CC a Yankee

[godtomsatan]

When there isnt a level playing field in a professional sport, its a problem. A huge problem.

 

So how do you explain the fact that MLB revenues are growing faster than ANY professional sports organization?

 

Lets turn this around to the NFL. Dallas brings more revenue to the NFL than both NY football teams combined. Yet they have to share their revenue with all the other 31 teams, so cities like Minnesota, San Diego, and Cleveland can have a franchise.

 

That is simply untrue. The NFL and MLB do not operate under the same business model, you can't necessarily compare them #1, and secondly, while Dallas may have to "share" more of their individually generated revenues than any other franchise (which isn't necessarily true given the fact that the Redskins have the highest estimated franchise value, pre-new digs), the fact of the matter is that the league shares their TV money among the 32 teams. That's where they get their dough, not because 45 players put helmets with stars on them every Sunday.

 

Edit to Add; The reason I care, is I love baseball. There is nothing more fulfilling than taking my kids to a Rangers game and having them enjoy a ball game. But, This sport is dying across the country because of signings like this. Teams like Kansas City who have a rich tradition of baseball in the 70s and 80s lose their best players via trade or free agency, because they cant afford to keep them, while teams like Ny can buy anyone they wish, pocket all the revenue they make because of the market they are in, and essentially ruin a great sport.

 

Show me one tangible example based on fact that "baseball is dying"? Here's the Forbes list from last year regarding franchise values and the increase over the previous season. Teams like Kansas City have ownerships and front offices that don't know how to field competitive baseball teams, not because the Yankees buy their best players. While New York teams can muscle everyone around with their pocket books, neither team has been to the World Series since 2003 and neither has won one since 2000. As a matter of fact, 14 different franchises have made it to the World Series in this decade. That's half the teams. Baseball is doing very well competitively and otherwise.

[Sgt Ryan]

So how do you explain the fact that MLB revenues are growing faster than ANY professional sports organization?

 

 

 

That is simply untrue. The NFL and MLB do not operate under the same business model, you can't necessarily compare them #1, and secondly, while Dallas may have to "share" more of their individually generated revenues than any other franchise (which isn't necessarily true given the fact that the Redskins have the highest estimated franchise value, pre-new digs), the fact of the matter is that the league shares their TV money among the 32 teams. That's where they get their dough, not because 45 players put helmets with stars on them every Sunday.

 

 

 

Show me one tangible example based on fact that "baseball is dying"? Here's the Forbes list from last year regarding franchise values and the increase over the previous season. Teams like Kansas City have ownerships and front offices that don't know how to field competitive baseball teams, not because the Yankees buy their best players. While New York teams can muscle everyone around with their pocket books, neither team has been to the World Series since 2003 and neither has won one since 2000. As a matter of fact, 14 different franchises have made it to the World Series in this decade. That's half the teams. Baseball is doing very well competitively and otherwise.

 

 

Baseball has more games than anyother sport, so every year when they raise ticket prices, revenue is up.

 

Baseball isnt run under any model what so ever, which explains the indifference in one team spending 25 mil, and another spending 200 Mil.

 

Franchise value in this case doesnt represent revenue value. In fact it isnt even close.

 

If in football each team had its own network like the Yes network, and didnt have to share this revenue with anyone else, plus could spend whatever they wished, they would be the Yankees of football. But there is equal TV sharing in football, in fact there is equal sharing in every aspect of football, and its the best run sport we have.

 

And just because the front office of the Yanks and Mets are so piss poor that they cant win with the most expensive team every year, doesnt make it fair. Hell how competitive would the yanks or Mets be if they couldnt buy every one elses best players, so comparing their front office to the Royals is a joke.

 

You wont win this arguement, and to even argue that its fair and good for the sport is a complete joke. Football has the same parity we have shared in baseball in the last 10 years, with the exception fo maybe New england, and they couldnt buy their players.

[Doc Holliday]

All I know is Sabathia,Burnett,Wang,Pettite is gonna make 1 heck of a starting rotation.Yanks are gonna be tough this year and IMO have just passed up the Red Sox as the best team in the A.L.

 

Matter of fact both New York teams upgraded big time. the Mets add Francisco Rodriguez AND J.J. Putz for their bullpen. they add another starter and we could see a all New York WS next year.

[LegFuJohnson]

Did I say that? Why are you being intetnionally obtuse/ Oh wait, that's what people do who are losing their argument: they change it.

 

Go back to my Kansas City Royals statement. Go find where I said they should adopt an NFL style system (which includes revenue sharing but NOT a luxury tax).

 

in other words, stick to the topic at hand and you'll learn something.

