics. Perhaps then you can stop imbuing benign situations with unnecessary moral weight. MB21: Thanks to PMayo for allowing me to add on here. Nothing better states an obvious fact than what PMayo wrote: “The point is to win, plain and simple.” Really, that is the only point. Regardless of the glamorization of this game that some feel is needed to justify their time spent following the game, there is no other goal in this game. There is no right way. There is only winning. A team that wins has done so the right way. You cannot possibly win the wrong way. Think about that. You can’t win by basically failing at what you’re trying to do. Winning is the right way and there are numerous ways to win. Only a shortsighted person with diminished learning skills can believe there is a better way to win. Whether you sign every available free agent, have a minor league system stacked with talent, or trade for key players and win as a result, you’ve done so the right way. What is wrong with a team signing the best talent available? Is that not each and every team’s responsibility—to improve? What is so wrong about an organization taking a serious risk on a veteran player because they’ve had the scouts and statisticians tell them it was a risk worth taking? What is so right by building a strong farm system and paying your players next to nothing while the owners get rich? What is so right about an organization spending very little money on payroll and asking that fans pack the ballpark each and every home game? The answer to those questions is nothing. There is nothing wrong or right about any way a team wins.