Mike Ozanian writes that baseball is big money:

The average Major League Baseball team rose 16% in value during the past year, to an all-time high of $605 million. In 2011, revenue (net of payments to cover stadium debt) for the league’s 30 teams climbed to an average of $212 million, a 3.4% gain over the previous season. But operating income (in the sense of earnings before non-cash charges and interest expenses) fell 13%, to an average of $14 million in part due to a 5.1% increase in player costs (including benefits and signing bonuses for amateurs), to $3.5 billion in 2011.

The Bronx Bombers are the most valuable team in baseball, worth $1.85 billion, tying them with the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys for the top spot among American sports teams and placing them second in the world to Manchester United, the English soccer team worth $1.9 billion.

Fwiw, the San Francisco Giants are worth $643 million, which makes them ranked 9th, after the Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, Phillies, Mets, Rangers, and Angels. That the Red Sox, Cubs, and Mets are worth so much demonstrates that you don't have to win a lot to be worth a lot.

See all the valuations.

You certainly don't have to win a lot to be worth a lot. TV deals play a much bigger role in determining this. Having said that, winning does contribute somewhat. Ex/winning and ticket sales are correlated..

Now that you mention it, the most valuable teams seem to be in the biggest markets: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, and Texas.

The cheapest team is the Oakland A's at $321 million.

Is that proof that Moneyball does not lead to a more valuable team?