Actually, when you are losing an argument you resort to insults and talking down to people.

 

Right now the Yankees pay a luxury tax which helps subsidize the smaller market teams. You said you didn't want one team subsidizing another.

 

 

Baseball, by nature, is very competitive. No baseball team is as bad as the worst NFL or NBA teams, and the best teams aren't as good. With no cap, with the current market system, the sport has delivered 8 different champions in the past 9 years. Everyone from the high payroll of the Yankees to the low payroll of the Marlins have won. How is a cap going to level the field more than that? A cap would restrict player movement, and not allow teams the struggling teams to better themselves with trades for the future.

 

There used to be a time when teams couldn't buy whatever players they wanted. There was no free agency. The Yankees won 10 World Series titles in a span of 16 years. Personally, I like it better this way seeing different teams win each year.

[Sgt Ryan]

Actually, when you are losing an argument you resort to insults and talking down to people.

 

Right now the Yankees pay a luxury tax which helps subsidize the smaller market teams. You said you didn't want one team subsidizing another.

 

 

Baseball, by nature, is very competitive. No baseball team is as bad as the worst NFL or NBA teams, and the best teams aren't as good. With no cap, with the current market system, the sport has delivered 8 different champions in the past 9 years. Everyone from the high payroll of the Yankees to the low payroll of the Marlins have won. How is a cap going to level the field more than that? A cap would restrict player movement, and not allow teams the struggling teams to better themselves with trades for the future.

 

There used to be a time when teams couldn't buy whatever players they wanted. There was no free agency. The Yankees won 10 World Series titles in a span of 16 years. Personally, I like it better this way seeing different teams win each year.

 

In the NFL there is plenty of player movement, this argument doesnt hold water. And if you are a yankee fan, why wouldnt you be glad there isnt a cap. Gives your team a advantage every year.

 

Forget who won this or that, as it takes more than money to win. The Yankess simply arent good enough with a 180 mil payroll to even make the playoffs. So lets just expand that another 30 mil a year and see if that will work. Just throw money on the problem. That is what our government does and we see how that is working out.

 

The attempt to buy a title is what pisses so many people off. And Im all for dynasty's. I love seeing them, and they are built with home grown talent with the occasional free agent. Not like this. This is making baseball a joke. A Cap wont allow teams like Ny to spend 40 mil more to get a player who wouldnt come there otherwise. Seriously, CC didnt want to be a yankee, but 40 extra mil, who can turn it down. I dont blame him a bit. But baseball is clearly broken, its getting worse, but because of the ineptness of the Yankees its not at the forfront of talk. But wait till they win a title again. Do you think anyone will say anything but they bought the championship.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Sgt Ryan

[LegFuJohnson]

In the NFL there is plenty of player movement, this argument doesnt hold water. And if you are a yankee fan, why wouldnt you be glad there isnt a cap. Gives your team a advantage every year.

 

Forget who won this or that, as it takes more than money to win. The Yankess simply arent good enough with a 180 mil payroll to even make the playoffs. So lets just expand that another 30 mil a year and see if that will work. Just throw money on the problem. That is what our government does and we see how that is working out.

 

The attempt to buy a title is what pisses so many people off. And Im all for dynasty's. I love seeing them, and they are built with home grown talent with the occasional free agent. Not like this. This is making baseball a joke. A Cap wont allow teams like Ny to spend 40 mil more to get a player who wouldnt come there otherwise. Seriously, CC didnt want to be a yankee, but 40 extra mil, who can turn it down. I dont blame him a bit. But baseball is clearly broken, its getting worse, but because of the ineptness of the Yankees its not at the forfront of talk. But wait till they win a title again. Do you think anyone will say anything but they bought the championship.

 

I suppose I was referring to the in-season trading that teams do to make a playoff run or build for the future, one of the things the other sports don't do. I'd hate to see two teams come up with a trade that could benefit both teams stopped because one team can't trade prospects for veterans anymore.

 

 

 

Forget who won this or that? We need a salary cap to level the playing field but let's forget who won this or that... How nice. That's what the whole discussion is... who can win, and who can't. You are talking about trying to level a playing field so everyone can win, aren't you? The Astros lose Betran and Kent and still make the World Series the next year. That's not good enough? They have to have Beltran and Kent when they do it? What's the difference? Now, if they weren't able to compete because they couldn't keep these people, that would be a big problem, but obviously that isn't the case.

 

Yes, it is the attempt to buy a title that upsets people. But since that effort has usually been unsuccessful, then why get so upset? It's not at the forefront of talk? Seriously? What do you think everyone has been talking about since they signed CC? That's all anyone is talking about, its what this whole thread is about.

