| 0 |
Subject: Soriano part of a deal offered for ARod
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [217351118] Sat, Feb 14, 2004, 11:40
Rangers said no. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 108 | Disenchanted
ID: 149282520
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 01:55
|
I had not planned on posting again, but I think there are a few points I should make.
In reply to Post 72, I'm well aware of the Real Madrid scenario. I don't like it. I can't take European team soccer seriously for this very reason. While I'm not going to defend soccer or Real I would point out, however, that soccer and baseball are very different games. It is not unusual for teams to have more than one top player for each position, due to the physical demands placed on a soccer player, when teams are having to sometimes play three times a week (please don't tell me baseball teams play seven days a week). As for your other example, I don't follow basketball. Never have.
As for what sports will I turn to, who says I need to turn to anything? Not following MLB will not leave a gaping hole in my life which I will be desperate to fill. As I said, I only came to it four years ago. I understand that this situation with MLB must be far more painful for many of you than it could ever be for me, you've grown up loving a sport you now see mightily corrupted at the highest level. As a sports lover I sympathise and hope that somehow steps are taken to move MLB back to being a sport and away from being, effectively, a competition between 30 rival businesses. That's the way the rules have set up the game, and in that situation the Yankees are making the most of it. That so many people posting here, both those attacking and defending the Yankees, fail to see beyond the Yankees to the real problem, or even see it as a problem, doesn't give me much hope for MLB.
What sports can I follow? Well, those I don't probably would be easier to list. None of the major professional team sports of North America or Europe. It may surprise many of you to know that still leaves an amazingly high number of both team and individual sports of extremely high standard across the globe. Competitors in those sports may not sign ten year contracts worth $250M or have message forums debating every topic of the game, but they are still great sports and give pleasure unbounded nevertheless - or maybe because of those reasons. :-)
|
| 109 | sorethumb @home
ID: 39118163
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 01:59
|
First off let me say I hate baseball. I quit rooting during
the 94 strike. If baseball did put in a salary cap to help
curb the inflated spending, dont you think teams like the
Yanks and Sox would scoff at it anyways? The salary
and luxury caps dont exactly stop teams like the
Blazers, Mavs, Knicks, Redskins and others. The only
difference seems that the Yankees do buy
championships, while the other teams dont.
|
| 110 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 12:32
|
For those Sox fans so vehemently complaining about the payrolls skyrocketing out of control in The Bronx...
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1736367
Rather interesting when Gammons (and his never-ending useless attempts to hide his Boston bias) points out that "Boston's payroll is 20 percent higher than 28 other teams."
|
| 111 | Chuck
Sustainer
ID: 169212110
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 12:51
|
Or for the link lazy: Gammons
|
| 112 | Pi314159
ID: 21311112
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 13:37
|
I think many of you are overstating how "broken" the system is.
I don't think most of the owners would want to change the system, at least behind closed doors. For every bitter owner like Hicks, there are a dozen others who can't wait for the Yankees to come to town this year. Let's see at the end of the year how much better the Yankees draw crowds on the road than any other team, or even the Yankees of years past. Those owners also can't wait to get their revenue sharing checks, which are paid for by fans like me who subscribe to YES network and listen to the games on the radio and pay tons of money to go to the Stadium. Other owners may not admit this in public, but they are far better off having a guy like Steinbrenner to fuel the revenue system than someone else who would pay $100 million and pocket the $90 million extra and still field a decent but not-so-dominant team. And I'm not convinced that it'll drive fans away in droves either. I'm sure there will be many purists who decry the degredation of parity, but the one thing about an Evil Empire is that it's fun to root against it, and the more they pay, the more fun it would be to watch them fail, if you're an anti-Yankee.
The system could be changed. Would it make it Baseball better? Would it make other owners happier? Would it make the game more fun for fans? Those answers aren't so easy to predict, and anyone who complains about the system being broken ought to offer solutions first.
|
| 113 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 15:09
|
Just now caught that I had done that Chuck...was going out the door of the office when I posted it earlier and didn't even proof it when I left...thanks.
|
| 114 | Species
Leader
ID: 7724916
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 15:54
|
Adding a point to Pi's post #112......
......and don't forget how happy the Player's Union is for the current system. Crap it was like going to war just to get the revenue sharing and luxury tax we have now in place. If you're going to say the system is broke, the Union has to take it's share of culpability (and I would imagine most here already made that assumption when posting anti-'system' comments).
|
| 115 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 21:03
|
First, let me say I am a Yankee fan, and therefor thrilled at this deal. Second, let me say that the problem lies in the system, not the Yankees front office.
There are many opinions, but in my opinion, he wouldn't even be there is Boston had pulled the trigger in the first place. The Yankees had the resources to not only fill the need, but also to improve their team. While they are already a very talented and well payed team, they are also in a very competitive division. Many people had them about even with the Redsox before Boone got hurt, some thought the Sox were better, why not get better yourself? If you were in George's shoes you would do it too. To expect George to not want to improve his team is insane. Does that mean that the top manager in your fantasy league can't make a trade for a better player in the off-season, just to give someone else a chance? I agree that there is something wrong with the system, but he built this team within the rules.
George Steinbrenner has been overpaying his team for 25 years. He brought in Reggie and Dave Winfield, but he also brought in Mel Hall and Danny Tartabull (that was for you, MITH). And you were not complaining then. Now, he doesn't just spend money, he spends very smart money.
You know what, I don't feel sorry for the small market teams anymore. Within the last four years, the Marlins won the world series, the A's have been in the playoffs 3 years in a row, San Diego made a World Series, and Minnesota and Kansas City have made the playoffs.
You want a salary cap, I honestly have no problem with that, but what about a minimum? The fact that some of these teams are spending $30M on a team is just as shameful as $200M. Why don't they take that $60M+ that we are giving you in Luxury Tax and spend a little? Make these small market teams spend the luxury tax money on some players themselves, and I might feel sorry for them.
Boston could have had AROD, they choked. The Yankees needed a player, and as silly as it is, they found one. With the money they saved on Henson and Boone, it isn't that bad a deal.
Thank you George Steinbrenner. I am not happy with how he treats his people, but I am happy he's on my side.
|
| 116 | The Great One
ID: 240212522
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 22:08
|
Everyone keeps defending the Yankees front office and that they spend the money that they have, and I don't see anyone attacking it.
I see CLV saying that the Sox are also guilty of spending alot on players, when I definitely see just about every Sox fan in this thread in agreement. I think it's sad that the Sox have supposed contract problems with several players and then can still go add Schilling and Foulke. Real tough problems.
Stealth-
"Now, he doesn't just spend money, he spends very smart money."
You do realize that they haven;t won a Series since he has gone on his spending spree, right?
|
| 117 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 22:33
|
More than anyone, yes. But as I said before, this spree started in the 70's.
This is a true story. As soon as I heard about Boone going down, MITH and I spent a good 30 minutes discussing every second and third rate option to replace him. I said bring back Nettles or Paul Zuvella (for the true Yankee fan). If the RedSox got him, everyone would be saying, "Now we'll crush the Yankees!!!" and everyone from Cape Cod to LA would be thrilled. There is no difference. Trust me when I say this is as big a shock to us as it is to you. We didn't ask for him, we didn't expect him, but we are damn happy to have him. And as I said before, you would be too.
