This is why it amazes me that the rest of the league is seemingly falling asleep on the matter of stadium construction credits vs. salaries. About the only thing that will save everyone else is the trend of teams signing their young stars very early. Even that might peter off if those players realize they're cutting themselves off from the possibility of playing for the Yanks as a free agent.

Actually, I really liked this paragraph:

To help pay for this cash cow, the Yankees are asking the government to let the team raise as much as another $366 million in tax-exempt financing. But the Internal Revenue Service is considering a rule change that would block the request, while members of Congress are investigating why baseball's most valuable team got tax-exempt financing to begin with.

A very good question.

The solution, obviously, is more Budshovick redistribution. Owners, send a servant to fetch your old barrel-and-suspenders outfit from last decade's winter meetings!

Yeah, the poor, poor Red Sox. Maybe we can get them on food stamps.

Of course that comment has nothing to do with the generic point about governments being in bed with professional sports. That's indisputable. But the Yankees are hardly the only culprit; they're merely fishing in the biggest lake.

What's worse, tax-exempt financing or having cities pay (directly) for stadium's?

Notwithstanding the generally accusatorial slant of this piece, it did include a very interesting piece of information, which is that the Yanks will be paying interest costs all the way out to 2047 ($51MM for 39 years - it's unclear if this is just interest costs, because if it is, then when and how are the Yankees repaying capital?).

Understanding whether the Yanks really are paying $51MM per year for 39 years and that's IT or if they are paying $51MM per year for 39 years plus who knows what when in capital repayments will go a long way towards determining how much extra financial firepower the Yanks will really have in the future.

About the only thing that will save everyone else is the trend of teams signing their young stars very early. Even that might peter off if those players realize they're cutting themselves off from the possibility of playing for the Yanks as a free agent.

Well..they can't ALL play for the Yankees. The Yankees just have to play smart and snap up all the top stars that hit free agency in their mid-late 20's and leave the FA's that are in their 30's to the other teams.

The Yankees just have to play smart and snap up all the top stars that hit free agency in their mid-late 20's and leave the FA's that are in their 30's to the other teams.

Veteran-ness deficit!

Cities roll out tax-exempt financing to bring businesses to town all the time. How many Wal-Marts do you think are paying a "normal" business tax load?

I guess this would be a good time to bring this story back. :-)

Yankees Buy Every Star in Baseball

Cities roll out tax-exempt financing to bring businesses to town all the time. How many Wal-Marts do you think are paying a "normal" business tax load?

But Wal-Mart doesn't have deep pockets like Mister Steinbrenner. No need to take my word for it, David Glass will back up my assertion with vigor!

I'm completely opposed to salary caps and generally opposed to extreme revenue sharing, but if the Yankees were to really double their revenues, that would be a huge problem.

If they had a $650 million revenue stream, they could sign Teixeira and Sabathia this offseason. And Sheets. And Manny for one year at $20 million to DH. And Francisco Rodriguez to set up Rivera and then take over as closer when Rivera retires. And then Vlad after next season. Etc, etc... bad news.

So if this isn't an exaggeration, something will need to be done.

Well..they can't ALL play for the Yankees.

Now, that's naive. It's been their plan all along:

http://origin.theonion.com/content/node/27656

And now they can make it happen!

EDIT: jinxed :-(

As a bonus for disappointed readers, here's a rumor that Henry's funds are bleeding cash:
http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/nakedshorts/2008/08/henrys-horrible-july.html

Cashman: Well, sir, you've certainly vanquished all your enemies: the school districts wanting public money, the local park, the average American Family... you must be very proud.

Hank Steinbrenner: No, not while my greatest nemesis still provides our customers with free light, heat and energy. I call this enemy... the sun. Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing: block it out!

Cashman: You want a dome?

Move the Marlins to the Meadowlands. The Question is not if a metro area of 10 Mil+ can support a 3rd team, it's whether it really ought to have a 4th.

Move the Marlins to the Meadowlands. The Question is not if a metro area of 10 Mil+ can support a 3rd team, it's whether it really ought to have a 4th.

That wouldn't work, because in a situation where there are several teams, one will become dominant, and another would be the Betamax of the bunch.