 

You like a dynasty built with home grown talent with the occassional free agent? Like Bernie, Jeter, Pettite, Rivera, Posada winning from 1996-2000? People thought the Yankees were buying titles back then too. And no one cared about payroll until 1996, what a coincidence.

 

Of course they'll accuse the Yankees of trying to buy a title if they win this year. They always do. They do it every year, CC or no CC, why should this year be any different?

Edited December 13, 2008 by LegFuJohnson

[SLAYER]

Cap smapp. let's talk the tv contracts. the NFL plays a game once a week it is easy for them to get a deal so every game is seen on network tv and shared with all the teams. In baseball ALL teams share the revenue from the network tv package of FOX, ESPN & TBS, however getting a network to cover 162 games is not going to happen. So individual teams set up their own to broadcast as many games as possible to their fans. They pay for everything announcers, camera crew etc. Why should they share this revenue with all teams? Most teams if not all do this nowadays, If the NY teams get more revenue from this because their teams are more popular and can sell ads for a higher price to bring in more revenue is that their fault? no Just like if you decide to live in NY you will pay higher for rent and things is that the city's fault? should they share their money with Tutu, Okl. because of this. Every team has ways to produce revenue some just have more ways and deeper pockets than others.

Contract- in baseball all contracts are guaranteed. if you sign somebody for 8 yrs. you pay them for 8 yrs. In football you just axe their ass and move on. So if you are willing to take that chance you are stuck with it. You should know your Rangers was the ones that started this absurd spending with the A-Rod $200 mil contract.

In baseball when trades are made often times money exchanges hands to pay for contracts of players they don't want anymore that have high contracts,

Smaller market teams mentioned KC, Pit, and TB all can do things to increase rev, well maybe not TB because they have a terrible fan base that only showed up this year during the playoffs. I remember the bleak years of the Yankees in the 70's & 80's when they never went to the playoffs they still sold out every game.

I know the following posts will call me an idiot and stupid( that's what ya'll do) because I'm seeing this with Yankee glasses. But I also follow the Blue Jays very closely and their problems were different due to the value diff of the USA & Canadian dollar, plus poor management.

Have at it.

[Sgt Ryan]

Whats amazing to me, is yeah we bring in more money, can outspend every team, but we dont win so who does it hurt. Ask milwaukee who it hurts when they finally make a trade to get a front line player and the next yr NY just steals him away for 161 million.

 

NY needs the Kansas City and Tampa Bay to play, so there should be a level playing field like the NFL. Well I suppose they dont need Tampa Bay, or they would have made the playoffs last yr.

[Pope Flick]

Actually, when you are losing an argument you resort to insults and talking down to people.

 

Right now the Yankees pay a luxury tax which helps subsidize the smaller market teams. You said you didn't want one team subsidizing another.

 

 

Baseball, by nature, is very competitive. No baseball team is as bad as the worst NFL or NBA teams, and the best teams aren't as good. With no cap, with the current market system, the sport has delivered 8 different champions in the past 9 years. Everyone from the high payroll of the Yankees to the low payroll of the Marlins have won. How is a cap going to level the field more than that? A cap would restrict player movement, and not allow teams the struggling teams to better themselves with trades for the future.

 

There used to be a time when teams couldn't buy whatever players they wanted. There was no free agency. The Yankees won 10 World Series titles in a span of 16 years. Personally, I like it better this way seeing different teams win each year.

 

 

1 - actually I called how you were behaving. You were being obtuse and now lo and behold you've addressed what I actually wrote.

 

Some of it is obviously correct but some of it is quite flawed.

 

There are a chunk of baseball teams eliminated by 1/3 of the way into the season, just like in the NBA and NFL - it's not as competitive as you are implying. You seem to be implying its MORE competitive than those other sports but that clearly isn't the case. I'm not talking about 'games behind' here iether, which would be disingenuos since no NFL team can end up 30 back in the standings. But if you reduced that into a 16 game ratio you'd find a "Detroit Lions 2008 of baseball" every single season. Just like in the NBA. This year, the Nats couldn't win 60. Obviously, no baseball team will only win 20 games in a season, but that's simply the nature of the sport and that fact that over 162 games even the best can lose to the worst on occasion. With only 16 games it's a different dynamic entirely.

 

What makes you think a cap 'would restrict player movement'? Because of the lack of NFL trades? If so, that shows a lack of understanding on your part because baseball players are FAR more interchangeable than football players. Mid-season trades will never go away in baseball. You don't have to teach a new guy a new playbook, he only has to be educated on the manager signs while he's onfield. It doesn't even rate an "apples and oranges' argument because these two things are so different as to not even both be fruits.