Tell me you wouldn't be happy, no matter what team you root for, that if you woke up Saturday morning to that news.
Boston fans should worry more about kissing up to Nomar. Kevin Millar on the 6pm SportsCenter kissing AROD's butt has got to be a bigger problem for you. They had written off Nomar and Manny, and now they have to depend on them for 60 HRs and 240 RBI. That cannot be a fun lockerroom to be around.
You want dumb money? I dare you to challenge MITH to come up with the worst Yankee deals of the last 20 years. He has a million of them. But they were all pre-1998. Daryl, Tartabull, Cecil Fielder, Steve Balboni, Mel Hall, Chili Davis the list is long and distinguished. The Yankees uniformed more then their share of over paid, over weight, over rated old players. But that was not a problem... then.
|
| 118 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 22:55
|
To anyone worried about the fan base of baseball:
The leading story in sports this weekend was not John Daly winning a huge tourny, not Dale Jr. winning their World Series, then another race on 3 hrs sleep the next day, but a baseball trade before spring training even started.
The Yankees will be nearly sold out in every ball park ON THE ROAD.
This is the 118th post discussing it.
Please.
|
| 119 | Chuck
Sustainer
ID: 169212110
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:13
|
The Yankees will be nearly sold out in every ball park ON THE ROAD.
That's the point you don't get. This is great move for the Yankees. No one has disagreed with that. No one here would be disappointed to have AROD on their team.
I don't care if the Yankees sell out every game on the road and sell out a secondary viewing venue for every game on the road. That's good for the Yankees but bad for BASEBALL.
How much better would it be if every team in baseball would sell out every game-- home or road like the Yankees. If talent was more evenly spread out among all teams, and fans of more than 10 teams felt they had a shot at the playoffs, sales would increase for all teams in MLB. It would cost some revenue for the Yankees in merchandise sales. I would hope the Yankees would sell out all home games before AROD came. They probably would have sold out most road games, too. However, how many disappointed Rangers fans just saw their favorite player leave? How many less tickets will the Rangers sell? How many less tickets will the Orioles/Blue Jays sell seeing how they have a hope and a prayer at best to make the playoffs.
Oh, and don't confuse media popularity for true fans of the game. Don't confuse post popularity for fans of the game. Much of sports media revolves around New York. It was a big story.
Simply put, do you think there are more or less fans of baseball because of the AROD deal? From this thread, I know of at least one less, Disenchanted fan. There may be a stronger following of the Yankees by the casual baseball fan, but I doubt anyone said, "Wow, the Yanks got AROD, I really wanna follow baseball now-- that was the one thing holding me back."
Stealth, spin it as you may, this deal is bad for baseball. Is baseball going to lose all of its fans? No one is saying that, please. But don't fool yourself into thinking that the MLB fan base as a whole is excited about this.
Please.
|
| 120 | R9
Leader
ID: 2624472
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:14
|
The Yankees will be nearly sold out in every ball park ON THE ROAD. The rest of the 76 games for small market AL teams will be filled with 10-15 thousand, if they're lucky. Yippee. NL teams are out of luck I guess, except for the lucky two who get to host Yankee interleague games.
This is the 119th post discussing it. Its also about the 80th disenting opinion in the thread. Thats NOT a good thing.
Here's a poll that probably reflects people's thoughts on this issue. Poll So a little over half the fan base will be interested in all the Yankees games. Last I checked this was a 30 team league. And I'm willing to bet the interest in those other teams will drop a bit more, as people realize even more that their teams just don't stand a chance.
Please.
|
| 121 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:20
|
ESPN has just reported that Maddux will sign with the Cubs. I, as a fan of baseball, am very happy to hear that not only for the Cubbies (my fav NL team) but also for him going back to where he started.
|
| 122 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:29
|
RE: 119, 120 - Tell that to Marlins fans.
|
| 123 | The Great One
ID: 240212522
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:32
|
"Tell me you wouldn't be happy, no matter what team you root for, that if you woke up Saturday morning to that news. "
I wouldn't be happy, but that's just me. To me the Yanks have always been the team that spends a ton on talent, not the Sox. I am never comfortable when the Sox try to play the Yankees game. I love what the Sox are, not what they aren't.
"Boston fans should worry more about kissing up to Nomar."
Beleive me, I know the Sox's problems. I was mortified at the time, and am still PO'd at how poorly Nomar has been treated. He is the one guy on this team who never whines, even when things aren't going his way, and he always leaves everything on the field.
Now let me ask you this.......are YOU blind to your team's problems? Do you think this ARod/Jeter lovefest has a snowball's chance in hell of staying civil? You think ARod won't be pining for Jeter's job at some point? You think if Jeter (or ARod have any defensive struggles, there won't be an outcry for ARod at short? You think if Jeter's lack of range costs Kevin Brown some runs he won't come out and say ARod should be there?
"Daryl, Tartabull, Cecil Fielder, Steve Balboni, Mel Hall, Chili Davis the list is long and distinguished."
How about Rondell White, Irabu, Mondesi, Hitchcock, Neagle, Zeile, Kenny Rogers, Henson, etc?
"More than anyone, yes. But as I said before, this spree started in the 70's."
There was a lull in spending in the late 80s, early 90s when the team was built that actually won Series'.
|
| 124 | Chuck
Sustainer
ID: 169212110
Tue, Feb 17, 2004, 23:35
|
Stealth-
I think I'll have a lot better chance of Marlins fans buying my side of this than you will having Devil Rays fans buy your story.
If you choose to be so willingly blind as to why this is bad for baseball, I'm sorry for wasting my time on my previous post.
|
| 125 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:06
|
Great One - thank you for adding to my point. As I said, nobody complained then. And if you are so shameful of your Sox for spending, then why are you so happy for Schilling and Foulke? Was that not starting it?
"are YOU blind to your team's problems?" Of course not. It was just solved. There are others, and when it shows, it will also be solved. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I am not sorry we do it. I was a fan in the old days, and I watched this team build from an overpaid 3rd place team. Then, I watched my owner do something about it. 4 rings later, I am happy.
I am also a Giants fan. I never complained when the 49ers and Cowboys ruled the 80's and 90's. And nothing made me happier then when we beat them.
I am a Knicks fan, but I never complained that the Bulls should not be able to get Dennis Rodman. Root for your team, and enjoy the game. If your team has talent, no matter how much you pay them, they will win games. Enjoy those games.
And exactly what do you think will happen between Arod and Jeter? I am not speaking for the future, but if anyone thinks AROD is playing SS, barring injury, you are nuts. I bet he gets less then 10 games there this year, and that will only happen if Jeter needs a day off or gets injured, AND there is another hot 3B replacement. The Yankees have more people that can play SS then can play 3b. This is Jeters team, and Arod seems happy to not be "the guy". Do you think anything short of JoeD, or the Mick could walk into that dugout and expect to take the team over. Jeter is next in line. His number is already retired. He was built to be the SS of the Yankees, he was built to be the king of NY, and most non-yankee fans hate that. Arod vs. Jeter will not be an issue, get over it.