Move the Marlins to the Meadowlands. The Question is not if a metro area of 10 Mil+ can support a 3rd team, it's whether it really ought to have a 4th.

Yankees and Mets fans aren't going to root for the Marlins. A 3rd team in NYC works in theory, but it would take a generation for a 3rd NY team to generate a fanbase, and nobody is going to make that investment.

All you worriers have to RFTA. The Yankees still have to pay operating costs, "like buying giant vats for all the hot dogs."

They sell a lot of hot dogs. That's a lot of money.

I don't think they'd be able to generate the fervor of the Yankees or the Mets right away, but I'm pretty sure that they'd get the following of the Marlins in short order. How many fans do they have, anyway? Seventeen?

I think that the types of people who can afford tix at the New Stadium usually aren't hot dog eaters.


Arugala, maybe.

Yankees and Mets fans aren't going to root for the Marlins. A 3rd team in NYC works in theory, but it would take a generation for a 3rd NY team to generate a fanbase, and nobody is going to make that investment.

It didn't take the Mets that long. (Or the Islanders or the Devils, for that matter.)

When the competition conspires to divide territories and limit entry, you're going to have massive distortions. It's the monopoly, stupid.(**)

(**) Look at how many EPL clubs are in London where there are no barriers to entry and no territorial division.

Pity the poor Red Sox. Now the Yankees won't have to pass on so many high-salary players.

The Mets were picking up the pieces of the Giants and Dodgers.

And one thing that does tick me off when people go on this let's-put-more-teams-in-NY-so-as-to-limit-the-size-of-the-Yankee-market is that nobody seems to acknowledge that the Yankees have been extremely good at GROWING THEIR MARKET.

(Look at Yankee Stadium attendance figures. Look at Yes Network ratings).

Nobody really comments about how bad the Marlins have been at growing their market. Or the Orioles. Or the Astros. Or the ChiSox. Or the Dodgers. (the last two in relative terms).

Move the Marlins to the Meadowlands. The Question is not if a metro area of 10 Mil+ can support a 3rd team, it's whether it really ought to have a 4th.

Miami is the seventh largest MSA in the country. It would make a lot more sense to move the Royals to NJ. Then again, if the NY metro area should have four teams, LA should have three. So it will have to be Pirates and Royals to NY and Brewers to LA. But wait, the Brewers are sixth in the NL in attendance even though they play in the 38th largest MSA, so maybe there's more to it than that?

(**) Look at how many EPL clubs are in London where there are no barriers to entry and no territorial division.

And look how much that has limited the big clubs spending power.

(**) Look at how many EPL clubs are in London where there are no barriers to entry and no territorial division.

Yes, Roman Abramovich throwing money at players with nary an interest at making it back (since he's got like $10 Billion worth of Russian Oil Money) is a good example.

(when you end up using the extremely nutty EPL as an example of good market allocation, when it's the worse possible comparison to MLB - which by comparison is Swedish Socialistic - you know people are in trouble).

The Mets were picking up the pieces of the Giants and Dodgers.

But they weren't the Giants or the Dodgers and benefitted little, if at all, from the brands the Giants and Dodgers had created and built.

And one thing that does tick me off when people go on this let's-put-more-teams-in-NY-so-as-to-limit-the-size-of-the-Yankee-market is that nobody seems to acknowledge that the Yankees have been extremely good at GROWING THEIR MARKET.


That's because they don't have to compete for it -- the whole point.

(Look at Yankee Stadium attendance figures. Look at Yes Network ratings).



Both artificially enhanced by the monopoly the Yankees enjoy.

Let as many teams move to the New York market as can squeeze in the area. End the Bud's billionaire welfare scam and let's allow these plutocrat owners, staunch capitalists all, to engage in the American tradition of competitive industry.

1. The Mets DID benefit from the BASEBALL FANDOM created and fostered by the Giants and Dodgers.

The Market for an NL team was in place and ready for the Mets.

2. The Yanks are good at growing their market because they don't have to compete for it.

Right.

(That makes no sense whatsoever, because unchallenged monopolists usually sit on their laurels, ala Ma Bell).

And look how much that has limited the big clubs spending power.