 

Why do I want a cap? So teams like the Rangers have a shot at signing players like AJ Burnett instead of having one team scoop up the cream of the free agent crop. How about these numbers: since 1996, the spending fiasco that began in the wake of the strike has resulted in 6 of the last 13 WS Champs come out of the AL East where the spending is most competitive. You don't have to go back to the 50's to find a provable disparity. We're still in the middle of one right now - especially given the re-arming of NY and Boston already.

[SLAYER]

Whats amazing to me, is yeah we bring in more money, can outspend every team, but we dont win so who does it hurt. Ask milwaukee who it hurts when they finally make a trade to get a front line player and the next yr NY just steals him away for 161 million.

 

NY needs the Kansas City and Tampa Bay to play, so there should be a level playing field like the NFL. Well I suppose they dont need Tampa Bay, or they would have made the playoffs last yr.

Milwaukee knew this was a very distinct possibility when they made the trade, as a matter of fact they even said so when it was done. They said they were playing for last year because they knew Ben was leaving and their chances of resigning CC was slim, but they chanced it anyway. and like what was said before CC & AJ do not guarantee even a playoff spot much less a championship. More than likely AJ will be injured during the season and CC is a good pitcher but not great. and as a Yankee fan I do not like the signing, but it is better than Lowe. So quite possible the Yankees could have saved a number of teams from throwing away their money ala Rangers with A-Rod. How many championships did that bring? Plus I really don't remember anyone complaining of the Rangers trying to but a championship. anyway Brewers get a few #1 and 2 draft choices so they can build from within the farm system. the price you pay for signing big name players.

I would think that the majority would love for the signings not work out and the Yanks waste the money.

[LegFuJohnson]

1 - actually I called how you were behaving. You were being obtuse and now lo and behold you've addressed what I actually wrote.

 

Some of it is obviously correct but some of it is quite flawed.

 

There are a chunk of baseball teams eliminated by 1/3 of the way into the season, just like in the NBA and NFL - it's not as competitive as you are implying. You seem to be implying its MORE competitive than those other sports but that clearly isn't the case. I'm not talking about 'games behind' here iether, which would be disingenuos since no NFL team can end up 30 back in the standings. But if you reduced that into a 16 game ratio you'd find a "Detroit Lions 2008 of baseball" every single season. Just like in the NBA. This year, the Nats couldn't win 60. Obviously, no baseball team will only win 20 games in a season, but that's simply the nature of the sport and that fact that over 162 games even the best can lose to the worst on occasion. With only 16 games it's a different dynamic entirely.

 

What makes you think a cap 'would restrict player movement'? Because of the lack of NFL trades? If so, that shows a lack of understanding on your part because baseball players are FAR more interchangeable than football players. Mid-season trades will never go away in baseball. You don't have to teach a new guy a new playbook, he only has to be educated on the manager signs while he's onfield. It doesn't even rate an "apples and oranges' argument because these two things are so different as to not even both be fruits.

 

Why do I want a cap? So teams like the Rangers have a shot at signing players like AJ Burnett instead of having one team scoop up the cream of the free agent crop. How about these numbers: since 1996, the spending fiasco that began in the wake of the strike has resulted in 6 of the last 13 WS Champs come out of the AL East where the spending is most competitive. You don't have to go back to the 50's to find a provable disparity. We're still in the middle of one right now - especially given the re-arming of NY and Boston already.

 

 

No, I'm not using the lack of NFL trades, I'm trying to imagine how a team can trade for a veteran and give away nothing (salary wise) in return.

I'd assume the bigger market teams would be near the cap (I'm guessing of course, since this is all make believe). So could the Mets trade a minor leauger to the Rays (Kazmir) for Zambrano? Could the Marlins trade Clement and Alfonseca to the Cubs for Dontrelle Willis? I don't see how that would happen. And when baseball teams are eliminated 1/3 of the way through the season, these are often types of trades they are trying to make. A cap would probably just force them to hold their overpriced veterans, because no team would want to waste the cap space on them.

 

Is the cap for the 25 man roster? The 40 man roster? How about signing bonuses for draft picks, those guys aren't even on the 40 man roster right away?

 

But back to the point...

 

The Rangers did have a chance to sign Burnett if they want. They signed A-Rod and Chan Ho, What was their offer for Burnett? The Yankees aren't getting Derek Lowe. Go get him Texas. The Brewers offered CC $100M. Are they going to spend that on Lowe? Maybe, maybe not... but obviously they've got the money if they want to spend it.