To Boston Fans - Treat Nomar the same way. You should treat him with the same respect you gave Teddy B-game or Yaz. You needed AROD less then we did, and you didn't get the deal done. Also, get over it, you haven't even lost one game to us. . . yet.
I love Nomar. I think he is one of the best players in, and for the league. The way Boston treats him is disgusting.
|
| 126 | R9
Leader
ID: 2624472
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:26
|
Stealth, the Marlins weren't even able to hold their WS team together for two years. They lost Lee, Urbina, Looper, Pudge, and DIDN'T get to add any players to fill their holes. Sure, teams have beaten the Yankees each of the last three years, but its always been a different team. You get to enjoy success every year. Why is this so hard to understand???
|
| 127 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:30
|
Chuck - your right. The Yankees are the Devil Rays problem. Not that 30 year lease that they locked into with that horrible stadium. Not that they won't spend the money they do get in luxury tax on talent. Tampa Bay's problem is their ownership are horrible business men, and worse baseball men. I agree that the system is flawed. It doesn't mean we should start some AAA player at third base. We made a trade. Boston could have afforded him, we chose to.
If your team doesn't want to spend $16M per year in todays market to get the most talented player in that game, to improve their team at a position where they have an season ending injury and there is nobody else, then I cannot help you.
If a team gets 15k fans per game, that is not the Yankees fault. If you spend more then $30M on your team, the fans might be interested. Minnesota and Toronto are only small markets when they are not winning. I remember both stadiums rocking when they were in the world series.
I'm sorry you wasted your time. But this story is still being talked about on everything from Leno to Letterman to Peter Jennings to Regis. This is a national story generating national news. Again, I am sorry you do not like it, but I am not sorry that he does it.
|
| 128 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:31
|
Re 126: Tell that to Braves fans.
|
| 129 | Stealth
ID: 220561719
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:44
|
R9 - I just realized you were an Expos fan. I'm sorry, I hadn't realized.
If there is one franchise that baseball should be ashamed of, it is them. They have been nothing but a breeding ground AAA team for the rest of baseball for almost 10 years. Why not try KEEPING some of the 10-15 All-Stars you have bred, then you might start winning. Once you start winning, then the fans want to spend money and show their faces. Your team had to travel outside the continental USA to find fans who would pay to watch them. Again, not the Yankees fault. Pedro, Larry Walker, Benito Santiago, John Wetteland(ty), Randy Johnson, Vazquez(ty) I know there are more, how about Vlad?
|
| 130 | Filthy Rich
ID: 4946223
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 00:57
|
How is it possible to get any joy from rooting for an allstar team, with the possible exception of the playoffs or against the redsox
|
| 131 | Da Bomb
ID: 339511119
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 01:02
|
I don't know about you, but I would much rather watch an "all-star" team than a sorry baseball team with a 30 mil payroll featuring an all star-team. The AA all-stars.
|
| 132 | Filthy Rich
ID: 4946223
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 01:17
|
I'm more than happy cheering for the Jays, watching them develop, and having some suspense over how they will do.
If I was a Yankee fan, I think it would get boring where first place is a given every year with such a high payroll. This year will be even more ridiculous, anything more than 20 losses will be an embarassment for them in my view.
|
| 133 | Da Bomb
ID: 339511119
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 02:11
|
Let me ask you something. What if your blue jays were like my yankees and vice versa. Would you stop rooting for them? I highly doubt it. And you know what, I'd probably be a yankee hater just like the rest of them if I didn't live in NY.
|
| 134 | R9
Leader
ID: 2624472
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 02:23
|
I had written a long-winded post replying to everyone, but you know what? It won't change anything. Yankees fans will still love their team and defend it, and Yankee haters will still hate the Yankees and moan everytime the Yankees do something. So whats the point? I'll leave you Yankees fans to enjoy your team.
I'm a Habs fan, and thirty years ago the Habs basically dominated the league, and had first pickings over the young french Canadian players who came up. I'm sure the other teams thought that was an unfair advantage too. So I'm going to stop griping. Every sport has its unfairness I guess. I will state that I think MLB is by far the worst offender in that area, but I guess thats just the way it is.
I'll be happy when my Expos move. Then, I can just follow baseball as an outsider, without any real favorite. And I think I've suffered enough since '94...
|
| 135 | Filthy Rich
ID: 4946223
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 02:58
|
133- Id still root for them, but it would get boring...kinda like watching a movie over and over, I already know whats gonna happen so it becomes less enjoyable each succeeding time.
With a complete level playing field, it would make watching exciting for fans of every team, because certain teams wouldnt be locks for playoffs and half the teams wouldnt be out of contention in spring training.
Having the Yankees with 2x the payroll of everyone except Boston makes for boring baseball up until October, which coincidentally is probably when the casual Yankee "fans" actually start watching baseball.
|
| 136 | The Great One
ID: 240212522
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 07:44
|
Stealth
"And if you are so shameful of your Sox for spending, then why are you so happy for Schilling and Foulke? Was that not starting it?"
I actually said I was put off by those moves. For a couple of years, the Sox have been warning of the impending doom of the offseason after 2004 when basically the whole team was going to be a free agent, and the season before, they tie up more money in new players. I would have much rather seen them spend that money on trying to resign Garciaparra, Lowe and Varitek.
"And exactly what do you think will happen between Arod and Jeter? I am not speaking for the future, but if anyone thinks AROD is playing SS, barring injury, you are nuts. I bet he gets less then 10 games there this year, and that will only happen if Jeter needs a day off or gets injured, AND there is another hot 3B replacement. The Yankees have more people that can play SS then can play 3b. This is Jeters team, and Arod seems happy to not be "the guy". Do you think anything short of JoeD, or the Mick could walk into that dugout and expect to take the team over. Jeter is next in line. His number is already retired. He was built to be the SS of the Yankees, he was built to be the king of NY, and most non-yankee fans hate that. Arod vs. Jeter will not be an issue, get over it."
ARod may be the biggest primaddona in baseball. You think he will play third for the rest of his career while and inferior defensive player plays his position? He has taken that stance now because it got him out of Texas, but it will be a problem. I love how Yankee fans think that guys who are whiners and "trouble" type players will go to the Yankees and magically become great teammates. There WILL be problems with the shortstop position. I hope for your team's sake that they at least go a whole year before it becomes a problem.
"To Boston Fans - Treat Nomar the same way. You should treat him with the same respect you gave Teddy B-game or Yaz. You needed AROD less then we did, and you didn't get the deal done. Also, get over it, you haven't even lost one game to us. . . yet."
Ummmm..nobody in this thread has said anything about not respecting Nomar or being afraid of the Yankees, so who is this meant for?
|
| 137 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 10:20
|
Chuck 119
I don't care if the Yankees sell out every game on the road and sell out a secondary viewing venue for every game on the road. That's good for the Yankees but bad for BASEBALL.
How much better would it be if every team in baseball would sell out every game-- home or road like the Yankees. If talent was more evenly spread out among all teams, and fans of more than 10 teams felt they had a shot at the playoffs, sales would increase for all teams in MLB. It would cost some revenue for the Yankees in merchandise sales. I would hope the Yankees would sell out all home games before AROD came.
