Fans of the Cincinnati Reds have themselves in a tizzy over a few comments made by team leader Joey Votto to the Cincinnati Enquirer over the weekend. In the article, Votto bluntly discusses the economics of the game and the minuscule impact one player has in a team sport like baseball. To Reds fans, such comments sound like the first words of a long goodbye.

Reds fans are ripping Votto for being greedy in seeking a bigger payday from wealthier clubs, while simultaneously castigating Reds owner Robert Castellini for being “cheap.” Sound familiar?

The so-called small market Cardinals are doing a similar dance with their own superstar first baseman Albert Pujols. Pujols has repeatedly said that he is not afraid to reach free agency, knowing that he will be in line for a huge financial windfall if he does. Cardinals owner Bill DeWitt is clearly uncomfortable with paying Pujols market value (starting at $25 million and rising from there). Cards fans, feeling prematurely betrayed by Pujols’ stance, have been cool on him this year while calling him greedy and arrogant. DeWitt has been called cheap more often than a polyester suit at Goodwill.

Are these teams really in such financial trouble that they cannot support MVP-caliber stars like Votto or Pujols? Are these players really being greedy? And who really needs an adjustment in their thinking on this issue?

Are the owners being greedy?

First, let’s look at some basic numbers for both franchises:

	Cardinals	Reds
Attendance (2010 in millions)	3.5	2.1
Average ticket prices	$58.85	$47.65
Ticket Revenue	$205,975,000	$100,065,000
Concessions/merchandise	$105,000,000	$63,000,000
Home game revenue (est)	$310,975,000	$163,065,000

By these rough calculations (I imagined a $30 average per ticket holder for concessions/merchandise, which is probably very conservative), the Cardinals earn twice as much as the Reds, mostly due to the huge difference in attendance. Yet, the Reds are spending approximately 80% of the Cardinals’ payroll ($100 million to $80 million). The Reds’ payroll is similar to that of the Milwaukee Brewers, who sold nearly a million more tickets. So, by most standards, the Reds are certainly spending quite a bit of money considering the paltry support.

And let’s be honest – the owners of baseball teams are not philanthropists. They run a baseball team in order to make enormous profits (that they can dump into Ponzi schemes or on their extravagant lifestyles) while also building up their saleable net worth. Fan enjoyment (and even winning) is secondary to making more money. It’s called capitalism – if you don’t like it, then move to India.

Why not give a player what they’re worth?

Fans like to tell team owners that they “should just pay whatever it takes” to keep a star like Votto or Pujols. But Votto’s comments regarding the importance of star baseball players reveals much about the thinking of the owners, and really makes some sense:

You’re never going to win if you put too much emphasis on your superstars. It’s such a shared responsibility to win. I won the National League MVP, and in 85 percent of the games I wasn’t changing the game. In the NFL, if I’m the MVP quarterback, I’m changing 12 out of the 16 games, maybe higher. Superstars can be overrated in this game.

Pretty good logic, I’d say. Small market teams don’t usually cough up the market value for huge talents, and it’s not necessarily because they can’t afford to. It’s because baseball stars rarely have an irreplaceable impact on a game.

In his career, Pujols has averaged just a hair under 8 WAR (wins above replacement) per season. By that calculation, Pujols generates 8 wins a season by himself above what the average baseball player would produce in his stead. Votto produces a respectable 3.5 WAR. Both players are stars, but they’re currently underpaid for performances like these.

But they can also be replaced by younger, cheaper players. Consider this: Colby Rasmus produced 2.8 WAR and 3.2 WAR in his 2009 and 2010 seasons while making $450,000. For small market teams, finding or growing such affordable talent causes owners to hesitate to write blank checks to superstars.

Are the players just being greedy?

Think about your job. You work hard, follow the rules, benefit your co-workers and company, and are generally an agreeable cog in the machine. Meanwhile, a certain co-worker hired at the same time as you were is lazy, comes in late, and is always causing problems. How would you feel if, after five years of blatantly different work ethics, you received the same pay increase as that worthless co-worker? Or even less of a raise than they did??

Fans like to complain about “millionaire ballplayers” who are ”just being greedy” and “go for the money” rather than take a fabled “hometown discount.” But playing baseball is a baseball player’s job, just like a janitor’s job is to clean a toilet for minimum wage. The money aspect has no bearing on this discussion. Baseball players want respect, recognition, and due compensation from their employer just like anyone else in a competitive job or marketplace.

If Pujols wants $28 million a year, he has that right. His employers (MLB) have already determined that a player producing at the level we’ve seen from Pujols should make at least $25 million (because Ryan Howard makes that much), and probably more than $28 million a year (since Pujols has produced more on average than Alex Rodriguez). Pujols is not being greedy to seek such a contract. Instead, look at it like he’s just another employee – he’s justifiably seeking what his performance dictates in the market.

Is Votto really being greedy because he sees fellow employee Jayson Werth making $6 million more per year for decreased production and resents it?

Who is really at fault?

Baseball is a business. The owners of large and small market teams are trying to make money, and so are the players. Sure, greed and ego come into play. Ultimately, though, their workplace is the same as the jobs we ourselves have, albeit played out in public on a nightly basis. We go to work to make money; they do, too.

In reality, the fans are the ones who have miscalculated this simple equation. Fans see the situation with their hearts; they love their teams and the superstars that propel them to victory. Fans get attached, cling to memories, and take disappointments personally. This is especially true of fans of small market teams, who see great players perform in their town with less regularity than the fans in New York or Boston.

But these fans need to temper their expectations of owners and players. These are simply people making a living, blessed/cursed with the same insecurities, egotism, and drive to succeed that we all share. If an owner must make the hard financial decision to pass on the talents of a superta for the sake of an entire club, then fans should understand the economics involved. If Pujols or Votto must move on to accomplish what they want for themselves or their career, then the fans shouldn’t begrudge them of that opportunity.

Ultimately, complaining will do nothing to change what the free market in baseball has determined. If fans are dissatisfied – regardless of the size of the market – then their best chance for change comes by voting with their pocketbooks.