 

But you are correct. Baseball players are FAR more interchangable. Which is why when a player leaves, you just can just plug in a new guy that can probably replace most of what you just lost. Probably how the Twins and A's keep plugging along.

 

The Yankees had the highest payroll in the 80's too. But shockingly, 1996 is when the "problems" all started...

 

Since 2000, we've seen 8 different champs. If you want to also include the pennant winning teams, then you can add 6 more teams. 18 possible teams, and we've seen 14 different ones. 14 out of 30, almost half the league, has played for a World Series title recently. Has half the NFL played for the Superbowl in that time? Half the NBA teams locked up for the championship? And while the Pirates and Royals aren't in the "winners" half, neither are the Cubs and Dodgers, 2 of the top 3 markets.

 

I guess I can't see a huge problem with competitive fairness when I see this much balance. If you think a cap is going to make it 17 or 18 different teams in a 9 year span, that's fine, but I wonder why you'd think that.

 

 

Of course, you said you wanted a cap so other teams could sign players. You didn't mention if you thought it would actually make things more balanced. So you are saying that if the Rangers could sign Burnett, that we'd get even more teams in the World Series than 14 of 18... or does it not matter if they win or not, just that they can sign people?

Edited December 13, 2008 by LegFuJohnson

[tazinib1]

Go PADRES!!!

 

 

 

 

[SLAYER]

Go PADRES!!!

 

 

 

 

Go away tool. you got a dynasty league to get of the ground.

[Pope Flick]

No, I'm not using the lack of NFL trades, I'm trying to imagine how a team can trade for a veteran and give away nothing (salary wise) in return.

I'd assume the bigger market teams would be near the cap (I'm guessing of course, since this is all make believe). So could the Mets trade a minor leauger to the Rays (Kazmir) for Zambrano? Could the Marlins trade Clement and Alfonseca to the Cubs for Dontrelle Willis? I don't see how that would happen. And when baseball teams are eliminated 1/3 of the way through the season, these are often types of trades they are trying to make. A cap would probably just force them to hold their overpriced veterans, because no team would want to waste the cap space on them.

 

 

Of course, you said you wanted a cap so other teams could sign players. You didn't mention if you thought it would actually make things more balanced. So you are saying that if the Rangers could sign Burnett, that we'd get even more teams in the World Series than 14 of 18... or does it not matter if they win or not, just that they can sign people?

 

 

Baeball is certainly unique in its minor league system and its use during the season. I'd not want any type of 'salary cap' to lose that flexibility.

 

http://sports.vinewz.com/2007-mlb-team-payrolls/

 

4 of the top 8 teams made the playoffs two years ago. It was also the same this year, more or less. What I want to see fixed is the fact that one team can have a 200mil payroll, while another team has a 30 million payroll. I do not believe that is good for the sport over the long run.

 

What is unclear about that chart and others if it that is the opening day payroll or closing day. The Brewers are listed as #13 last year but does that include waht they had to pay CC for the season? Dunno, not sure.

 

Problems since 1996? yep. Remember the history: the owners were nailed for 280 million in fines because of collusion in the 1980s to keep free agent prices down. They pay the fines, FA begins to take off...and then the strike in 1994. They shake off the hangover in 1995 and the system as we now watch fell into place from then (with steroids) until now (sans steroids).

[godtomsatan]

Baseball has more games than anyother sport, so every year when they raise ticket prices, revenue is up.

 

Baseball isnt run under any model what so ever, which explains the indifference in one team spending 25 mil, and another spending 200 Mil.

 

Franchise value in this case doesnt represent revenue value. In fact it isnt even close.

 

If in football each team had its own network like the Yes network, and didnt have to share this revenue with anyone else, plus could spend whatever they wished, they would be the Yankees of football. But there is equal TV sharing in football, in fact there is equal sharing in every aspect of football, and its the best run sport we have.

 

And just because the front office of the Yanks and Mets are so piss poor that they cant win with the most expensive team every year, doesnt make it fair. Hell how competitive would the yanks or Mets be if they couldnt buy every one elses best players, so comparing their front office to the Royals is a joke.

 

You wont win this arguement, and to even argue that its fair and good for the sport is a complete joke. Football has the same parity we have shared in baseball in the last 10 years, with the exception fo maybe New england, and they couldnt buy their players.

 

You can't even make an argument, so I don't understand the whole win/lose thing you're going with.

 

You said that baseball is dying, when in fact, every single fact (like say, franchise value, and revenue figures, e.g.) would indicate that you are ignorant of reality. I'm not arguing whether it's "fair" or not that the Yankees have a gigantic pocket book to work with, but just because they do doesn't mean that everyone else isn't profiting from it.