Chuck, the Yankees, in spite of being among the top drawing teams in baseball every year (in recent years) don't sell out most games. This is really off topic, but the fact is, it's a financial boon for teams when the Yankees come to town. If a weekend game against the Yanks gets rained out and must be made up later in the season on a weeknight, the host team loses a fortune.
Post 123
There was a lull in spending in the late 80s, early 90s when the team was built that actually won Series'.
Excellent point. The 96, 97, 99 and 00 teams were largely won by a core of starting players that were original draftees (Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Bernie, Pettitte) who were allowed to develop during a time when Steinbrenner was kicked out of baseball and unable to ravage the farm system into the state we see it in today. Today, Pettitte is gone and how much Bernie has left in the tank remains to be seen. Steinbrenner returned just in time to see the fruits of his absence pay off. I think that most will agree with me that the mid-to-late 90s Yankees is a perfect example of how dyansties should be built. A core of players that came up through the system supplimented by an assortment of nose-to-the grindstone types (O'Neill, Brocious, Tino, Cone, Girardi). That's why I don't favor a cap. Teams should be able to bring up young talent and give them a chance to play together for a long time. Setting a salary cap results in a situation that is like what we have in the NFL and NBA, where almost every team is a revolving door of players every season because few teams can afford to keep the same collection of contracts every year and also address their particular needs. Don't get too attatched to any of your favorite players on the teams you follow in those sports.
R9 102
You do realize that New York has a fan base of over twenty million, right? That their TV revenue is unsurpassed by anyone else, and that no matter how much 'good faith effort' other owners put in, they'll never be able to come close? 2000 US census results. Those stats don't take into account suburbs and the like, which only tips things even further in NY's direction. The Yankees have an advantage in fan base and TV viewing base thats double that of their nearest competitor, LA, and over 10 times that of some so-called mid-market teams.
Lets put some of those misconceptions to rest, shall we? While the Yankees do share baseball's biggest market, they most certainly aren't doubled the size of their nearest competetor.
Here are the top 24 media markets and the number of households they reached, followed by any remaining MLB markets, according to Parrot's (the TV industry standard) first quarter 2001 TV Station Directory (note that these numbers are pre 9/11 and I believe the NYC market has actually shrunk somewhat since then, while I know that oter large markets have grown):
NYC 6,935,610
LA 5,354,150
Chic 3,244,850
Philly 2,703,480
SF 2,431,720
Boston 2,242,240
Dallas, 2,069,000
DC 2,047,340
Detroit 1,873,620
Atlanta 1,857,220
Houston 1,747,350
Seattle 1,605,900
Minn 1,510,130
Tampa 1,507,790
Cleveland 1,488,270
Miami 1,468,630
Phoenix 1,441,660
Denver 1,312,300
Sacramento 1,187,000
Pitt 1,128,810
Orlando 1,126,000
St Lou 1,121,410
Portland 1,017,760
Baltimore 1,010,16
#25 San Diego 996,220
#30 Kansas City 835,580
#32 Cincy 828,650
#33 Milwaukee 827,570
Further, some of those markets extend well beyond the borders of the TV media market. For example, how many hundreds of miles do you have to go in any direction from the SF Bay area to get to another baseball market? The As and Giants share the 5th largest market in the country (really the 3rd largest because for MLB purposes Sacrament is part of the SF market) and get enjoy this status as the only baseball franchise in something like a 300 mile radius. After LA, the closest baseball city is Seattle. After that, Phoenix. After that, Denver. Get my point? Within closer proximity to NYC than LA is to SF are Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Pittsburgh. Something tells me that the teams in the Bay area could and should be doing a better job of bringing in some revenue.
Those who say the Yankees are bad for baseball are missing the point. Its the difference between the cause and the symptom. The cause of the problem are the rules that the Yankees are allowed to act under, not the Yankees - who follow the rules. As upset as some of you are with Yankees ownership for his actions, you should be twice as angry at your own owners for refusing to bite the bullet by accepting some fair luxury tax responsibility and for supporting a revenue sharing system that is such a joke that it might do almost as much harm as t does good. I know some of you are familiar with this Baseball Prospectus article. For others, it might be very surprising to see exactly who has been receiving revenue sharing money.Revenue sharing is often defended as necessary to "give small-market teams a chance to compete." Measured against that standard, MLB's revenue-sharing plan contains two serious flaws. First, it doesn't require recipients to try to compete: owners can simply pocket the money, treating it as a no-obligation subsidy. In some circles this is known as the "Montreal business plan," which has reportedly caused several eruptions of Mt. Steinbrenner at owners' meetings.
As an extreme example, in 2000 the Minnesota Twins received $21 million from the revenue-sharing pool--$5 million more than the salaries paid to their entire 25-man roster. Not surprisingly, they turned a profit... and not surprisingly, their brethren eventually concluded it would be cheaper to contract the Twins than to continue subsidizing their parasitic billionaire owner. If revenue sharing is ever to serve its intended purpose of making small-market clubs more competitive, recipients must be required to reinvest the proceeds in their team.
The second problem results from a definitional ambiguity. "Small-market team" can mean either "low-revenue team" or "team that plays in a small metropolitan area." Since a team's revenues are largely dependent on its marketing and on-field performance, the second definition is the more meaningful... but MLB's revenue-sharing formula uses the first definition exclusively. As the table below shows, these definitions are far from synonymous.
==================================================
By focusing entirely on the amount of local revenues a team generates, MLB's revenue sharing formula shortchanges popular, well-run teams in smaller cities while rewarding incompetently managed big-market clubs.
For example, compare the St. Louis Cardinals and the Philadelphia Phillies. Though both play in 30-year-old stadia, the Redbirds generated $50 million more in local revenue despite playing in a market less than half the size of Philadelphia. For their trouble, the Cardinals paid more than $8 million into the revenue sharing pool, while the Phillies collected almost $12 million. Other pairs of similarly-sized markets--Seattle and Miami, Cleveland and Minneapolis-St. Paul--reveal similar inequities.
MLB needs to realize that badly run teams should lose money. Very badly run teams should lose even more, yet eight teams lost more money than the 2001 Expos, winner of the Triple Crown of Haplessness: lowest attendance, worst local media contracts, and lowest revenues. In fact, thanks to their $28.5 million of revenue-sharing subsidies, if the Expos had reduced their player payroll to the Twins' level they would have been more profitable than the Mets and Cardinals. As it becomes clear just how broken and corrupt the system and it's owners are, it becomes obvious that simply blaming the Yankees isn't addressing the problem at all. I know it's nice and convenient to be able to put a face (or pinstripes) on the evil that is ruining your game, but to appoint an easy scapegoat is to turn a blind eye to the real problems that are alolowing these symptoms to occur.
|
| 138 | Chuck
Sustainer
ID: 169212110
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 11:42
|
Chuck, the Yankees, in spite of being among the top drawing teams in baseball every year (in recent years) don't sell out most games. This is really off topic, but the fact is, it's a financial boon for teams when the Yankees come to town. If a weekend game against the Yanks gets rained out and must be made up later in the season on a weeknight, the host team loses a fortune.
