I saw an online article about the top 10 remaining free agents and who's the favorite to sign them.............it was basically Yankees/Mets/Dodgers..........
Of the top 10 remaining free agents, the Mets only sign two of them and that’s because it’s their players, Manaea and Alonso. They will not sign any non Mets, especially pitchers. Stearns doesn’t believe in paying big money for pitchers.
Running a franchise has always been a business so why shouldn’t the above be factors?
It wasn't a business for George Steinbrenner, all he cared about was winning, it wasn't a business with the RS ownership from 2004 through 2018, it was all about winning a WS title, now all the RS management cares about is the bottom line, winning be ****ed.
The business still has to break even; you can’t run it a deficit. In the early years, he didn’t always make a profit or sometimes break even but he saw the future in extracting money from TV and radio rights and made a lot of money from those deals, which he then translated into even more money when he started the YES Network.
Don't I know it..................
.
Having the capability and actual spending are two different things; the RS ownership owns the team, much of the land around the ballpark, Liverpool, the Penguins and they're involved in auto racing too...........tons of money, but not willing to spend. And yes, all of these owners have massive amounts of personal wealth or they would not own teams, so yes, to your point, mostly all teams are owned by wealthy owners.
MLB’s lack of a salary cap makes the business side more of a simple advantage than an actual strategic factor.