 

Of course it's not the "ideal' situation the NFL runs under, but considering the ownerships of the NFL are gradually advocating a move towards an MLB model, makes you wonder who thinks who runs a better gig. Though that's probably a topic for another thread.

 

If you don't like baseball because of the way they run their business, I'm not going to blame or stop you. I think the sport is bogus on a lot of levels, but the fact of the matter is that whatever they are doing is working in terms of expanding the sport and the revenue streams to the benefit of all 30 franchises. Even if there are those with market and revenue advantages not available to all teams.

[LegFuJohnson]

Baeball is certainly unique in its minor league system and its use during the season. I'd not want any type of 'salary cap' to lose that flexibility.

 

http://sports.vinewz.com/2007-mlb-team-payrolls/

 

4 of the top 8 teams made the playoffs two years ago. It was also the same this year, more or less. What I want to see fixed is the fact that one team can have a 200mil payroll, while another team has a 30 million payroll. I do not believe that is good for the sport over the long run.

 

What is unclear about that chart and others if it that is the opening day payroll or closing day. The Brewers are listed as #13 last year but does that include waht they had to pay CC for the season? Dunno, not sure.

 

Problems since 1996? yep. Remember the history: the owners were nailed for 280 million in fines because of collusion in the 1980s to keep free agent prices down. They pay the fines, FA begins to take off...and then the strike in 1994. They shake off the hangover in 1995 and the system as we now watch fell into place from then (with steroids) until now (sans steroids).

 

Sounds like you are more in favor of rules which will make the owners spend their money rather than keep it. For the most part, teams choose their payroll levels. The Padres payroll is dropping this year. New TV contract with lower revenues? Mudslides in SD reduce the population? No, the owner is going through a divorce and wants cash. The Brewers offered CC $100 or $110M contract. They have the money to spend. Are they going to spend it on someone else and have a $90M payroll or $65? I don't know, but don't assume that teams' are spending as much as they could, because they obviously aren't. Then again, it's hard to regulate "forcing" people to spend more. Especially when they can see what the Rays did.

 

The problem is that some owners are simply content to make their money, and have no intention of trying to spend more now to make more later.

 

Arizona was in the 20's in the payroll list last year. But they were one of the highest a few years ago.

 

The team with the 30 million payroll has won 2 championships over the last 20 years.

 

I hate to keep going back to the results, but everyone who claims the system is unfair seems to ignore them. 14 teams have played for the championship in the last 9 years. How is a cap going to level the playing field more than that?

 

 

For the record, according to the USA Today salary database... this is the top 3 payrolls per year:

1993 - Yankees were #3 actually at 41.3M, Cincy #2 at $42.9, Toronto #1 at $45.7 (KC was #4... too bad their market has shrunk so much in 15 years)

1994 - Yankees - $44.8, Toronto $41.9, Atlanta $40.5 (KC still #4)

1995 - Toronto #1 - $49.8, NYY - $46.7, Atlanta $45.2

1996 - NYY - $52.2, Baltimore - $48.7, Atlanta $47.9 You really see a huge problem that starting here... other than the Yankees winning, of course

1997 - NYY - $59.1, Balt - $54.9, Chicago WS $54.4 Looks like teams are still spending with New York, doesn't it?

1998 - Balt - $70.4, NYY - $63.2, Atlanta $59.5

 

Seriously, the problems started in 1996? You might have to explain that one a little more.

If you want to say there is a payroll disparity problem, start with 2002. (of course, you can't lump the Yankees titles in there then)

[ebartender]

The Yankees put a quality product on the field to draw fans. It works as they have over 4 million a year.

They still make money every year as the value of their team rises about $200 million a year and the team is worth about $1.2 billion if you were interested in buying. The way I see it is this is the capatalistic system at work.

 

A look at their finances:

 

Sources of Revenue: Stadium tickets: $117 million (4.2 million tickets at an average of $28 each); YES network TV/radio rights: $60 million; Major League TV and licensing: $30 million; concessions: $10 million; sponsorships and advertising: $30 million; premium seating: $27 million; local radio: $13 million; catering: $5 million; other: $10 million.

Annual Overhead Costs: Player salaries: $195 million; Major League revenue-sharing fees: $70 million; Major League luxury tax: $25 million; stadium operations: $20 million; travel and training: $20 million.

 

If the Yankees were losing money every year your arguements would hold water but they don't.

 

The Yankees have been doing this since the current family purchased the team in 1973. How many teams have gone out of business since then due to the Yankees operating mode?