MITH-- I agree with you, here, but was this true 15 years ago? Most teams do not struggle with revenue when they are doing well. This is not to say that a good team will sell out every game, but they will have solid, consistent attendance.
I'm not a Twins fan, but I do live in Minnesota, and make it to a handful of games each season. While not all games are sell-outs, come mid-season, when they are in contention, your best bet is to either get a reserved seat or show up when the gates open to get a good seat in the OF.
Come the end of July, there are how many-- 12? 14?-- teams still in the playoff hunt (and that only thanks to the wild card). How much better would it be if that number were 20? If there were 20 teams in the playoff hunt come August, across the board, I believe ticket sales would go up. I go to a lot of Twins games early in the season to get my baseball fill. However, come the end of the season, if they're not in it, I don't make it a priority. Why? I want to see a team that is playing their best players and playing for their season, not just running out a schedule.
Out of curiosity, why do you believe the Yankees do not sell out most games? Is it just that hard to do? How does attendance last year compare to 98-03? If you have time to look that up, I would appreciate seeing it. Thanks for your honest, sensical reply.
Chuck - your right. The Yankees are the Devil Rays problem. Not that 30 year lease that they locked into with that horrible stadium. Not that they won't spend the money they do get in luxury tax on talent. Tampa Bay's problem is their ownership are horrible business men, and worse baseball men. I agree that the system is flawed. It doesn't mean we should start some AAA player at third base. We made a trade. Boston could have afforded him, we chose to.
Way to totally switch topics. That was real sneaky of you. You give your "Marlins" as this great example of what can be done, and I roll with it. But when I give a counter example, you switch topics. We weren't talking about business deals. All I'm saying is, how much more interest would there be in DR's baseball if they had a realistic shot at the beginning of the season.
If you were their owner, how much money would you actually put into your ballteam? $50 mill? $100 mill? I'd make it as cheap as possible, b/c right from the start, I know there is no way my young team will be able to compete with any of the other 4 teams in my division. Again, the system is flawed.
If your team doesn't want to spend $16M per year in todays market to get the most talented player in that game, to improve their team at a position where they have an season ending injury and there is nobody else, then I cannot help you.
This is the fundamental flaw in the system. You're only argument is "It's legal, so buck up if you're team can't do this." No one is disagreeing with the legality of it. My question is, "Is this good for baseball as a whole?" Even AROD skirted around the question when asked. I don't have it in writing, but they showed the interview on ESPN:
Reporter: "Is this good for the game?"
AROD: "It's good for the Yankees."
You're confusing the 2 tremendously. The NFL has become so popular recently b/c so many teams are in the running so late in the season. As a Dolphins fan, I felt the heartbreak of going 10-6 this year and missing the playoffs. However, I cared a lot more about football than I would have if they had been practically eliminated by week 7 or 8. And, truth be told, when they were eliminated in week 16, I really didn't care about week 17. I actually hoped they lost to move up another spot in the draft.
If a team gets 15k fans per game, that is not the Yankees fault. If you spend more then $30M on your team, the fans might be interested. Minnesota and Toronto are only small markets when they are not winning. I remember both stadiums rocking when they were in the world series.
Nice contradiction in the same paragraph. Care to dig up roster value discrepancies in those years? Teams can put together seasons with good young players. The problem is, though, $30 mill is no longer good enough. Neither is $50 mill, and even $75 mill is becoming low, for what a team needs to spend to put out a good team year after year.
I'm sorry you wasted your time. But this story is still being talked about on everything from Leno to Letterman to Peter Jennings to Regis. This is a national story generating national news. Again, I am sorry you do not like it, but I am not sorry that he does it.
You know, the Martha Stewart trial is still being talked about on TV all the time. Have you noticed that the media focuses much of their time on the negative? Something to consider.
Simple yes or no question:
Do you believe the AROD deal is good for baseball?
|
| 139 | Stealth @ work
ID: 37112209
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 12:47
|
Post 124 - Chuck - "Stealth- I think I'll have a lot better chance of Marlins fans buying my side of this than you will having Devil Rays fans buy your story."
Post 127 - Stealth - "Chuck - your right. The Yankees are the Devil Rays problem. Not that 30 year lease that they locked into . . ."
That was not switching topics, you brought the Devil Rays up. I was only trying to show you how the Yankees are the least of their problems. If Arod didn't go to NY, would the Devil Rays be any better this season? Would more then 10k people show up every game. They could have had him too. Even if Tampa did get Arod, they would still be in last place, still only sell 15k seats per game, and they would still be locked into that rediculous lease. AND the best player in baseball would still never be seen by the average fan (post-season).
The Yankees are not the Devil Rays problem. I said in my first post that the problem is with the system, not with the Yankees.
To answer your simple question, again, YES IT IS. I also agree that it is not the BEST thing for baseball. Having the best player in baseball in a huge market REGARDLESS to where it is, or how much they already have is good for that sport. Mike Wilbon, ESPN PTI - "Having AROD in Texas is like hanging the Mona Lisa in your garage."
Don't tell me that you will not be watching when the Yankees play your team. Don't tell me that you won't be doing backflips if you beat us. Maybe you are not that person, but there are many out there. This brings interest into our sport. Do you think Regis's demographic is Yankee fans, or even men? This is a national story that generates interest.
|
| 140 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 13:18
|
Chuck
I agree with you, here, but was this true 15 years ago?
I don't see your point. 15 years ago, the Yankees were barely above doormat status. I'm sure the Yankees coming to town wasn't the event back then that it is now.
Out of curiosity, why do you believe the Yankees do not sell out most games? Is it just that hard to do?
I guess it is. The Stadium is 55,550 seats, I think. I've heard that other parks sell out often, I don't knwo what their capacity is. I'd say that most weekend games in the Bronx are close to packed out and of course any games against the Red Sox, Mets or close competition are usually sold out, but Yankee Stadium doesn't sell out Tuesday night games against the Rangers.
How does attendance last year compare to 98-03?
Baseball-reference.com includes total attendance in each of their single-season pages for each team.
Yankees annual attendace for the past 15 years (AL rank):
2003 3,465,600 (1st out of 14)
2002 3,465,807 (2nd out of 14)
2001 3,264,907 (2nd out of 14)
2000 3,055,435 (3rd out of 14)
1999 3,292,736 (3rd out of 14)
1998 2,955,193 (3rd out of 14)
1997 2,580,325 (5th out of 14)
1996 2,250,877 (7th out of 14)
1995 1,705,263 (7th out of 14)
1994 1,675,556 (6th out of 14)
1993 2,416,942 (5th out of 14)
1992 1,748,737 (11th out of 14)
1991 1,863,733 (11th out of 14)
1990 2,006,436 (9th out of 14)
1989 2,170,485 (8th out of 14)
1988 2,633,701 (2nd out of 14)
1987 2,427,672 (3rd out of 14)
1986 2,268,030 (4th out of 14)
1985 2,214,587 (4th out of 14)
1984 1,821,815 (6th out of 14)
How much better would it be if that number were 20? If there were 20 teams in the playoff hunt come August, across the board, I believe ticket sales would go up.
