Fan's Own the Franchise

I'm not an NFL fan, for a variety of reasons. For 1: football never particularly interested me, and after spending middle school playing both offense and defense (we lost every game in 2 years, but that's a different story) my love for the sport quickly dwindled. For 2: I deplore the NFL's theory on franchises. Teams relocate fairly easily in the NFL, and there have been 20 relocations in National Football League history*. Now, it should be noted MLB matured in the 1800s, where teams folded, moved, and changed names practically overnight. The NFL spent the early and mid twentieth century becoming the powerhouse it is today. BUT: with all this in mind the NFL carries a notably cavalier attitude towards franchise relocations. This past year three teams (all of which are profitable to the best of our knowledge) moved to larger markets:

San Diego & St. Louis both lost their franchises to Los Angeles
The Oakland Raiders will move to Las Vegas

The Oakland Raiders move, in particular, stings. Oakland loves and strongly supports the Raiders, and moving them to Las Vegas feels particularly cruel to a suffering city, struggling beneath the weight of Silicon Valley. Overall: it does not feel like the NFL particularly cares about cities when it comes to placing teams. In contrast: Major League Baseball is quite stable.

*Which is apparently WAY more complicated than I thought. The above 20 moves does not include, for example, the Browns move to Baltimore. If we added up all the other moves we would be discussing well over 40 changes

In modern MLB history (beginning with the start of the World Series in 1904) there have been nine relocations, most occurred during baseball's expansion in the 1950s:

1953: Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee
1954: St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore becoming the Baltimore Orioles
1955: Philadelphia Athletics moved to Kansas City
1958: Brooklyn Dodgers & New York Giants moved to Los Angeles and San Francisco perspectively
1961: Washington Senators moved to Minneapolis becoming the Minnesota Twins
1966: Milwaukee Braves moved to Atlanta
1968: Kansas City Athletics moved to Oakland
1972: Washington Senators moved to Dallas becoming the Texas Rangers
2004: Montreal Expos moved to Washington becoming the Washington Nationals

What's more: every city which lost a team eventually regained the team, besides Montreal. Two of the 'losing' cities never had Major League Baseball teams before, and now host venerable franchises with a rich history (Kansas City & Milwaukee). In short: MLB values the ties each team carries with its city, and carefully ways moving each team. Despite several struggling franchises in recent decades: Tampa Bay, Oakland, and Miami we have yet to see a relocation. This means, unlike the NFL: MLB works tirelessly to ensure cities do not lose franchises wherever possible, and means franchises are more captive to their audience.

This matters for a variety of reasons. The NFL expects the owner and the city to earn their franchise, while MLB appears far less willing to move franchises barring a complete catastrophe (which occurred in Montreal: MLB actually had to buy the Expos).

The Meaning of a Customer

In business customers buy a product and then own the product. If, for example, I bought an Apple iPhone I would expect the phone to work, and to be able to reach someone who can help me fix it if it does not. I also have the option of buying an Android if I am disappointed. As such I hold some leverage over Apple by withholding my business. However: Apple's market is global, I am one small piece of their potential clientele. While Apple cannot chose their customers, their customer base is nearly limitless. Thus, my ability to influence Apple's business is non-existent and even the ability of entire regions to influence Apple is limited due to their potential markets: no one market can truly dominate Apple's business focus. Professional sports are different: each franchise's location partially determines their potential customers. In some ways, the team is a slave of their home team.

The NFL, by choosing to relocate teams easily, reverses this trend. In short: the NFL allows teams to 'choose' their customers, and forces their customers to earn the right to buy NFL's business. In many ways this allows the NFL to act like Apple. MLB is different, as they are more loyal to their cities: they do not have the ability to choose their customers. In many ways this greatly changes the relationship between customer and seller, and in my opinion: the fans are the owners of the franchise. Our purchases are exactly what funds the team, and unlike Apple: MLB teams cannot go somewhere else immediately to find new sales. Thus, our leverage is greater than other customers.

Andrew Kinsman said it was easy to gripe about not spending the Dolan's money. I disagree: it's our money. The Indians wouldn't be here without us, and unlike other industries the Cleveland Indians are beholden to their fans in ways most companies simply are not beholden to their customer bases. Some may view buying a ticket as a purchase: I view it as an investment. It's my commitment to the team that they would aggressively, and actively pursue a winning ballclub and franchise.

An Extreme Example

The Green Bay Packers are the only publicly owned franchise in sports. The shareholders are residents of Green Bay, where the fanbase literally owns the team. This, to me, is essentially the culmination of what a franchise should (and in my opinion does...since the team is captive to its fanbase) mean to their fans. While every other franchise is not directly owned by their fans, their fans are effectively the reason why all the teams receive revenue...and their customers are represented by a specific geographic area. Thus: while most companies are not captive to their customers, a team is captive by theirs.

Making an Investment Pay Off

The Cleveland market is a stagnant one, but also one full of potential. The reigning 'owner' of this town's business is the Cleveland Browns. The Browns are currently in the worst tailspin in professional sports history. Over the last 162 games the Browns have been as bad as the worst teams in MLB history. In short: the Browns are doing an excellent job losing their absurdly loyal fanbase.*

The second team in the city is the Cavaliers and they've won a NBA Championship. With the Golden State Warriors so strong it's arguable that the Cavs may not be as able to win a championship as they were in 2016. If there was ever a time for the Indians to steal the hearts of Cleveland: it's now. The core (meticulously and expertly crafted by Antonetti): is sound. Our division is weak. But the road is NOT easy. New York acquired Giancarlo Stanton (a move which I still contend is absolutely horrid for the health of baseball, leaving Miami in shambles), the Angels signed Otani. The path to the AL Pennant will not be an easy one.

*I want to say this clearly: NO. I am NOT comparing the Indians FO to the Browns FO.

Why does this matter? Well, we just lost our most consistent reliever over the past four seasons, and our most consistent hitter since 2011. We also lost Jay Bruce, a solid power hitter acquired mid-season. These are not minor losses. The Indians did field their largest budget team ever in 2017. Accepting them, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to the fanbase which has begun to rally around the team during our first real period of sustained success since the 1990s (which was the first period of success for the Indians in 50 years). As such I do not think being conservative and accepting losses is the proper way for the team to manage the community's investment in its sports team. If there was a time to mortgage the future: its now. Create a larger fanbase, build memories, and go for the gold.