 

I would normally agree that I don't care how much teams spend but when a team has the kind of money where they hand out these types of contracts and then turn around and ask the local government for money to help finance their new stadium, that is when I have a problem.

[Sgt Ryan]

So basically no one disagrees its right, but they say baseball has parity, so why worry about it. This is a joke right.

 

I tell you what. Next yr in fantasy leagues, lets do an auction, and I have an unlimited amount of money to bid on players and lets restict everyone else ability to spend anywhere close to what I can spend. Hey we all get the same amount of players on our roster, one of my guys can get hurt, so I might not win the title. See how stupid this argument sounds.

 

Its not fair, and its not right. But since NY hasnt won anything in 8 yrs, and there have been different winners almost every year, lets just over look what Ny does. RIGHT.

[Piles]

I would think that the majority would love for the signings not work out and the Yanks waste the money.

 

Ahh waste the money on CC and AJ and at the same time hit up the taxpayers of NY for more money for that wonderful stadium that is 8 hours away from some of us. What's not to love about the NY Yankees? Which gets me to thinking why don't the Yankees ask for contributions from their fans for the stadium? They can get a little red pot and jingle a bell and set them up all over the U.S. Then all the faithful fans can dig deep in their pockets and support their team that is crying out for more money.

[SLAYER]

Ahh waste the money on CC and AJ and at the same time hit up the taxpayers of NY for more money for that wonderful stadium that is 8 hours away from some of us. What's not to love about the NY Yankees? Which gets me to thinking why don't the Yankees ask for contributions from their fans for the stadium? They can get a little red pot and jingle a bell and set them up all over the U.S. Then all the faithful fans can dig deep in their pockets and support their team that is crying out for more money.

 

We are talking about cap and contracts what does stadium money have to do with all this. It's up to the NY taxpayers and officials if they want to do that. So you are saying hey if you want a new stadium you need to have a crappy team for a few years to get it because you need to spend your own money. Doesn't the state of NY get a boatload of money from taxes, rent and other things from the stadium. But that is a whole different thread.

 

One of the problems with cap is baseball is the only sport with a minor league system,where do you start the cap? 25, 40, AAA, AA or rookie signing bonuses. It's not perfect but it is not as bad as some of you make it sound. Come up with a better way and what gets capped and what doesn't and I might change my mind but until then.

[SLAYER]

So basically no one disagrees its right, but they say baseball has parity, so why worry about it. This is a joke right.

 

I tell you what. Next yr in fantasy leagues, lets do an auction, and I have an unlimited amount of money to bid on players and lets restict everyone else ability to spend anywhere close to what I can spend. Hey we all get the same amount of players on our roster, one of my guys can get hurt, so I might not win the title. See how stupid this argument sounds.

 

Its not fair, and its not right. But since NY hasnt won anything in 8 yrs, and there have been different winners almost every year, lets just over look what Ny does. RIGHT.

 

I was waiting for this one. Are the NY teams the only ones that have deep pockets I think not. The problem is not the deep pockets but what you are willing to spend your money on. I noticed nobody has said anything about my previos post about the tv contracts. Owners such as PIt would rather pocket the money they get from MLB instead of putting it back into the product on the field, I know there are others that do this also. So along with a cap you need a minium of what you need to put into your club or the problem of 1/3 of the teams being eliminated at the start of the season still exists.

And as far as that auction league over half the owners would have close to equal money as you as in real life but do they spend it or pocket it. I have over 25 yrs of FB experience and we have a league with 40 man rosters that some people only pay $35-50 a year while others pay $80-$125 a year just depends on what you are willing to spend to win the championship. But again that is another thread.

[LegFuJohnson]

So basically no one disagrees its right, but they say baseball has parity, so why worry about it. This is a joke right.

 

I tell you what. Next yr in fantasy leagues, lets do an auction, and I have an unlimited amount of money to bid on players and lets restict everyone else ability to spend anywhere close to what I can spend. Hey we all get the same amount of players on our roster, one of my guys can get hurt, so I might not win the title. See how stupid this argument sounds.

 

Its not fair, and its not right. But since NY hasnt won anything in 8 yrs, and there have been different winners almost every year, lets just over look what Ny does. RIGHT.

 

I thought the idea of leveling the playing field is to help parity, and we have it. You make it seem like its some huge upset that the Yankees don't win every year. It must have really sucked for you this year to watch the Rays win the AL East. When they can build a top roster with such a low payroll, what excuse do I have left for my team?