Of course parity is better, but not at all cost. I fully agree that a system that results such great and still increasing differences in talent from roster to roster is broken and must be fixed or risk the game's slow eventual demise. I just think that installing a cap system will leave us with a product that will never have a chance to retain it's former glory. Force teams to earnestly share the revenue and pay for their excess and ensure that the redistributed funds go where they are needed - that is, ensure they are invested in the product on the field and not simply to adjust the owner's bottom line.
|
| 141 | beastiemiked
ID: 2601988
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 15:09
|
I just think that installing a cap system will leave us with a product that will never have a chance to retain it's former glory.
I would love to hear how a cap of 100-110 million would leave baseball in a worse state than it is now.
|
| 142 | Chuck
ID: 571132017
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 15:37
|
MITH-- the point I'm trying to make is this. Are the Yankees a big draw because they are the Yankees, or because of the players on the Yankees?
I'm sure it is some of both. The "financial boon" when the Yankees come to town exists in part, b/c these clubs aren't used to seeing that calibre player on their own team (or at least that many...). I wish the Yankees were more of a draw because of the history and tradition of the franchise than the fact that their payroll is mind-blowing to some of these towns.
The reason the Yankees have become such a huge draw now is that their team is so great. If the talent was spread out, the Yankees coming to town would not be as big of a draw, but the hometown team day in and day out would be much more of one. I think you're overestimating the draw of the Yankees' benefit to other teams. Under the current system, it is a benefit to other home teams. Under a revised system, though, I think attendance for MLB would go up if talent was more evenly distributed.
Personally, as a baseball fan, I'd like to see things with a relatively tight cap. I would not be opposed to saying all teams need to have $80-$120 million on their active roster. I haven't thought out all the logistics of this (and I'm at work and don't have the time to think it all out at the moment), but even something like an auction draft of some sort, where everyone has so much to spend, and though you don't need to spend it all, you will spend most of it just so teams don't get some good player at a cheap price.
OK, oversimplified, I know. But parity in football has done wonders. I don't mind rewarding teams with good farm systems, but I think the free agent market is not good for baseball as a whole.
|
| 143 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 15:40
|
Easy, BMD. It's fixable now. I've laid out what I believe to be a far better and far more achievable solution than any cap system.
*Better because it theoretically should still allow teams to develop and keep talent long term while achieving parity. A cap system forces parity at the expense of the concept of franchise. Further, the cap system you endorse $100m - $110m only helps the handful of teams that are positioned just below the Yankees on the payroll list. How in the world does a $100mil payroll cap do anything to help the Pirates?!
*More achiavable because the top 1/2 or so spending owners will never go for a reasonable cap that would create parity (probably about $75m or so). And eve if you somehow could miraculously get enough owners on board for a cap that isn't a joke like the current luxury tax threshold, then you've got to gety it past the polayers' union. Understand, the number one thing that the union wll most ardently fight against is a player salary cap. The number two thing is a payroll cap. Sorry, but it simply won't ever happen, and frankly, it isn't even a good idea.
Revenue sharing and luxury tax, on the other hand, are two concepts that we ave already installed. Obviously, they need to be reworked, but the groundwork has already been laid. I'm sorry, but any dummy can see that lowering the threshold and ensuring that money goes to where its needed rather than where the politics puts it will go a long way toward creating parity.
|
| 144 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 15:47
|
Chuck
The "financial boon" when the Yankees come to town exists in part, b/c these clubs aren't used to seeing that calibre player on their own team (or at least that many...). I wish the Yankees were more of a draw because of the history and tradition of the franchise than the fact that their payroll is mind-blowing to some of these towns.
I sincerely doubt that the fans come out in droves when the Yankees come primarily because they are awed by seeing $200m worth of talent on one roster. It's partly because of how many transplanted New Yorkers there are all over the country. It's partly because of the bandwagon effect that cause some people to root for the best team each year, whoever it is. It's partly because fans want to see how their team matches up against the elite teams in the league. It was no different with the As in the late 80s.
I think you're overestimating the draw of the Yankees' benefit to other teams.
I'm not sure why you say this, I don't ever remember giving any kind of estimate. I said that the visiting Yankees are a boon to any team and that a rainout of a weekend game against them costs the home team a fortune. You are disputing this? Even if you are right, what does this have to do with the topic?
|
| 145 | beastiemiked
ID: 2601988
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 17:09
|
Better because it theoretically should still allow teams to develop and keep talent long term while achieving parity. A cap system forces parity at the expense of the concept of franchise.
A 100 million dollar cap would not force parity. Every team except the Yankees could easily fall below the 100 million dollar cap and still have room to sign their homegrown talent. The NBA has a cap yet there has been plenty of teams that have been consistantly good over the past 10 years.
How in the world does a $100mil payroll cap do anything to help the Pirates?!
Obviously the salary cap doesn't help every team every year. How is the salary cap helping the Chicago Bulls or the Arizona Cardinals?
More achiavable because the top 1/2 or so spending owners will never go for a reasonable cap that would create parity (probably about $75m or so).
I never asked why MLB doesn't have a cap. I know it wouldn't sit with some owners and most players and therefore is unachievable. I was more concerned with why you thought it would lead baseball down a path that would "leave us with a product that will never have a chance to retain it's former glory. ". Perhaps the us in your quote was referring to the Yankees and Yankee fans. While the rest of America was loving baseball and the new salary cap, Yankee fans would cry and complain why it couldn't be like the glory days where one team could spend 70 million more than any other ballclub.
|
| 146 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 17:33
|
The NBA has a cap yet there has been plenty of teams that have been consistantly good over the past 10 years.
Do you not understand what I mean by the concept of franchise? If we see a salary cap installed, the revolving door team rosters we see now will be the norm for every franchise, like it is in the NBA and NFL. At this point, I believe most fans see this as a bad thing, especially if parity can be achieved without solidifying such a revolving door forever. Maybe you don't care about rooting for the same core group of players, but the loss of that kind of familiarity has soured me on football and basketball, and I believe it is driving away other fans. Baseball shares this problem, but for different reasons. I'm for creating a system where all well managed teams can afford keep their core players and invest in supplimenting their rosters. Not for one where we handcuff some teams because they have more resources than others. Why not simply force them to share more as they spend more?
|
| 147 | Pi314159
ID: 21311112
Wed, Feb 18, 2004, 18:04
|
SALARY CAP FOR BASEBALL? Can't work.
Do not start comparing baseball to football or basketball. It cannot work the same, and anyone who thinks so either has no concept of economics or is a socialist at heart.