A lot. None of them spend what a team in Manchester spends, save for (sometimes) Chelsea, whose spending bears no resemblance to anything objective and everything to mobbed-up Russian money. Manchester is the size of Pittsburgh, and Man Utd. have to share the city with City.

In London, Fulham and Charlton don't spend a lot. Neither do Spurs. Neither do the myriad of lower division teams like QPR.

If Spurs and Arsenal had the city to themselves, it's obvious they'd spend a lot more.

1. The Mets DID benefit from the BASEBALL FANDOM created and fostered by the Giants and Dodgers.

The Market for an NL team was in place and ready for the Mets.

Then a third and fourth team would benefit from the BASEBALL FANDOM created and fostered by the Mets and Yankees.

Swedish Socialistic

We don't do socialism anymore, hedonism is more fun.

Seriously, the Social Democrats are firm believers in the power of the market now. We're basically the most petit bourgeois country in the world.

But they weren't the Giants or the Dodgers and benefitted little, if at all, from the brands the Giants and Dodgers had created.

This statement is true on its face, but ignores the fact that the NY Metro area had a large percentage of devoted fans of these vacant teams, plus built-in hatred of the geographic rivals. This was a great place for an expansion team back then.

Manchester United is an international concern, which sells international broadcast rights and tons of merchandising without having to share the profits with the Everton's of the EPL.

Ditto for Liverpool.

Furthermore, London is one of the richest cities in the world (probably richer than NYC), and the elite EPl clubs (together with Real Madrid/Barca in Spain and the Milan duo plus Juventus) are in a totally different league from the rest of European soccer clubs due to the huge amount of revenue they get from international TV rights.

Generally, EPL is a bad example for MLB.

Re: 3rd and 4th team in NY, it's possible that some fandom would accrue to a 3rd or 4th team, but you are not getting the point about the Mets.

NYC, the biggest city in the U.S., had gone down to 1 baseball team (the AL Yanks) after 1957. The Mets had the whole of Giants/Dodgers fandom (which were instinctively anti-Yankees) available for them to tap.

Now if the Mets (or Yankees moved), yes, there's probably an opportunity to put in 2 teams in the NY market to divide that pie, but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.

If Spurs and Arsenal had the city to themselves, it's obvious they'd spend a lot more.

It's not obvious. Look at Framce. Paris S-G is the only Ligue 1 club in metro Paris. Sure, they have a lot of money, and have a reputation as big spenders, but they're in no way an outstanding economic power in French football.

Then a third and fourth team would benefit from the BASEBALL FANDOM created and fostered by the Mets and Yankees.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? In 1962 there were NL fans without an NL team to root for.

In New York City in 2008 there are Yankees and Mets fans. There is no large group of disaffected baseball fans who merely need a team to root for that isn't the Yankees or Mets. There are transplant fans who root for a team out of town, but they're not looking for a new team, either.

A third team in NYC would be a disaster.

This statement is true on its face, but ignores the fact that the NY Metro area had a large percentage of devoted fans of these vacant teams, plus built-in hatred of the geographic rivals. This was a great place for an expansion team back then.

And still is. Put a well-run one here in a nice stadium in the right place and let the Yankees try to charge $74 average per ticket adjusted up every year. We'll see how many customers they have after 10 years.

Following out-of-market games is a tremendously different and easier venture today. Even if there were this large group that Larry mentions, I have my doubts as to whether they'd immediately transfer their loyalties.

(**) Look at how many EPL clubs are in London where there are no barriers to entry and no territorial division.

False comparison. First, London's metropolitan area has approx 13 million people. England + Wales* has approx 53.3 million people. New York's metropolitan area has approx 20 million people. The USA has approx 304 million people. For New York to have the same proportionate size, it would need a population of approx 74 million. London has lots of teams because 25% of the relevant population live there!

Secondly, baseball teams are franchises. A new baseball team in New York City would hit the ground running with zero established support, and would probably be trying to work out a stadium deal on the fly. Whereas a new Premiership team in London would have built a fanbase over the years as it worked its way up the leagues, already have a stadium, etc. It's much easier for there to be organic change in a situation without franchises.

New York is one of the very few cities in America where MLB trumps the NFL. Half the teams in baseball deliberately disparage themselves, their stadiums and their situation, trying to get free money. The Yankees do their best to build up their heritage, on-field product and fan experience. That is why the Yankees do well for themselves.