 

You've said many times (and correctly) that it takes more than money to win. I'd say it takes a lot more than money to win. As has been proven many times, you don't even need a lot of money to win. So why go crazy over the money when it takes so much more (and is not even required) to win? The NBA has a cap. Each team has equal chances to sign LeBron in two years? I doubt it.

 

Put in a cap, and remove the roster flexibilty and not allow teams to improve themselves for the future during the season? No thanks.

 

And what if you are right? How would you know the cap works? New teams would win the title? New teams would get into the World Series. We've got that now.

 

Sounds a lot less stupid than "We need a cap to level out a playing field that currently gives us new winners each year"

You really need the Yankees to get back on top this year, don't you?

 

I have no problem entertaining ideas for a better system, as the currect one might not be perfect. But its certainly not bad, and a cap (at least those I've heard suggested) would be worse.

Edited December 14, 2008 by LegFuJohnson

[Piles]

We are talking about cap and contracts what does stadium money have to do with all this. It's up to the NY taxpayers and officials if they want to do that. So you are saying hey if you want a new stadium you need to have a crappy team for a few years to get it because you need to spend your own money. Doesn't the state of NY get a boatload of money from taxes, rent and other things from the stadium. But that is a whole different thread.

 

No, I am not saying you have to put out a crappy team to spend your own money on a private stadium. Spending insane amounts of money on players doesn't equal quality of the team as the Yankees have clearly demonstrated. My point is quite simple. Don't cry the money blues to government officials and then drop insane contracts on overrated players (We are talking about contracts right?). You come across looking like the auto execs of the big 3. If you can't understand that point I will not waste anymore tiime trying to explain it to you.

[Sgt Ryan]

Look I dont care about who wins or not. Get that through your head. This isnt about parity either. Its about not having a cap to limit how much one team can spend to take other players FA's. Yes in my perfect system, it would mirror the NFL exactly. I dont care about in season trades, or whatever other excuse you want to discuss. I want a level and fair playing field in regards of how much each team has to spend, and a floor where every team has to spend X number of dollars. Im sick of seeing the rich get richer every year, and teams like Kansas City and milwaukee watch their FA scooped up every year or they have to deal them before hand because a team like NY is going to throw 40 mil more than any other team and get the player. If there was a salary cap, I wouldnt mind to see a frachise tag either.

 

 

 

NY is exactly what is wrong with baseball. They are asking for tax payer money, but then spending like this on other peoples players. Its a complete joke, that as a nation most are struggling in this recession, yet they are asking for tax payer money, and spending so opening. Its a slap in the American peoples face, and baseball is a joke because of it. And make no mistake I love this game. Played as long as I could then switched to softball to this day. I love every thing about this game, coach my sons baseball team, and love teaching the game. but the way its run professionally is as pathetic as any business model in the world. I will never ever agree what NY is dong it best for the game, and that they are not makig it worse. You can argue parity, yea but NY hasnt wont since such and such, or whatever you want. NY hasnt won because they think you throw money at every problem. Getting rid of Torre the way they did shows just how classless this organization is. But that is another post on another day.

[LegFuJohnson]

Look I dont care about who wins or not. Get that through your head. This isnt about parity either. Its about not having a cap to limit how much one team can spend to take other players FA's. Yes in my perfect system, it would mirror the NFL exactly. I dont care about in season trades, or whatever other excuse you want to discuss. I want a level and fair playing field in regards of how much each team has to spend, and a floor where every team has to spend X number of dollars. Im sick of seeing the rich get richer every year, and teams like Kansas City and milwaukee watch their FA scooped up every year or they have to deal them before hand because a team like NY is going to throw 40 mil more than any other team and get the player. If there was a salary cap, I wouldnt mind to see a frachise tag either.

 

 

 

NY is exactly what is wrong with baseball. They are asking for tax payer money, but then spending like this on other peoples players. Its a complete joke, that as a nation most are struggling in this recession, yet they are asking for tax payer money, and spending so opening. Its a slap in the American peoples face, and baseball is a joke because of it. And make no mistake I love this game. Played as long as I could then switched to softball to this day. I love every thing about this game, coach my sons baseball team, and love teaching the game. but the way its run professionally is as pathetic as any business model in the world. I will never ever agree what NY is dong it best for the game, and that they are not makig it worse. You can argue parity, yea but NY hasnt wont since such and such, or whatever you want. NY hasnt won because they think you throw money at every problem. Getting rid of Torre the way they did shows just how classless this organization is. But that is another post on another day.

 

Fine, so you want parity off the field, but don't care about parity on the field or allowing teams to improve themselves during the season. Acknowledged.

Edited December 14, 2008 by LegFuJohnson