The huge difference with football is TV revenue. The football tv contracts bring in big bucks across the board, spread out to all teams to share. No big local TV contracts. People everywhere watch games from everywhere, not just when it's your local team. There are also so few games that they all sell out for the most part. In short, there is parity in revenue, so parity in salary and quality is not difficult. Compare that to baseball. TV revenue is vastly different from one market to another. I and millions others get to watch every Yankee game and every Met game, and we willing to pay for it. There are many markets where a fan cannot even watch every single game if they wanted to. Just not enough demand. Plus, with ten times as many games, attendance actually means something. Compare the Yankees 3.5 million fans to whatever pitiful number Montreal enjoyed last year. There is no parity in tv or fan-based revenue. From an economic view, that would mean that, to achieve parity, you either have to force Steinbrenner to share his revenue without any benefit (the way the luxury tax currently works, he shares with a benefit) or simply tell him to pocket his extra 100 million in profits and don't spend it on giving the city a better team. Personally, as one of those fans who is willing to pay to watch my team, I don't want to have my payments go toward subsidizing an equal-salary team in Montreal. I don't object to some sharing, but why should New York -- which pours in at least $300 million a year into its two teams -- have to guarantee parity with Montreal or Milwaukee, which probably generate a tenth of that?
On to Basketball. I'm sorry, but three or four or maybe five players make the difference on each team. It is difficult to compare that, from an economic standpoint, to baseball, which has to field nine plus a starting rotation plus a bullpen. It's easy to generate some financial parity with a system that requires only a few key players. And even basketball has no true parity, not the way football does.
John Henry is full of crap to say that a salary cap is a simple fix. He only wants a salary cap for one reason: so he can catch the yankees. Just like they set up a luxury tax to affect the yankees only, he wants to set up a salary cap to affect the Yankees only. Give me a break.
|
| 148 | Filthy Rich
ID: 4946223
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 03:12
|
I would love to see revolving door team rosters where all teams have an equal shot at the stars, instead of like now where the only chance of signing a star is if the Yankees or Red Sox dont want them first.
|
| 149 | Myboyjack
ID: 21556266
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 05:50
|
Soriano's actually 28
Soryy if this has already been posted. Makes it even a better deal for the Yanks. (They informed Texas befire the deal was finalized)
|
| 150 | clv
Sustainer
ID: 5911351713
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 09:25
|
Filthy Rich (re 135)...I have to disagree with you there...while the Yankees are a DISTANT second when it comes to my favorite team, winning is NEVER boring...I've been a Braves fan my whole life, and believe me, I get just as excited around this time every year even though they've won 12 straight division championships...every year brings a different challenge and more interesting questions and twists...I lived through the years when the Braves were awful, uncompetitive, and seemed desined to stay that way forever, and the excitement every season when camp opened was the same - "maybe this is the year", and so on...as was mentioned earlier, as long as the players don't strike, I'll continue to be hyped every season, regardless if this is the year they come back to earth or if the Yankees lose to the Red Sox, etc....just as the statement from Field Of Dreams says, the one constant through all the years has been baseball, and it will continue to be for me.
|
| 151 | Wammie
ID: 501017259
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 09:54
|
Pi314159 -
Lets see, if the Yankees had to trade every good player that ever came up through their system because of some reason, you would probably become pretty pissed off. and if that happened year after year after year, and your team kept producing some of the best players in baseball, who are winning championships on other cities baseball teams, you would probably get even more upset. Then imagine if finally one year, the Yankees got to keep all of their players and they had the best record in baseball, but then the world series was cancelled, you would be even more irate, because that offseason, all of those players who put together the best record in baseball had to be dismantled, you would probably want to light Yankee stadium on fire. You might even swear to never watch baseball again. no matter how big of a fan you are today. Well, that is what happend to the Montreal Expos. and to a lesser extent half of the teams in baseball. and if it did happen for some reason, you would want to stop it, well for the Expos and many of the teams in baseball it is the fact that they cannot compete with the Yankees and other major market cities in payroll.
Don't you think their are die hard Pirate fans, who will pay extra for their cable bills, buy season tickets, go to all kinds of pr events for their team? do you think they exist in San Diego? Kansas City? How about any city in America?
How fun would the baseball season be if there were only 6 teams for the Yankees to compete against?
Football is fun to watch because you watch games that are not your own team, because they are going to be good games. No one, and I mean no one who is not a yankee fan or a rays fan will watch those 2 teams play. no one outside of their markets wants to watch the dodgers play the brewers. but people watch the giants play the bucs, and the raiders play the packers. those would be Monday Night Football quality games.
|
| 152 | beastiemiked
ID: 2601988
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 10:05
|
If we see a salary cap installed, the revolving door team rosters we see now will be the norm for every franchise, like it is in the NBA and NFL.
You yankee fans will never get it. How many teams would actually be able to afford a 100 million dollar roster? I'd say about 5-7 teams and even less than that will be above 100 million dollars this year. This would not destroy the concept of a franchise as plenty of franchises have shown that it's possible to retain talent with less than 100 million. A salary cap would not be put in place to create parity because after the Yankees and possibly the Red Sox there is plenty of parity. The cap would be installed as a preventive measure against teams that try to buy a championship(ie the Yankees).
|
| 153 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 217351118
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 10:35
|
BMD
You yankee fans will never get it.
..............
Perhaps the us in your quote was referring to the Yankees and Yankee fans. While the rest of America was loving baseball and the new salary cap, Yankee fans would cry and complain why it couldn't be like the glory days where one team could spend 70 million more than any other ballclub.
I'm getting tired of your tone and your cheap shots. By former glory I was referring to prior to the free spending era.
How many teams would actually be able to afford a 100 million dollar roster? I'd say about 5-7 teams and even less than that will be above 100 million dollars this year.
This discussion is utterly pointless because (a) You are telling ME that I will never get it as YOu argue the merits of a payroll cap that you yourself admit simply isn't likely to ever come to be; and (b)there most certainly is not plenty of parity after the Yankees and Red Sox. I think this discussion is over, as this might be the most ridiculous thing anyone has said thus far in this thread, and there have been more than a few winners here. A claim there is parity between the Royals, Pirates, Twins, Mariners, Mets, and Dodgers is either ignorant, stupid of just for the purpose of arguing talking points to try to win a debate.
You are one of those people who so so jaded by your simplistic resentment that you refuse to accept the fact that The Yankees are not the source of basball's financial problems. Only someone so narrowminded could make a statement so ridiculous as after the Yankees and possibly the Red Sox there is plenty of parity.
|
| 154 | Pi314159
ID: 21311112
Thu, Feb 19, 2004, 13:10
|
Wammie,
I don't disagree with you entirely, but the problem you describe is not cured by placing a salary cap on spending. On the contrary, unlike a luxury tax, which re-distributes revenue, a cap alone does no such thing. Now, if you (or anyone else) believes that we should both cap the Yankees' salary and force them to share $60-$80 million of their revenue a year so the other teams can field a similar-salaried teams, I think that's asking too much from fans like me.
The better solution is to let the free markets work. If Montreal can't pay for its team, it shouldn't have one. Move to a bigger market like DC where they can support a team. Or better yet, contract them out of business -- which would serve the goal of improving quality by improving talent pool. Same could be said for bad management -- if owners like the Seligs manage to convince their city to fund their ballpark and then go and decrease their salary year after year and give them a talentless club, those businesses should fail because their management stinks. Love him or hate him, but George Steinbrenner is a great businessman. Ten years ago, the Yankee revenues weren't anywhere near what they are today. He keeps re-investing in his team, and the City rewards him by increasing attendance every year. It's not a coincidence.
We're really getting into a question of capitalism versus socialism. Would we ever tell Microsoft that it can't pay its employees more than $X because we want the little guys to compete better? No way. The free market doesn't work that way.
The only legitimate reason justifying revenue sharing is that, if every other team fails, the Yankees have nobody to play against. But baseball isn't basketball, and there's no guarantee that the most talented team wins a world series. If you stacked up Jordan, Magic, and Kareem, in their primes, on the same team, there is no way they lose. But that's not true in baseball. The Yankees are pretty much guaranteed to make it to the playoffs, but is that so horrible when considering that Yankee fans are pouring more money into the sport than any other fans? As a Yankee fan, I don't think so. Karl Marx would disagree
|
| 155 | Chris
ID: 51231914
Fri, Feb 20, 2004, 05:04
|
Hold on a sec...
If we see a salary cap installed, the revolving door team rosters we see now will be the norm for every franchise, like it is in the NBA and NFL.
Is that really an issue here? The Yankees have, what, 3-4 players remaining from their 1996 championship team...and they're one of the more successful teams that has money to spend to keep their budding stars. The Dodgers have one player remaining that I can think of, and he left the team to rejoin them later(Hideo Nomo). Probably half of the teams in the major leagues don't have any.
Any way you look at it, the days of the Dodgers fielding the same infield for nearly a decade are over and done with, thanks to free agency and the crazy new baseball economy.
I'm not sure a salary cap is going to lead to a revolving door of talent that we don't already see...or maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make.
And as you alluded to, the revolving door of talent comes from the fact that teams cannot afford to keep their core players. Citing the A's as just one example of the obvious, there is obviously a problem with the system here(not the Yankees, yes, you've made that abundantly clear).
However, I'm baffled as to why you think a salary cap wouldn't fix many of these problems, aside from the lack of feasibility of it(from the Player's Union, especially), which is a point where your argument stands much stronger.
Don't you think a cap would cause MORE teams to keep the same core of players, rather than less? Yes, right now the Yankees and select few others teams CAN keep the same core together, but out of 30 teams, there should be more than just a few. You may be excited by watching the same group of Yankees win many championships, and think that's good for baseball, but tell that to an Expos fan or an A's fan and you are liable to be hit with an F-bomb.
Also baffled as to why you think a salary cap wouldn't lower player salaries as a whole. Less money to spend, means less money to be collected, seems obvious to me. KKB has explained this point much better than I could, I believe, in the other thread.
Looking at the other sports, football salaries are much lower than baseball salaries. Basketball salaries are high, but for 2 reasons: the cap is set ridiculously high; only 12 players to a basketball team, and only 4 or so impact players.
Imagine baseball with a $200 million dollar cap...that's pretty much what the NBA is, except NBA teams have the means to reach their cap...baseball teams don't, which leads to your point(in the other thread, I believe): how is a salary cap going to help Pittsburgh, et al?
Aside from the fact that it's easier for a $30M team to compete with a $80M team than a $180M team, lowered salaries league-wide, and a better distribution of talent would give owners from San Diego, Tampa Bay and Pittsburgh a better reason to spend money. If I were the owner of the Devil Rays, I would not want to spend one dime more of my money on my major league team this year than I had to. I'd prefer to save it for a time when I could actually have a chance of competing. Add ARod to the Devil Rays right now, and they come in last by 40 games still. However, trim Pedro, Schilling, Manny, Nomar, Jeter, Giambi, Brown, Vazquez, Mussina and Matsui from the contenders in their division and now there's an actual fiscal incentive for the Devil Rays to put out a competitive ballclub, because it would actually help revenue. Right now, it wouldn't.
However, since we can't count on owners to ignore their team for the sake of pocketing revenue, I would agree that some sort of provision needs to be made for owners to put out a competitive product. If it means a salary floor, so be it.
I'm for creating a system where all well managed teams can afford keep their core players and invest in supplimenting their rosters
I would probably like an NBA-style system where you can go over the cap to sign your own free agents, with the provision that there be some sort of limit to how costly prospects are(either by including them in the team salary cap or by imposing an indiviual salary cap on them). This would obviously work towards preventing another Joe Mauer/Mark Prior incident(or Jeremy Brown).
However, when it all comes down to it, your latter statement that I highlighted is exactly what I would want. However, the question on how to acheive it is much trickier.
I realize that I haven't approached anything near a concrete solution, however, I'm trying to come up with ideas that can either be rejected or explored further. I don't think it's good enough to say, "the Union won't stand for it, so it's not worth discussing". The NHL is about to go through a very serious lockout in order to bring about a salary cap system. Whether or not it is successful remains to be seen. However, it does go to show that the Union should not be considered all-powerful. Who knows? Maybe a successful NHL lockout will gave MLB owners all the ammunition they need to try one of their own. Although, without a strong proposal of their own, it would be a waste of time anyway.
Of course, the selfish baseball fan in me would be very bummed if baseball were to disappear for awhile while two groups of people fought for the future of a game I've watched since I can remember. I think I would be able to get through it if I could see a light at the end of the tunnel though.
Alright, enough rambling...
|
| 156 | Wammie
ID: 501017259
Fri, Feb 20, 2004, 09:45
|
Pi -
I am a fan of free markets. and, no I wouldn't tell MicroSoft that they cannot pay their people what ever they want to pay them, but...
Capitalism and free markets still need rules. We have rules in the United States and the free market. We have a minimum wage. we don't allow companies to run sweat shops with 8 year olds in them. etc.
baseball's free market needs more of these rules. but should a team be rewarded for being creating and generating additional revenue, sure. but look at the NFL for example. the NY Giants and the Kansas City Chiefs while opponenets on the playing field are partners in the same company whose goal is to make money, like any company in a free market. they don't care what fan pays the money in, be it a giant fan, a chief fan, or a bears fan who happend to watch the game because he likes football. that money is all a part of this bug slush fun basically. All the teams work to put a great product on the field. same as microsofts different divisions work to make great products. if microsoft put all of its money in writing one particular application, they would expect that their other divisions would suffer. That is what is happening to baseball.
The largest portion of money being generated in baseball is being spent in NY. so the other divisions of MLB if you will (the other teams) are suffering. they can not create as good a product so the company suffers.
The guys who are working on the division that is making a great product see no problem (Yankee fans, players, mgmt). they get what the want, the do what they say they are going to do, but the rest of the company is rotting away, and then one day the rich division shows up to a bankrupt company.
MLB needs parity. $190 million payroll against a $25 million payroll won't do it. baseball needs to put a ceiling and a floor for payroll. The problem is all parties involved, both players and owners are so selfish, getting them to come together on such an arrangment would be very difficult.
|
| 157 | beastiemiked
ID: 2601988
Fri, Feb 20, 2004, 09:55
|
Chris, great post.
Good analogy Wammie. Imagine working for one of the lesser divisions and hearing the top division say they deserve more compensation because they produce more output eventhough they have twice as many workers as every other division. This is in reference to Pi's comment of: The Yankees are pretty much guaranteed to make it to the playoffs, but is that so horrible when considering that Yankee fans are pouring more money into the sport than any other fans?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|