*Because English football includes some Welsh teams.

And still is. Put a well-run one here in a nice stadium in the right place and let the Yankees try to charge $74 average per ticket adjusted up every year. We'll see how many customers they have after 10 years.

Where is the stadium coming from? The stadium fairy?

Oh, I'm sure that NYC would LOVE to give out free land and a free ballpark for a team there is ZERO demand for.

And still is. Put a well-run one here in a nice stadium in the right place and let the Yankees try to charge $74 average per ticket adjusted up every year. We'll see how many customers they have after 10 years

And if they're well run enough in a nice enough stadium they will dethrone the Yankees and become the new evil empire.

Someone will always come out on top and put the small market teams in their place.

But they weren't the Giants or the Dodgers and benefitted little, if at all, from the brands the Giants and Dodgers had created and built.

I don't even think the statement is true on its face. Well, the first part is (the Mets weren't the Giants or Dodgers). But the second part isn't. The Mets DID benefit, greatly, from the brands the Giants and Dodgers created and built.

1) That "brand" involved, to a large degree, being "National League Baseball Teams." The Mets entered a void they had left, and benefited from the fact they had created, built, and left it behind. If a team tried to come in NOW, there wouldn't be the same void to enter, since there is currently a National League team and an American League behemoth, both of which have recently expanded their hold on the market in key ways (creating their own regional cable networks, creating minor league teams in the market), and are about to do even more (the new stadiums).

2) The Mets took HUGE advantage of the Dodger and Giant brands in the early years in even more specific ways than just being NL baseball in New York. They began their play in the Polo Grounds. Their owner, Joan Payson, had been a minority shareholder of the Giants (and the only one who voted against moving the team, who then offered to buy out Stoneham to prevent the move). Whereas their fellow expansion teams built with youth -- unrecognizable youth -- the Mets imported veterans. And not just any veterans; veterans with N.Y. (mostly Dodgers') pedigrees. Look at the 1962 Mets . . . .

Charlie Neal (1956-57 Brooklyn Dodgers)
Gil Hodges (1943-57 Brooklyn Dodgers)
Joe Pignatano (1957 Brooklyn Dodgers)
Don Zimmer (1954-57 Brooklyn Dodgers)
Roger Craig (1955-57 Brooklyn Dodgers)
Clem Labine (1950-57 Brooklyn Dodgers)

In 1963, just in case anybody missed the point, they added Duke Snider. They very deliberately chose blue (Dodgers) and orange (Giants) as their colors. Anybody who doesn't think they tapped into, and benefited from, the Dodgers' and Giants' brands doesn't know the history, doesn't know how the team was built and marketed early, and doesn't know the differences a team that tried to come in today would face.

New York is one of the very few cities in America where MLB trumps the NFL. Half the teams in baseball deliberately disparage themselves, their stadiums and their situation, trying to get free money. The Yankees do their best to build up their heritage, on-field product and fan experience. That is why the Yankees do well for themselves.

Well, that's the myth that Yankee fans like to console themselves with anyway and you've got it down. Funny, though, that when you look at historical attendance figures the Yankees are nothing special until recently, until the money and their built-in advantages -- including barriers to any competition allowing them to charge extranormal prices for tickets and TV ads -- finally began to win out.(**)

They've home-grown what, five all-Stars in the past 25 years? Posada, Bernie, Rivera, Jeter ... who else? Their monetary advantage in being able to keep their home-grown guys and buy other teams has nothing to do with their success -- which builds on itself?

(**) Their heritage, on-field product and fan experience -- brought to you by the same people who run the show now -- led to a whopping 1.7 million fans showing up as late as 1992, 11th out of 14 AL teams.

SugarBear, if you are going to keep on arguing for the sake of arguing, fine, but could you at least tell us so we don't waste any more time on this?

(post 42 makes absolutely no sense - you can't reasonably argue that the Yankees had lackluster attendance figures until the Yankees Jedi-mind-tricked NY into paying more for tickets, without acknowledging that the Yankees successfully built the team during the Torre years).

A third team in Brooklyn would be insanely successful. Baseball is hurting itself by not tapping into this market with a third team. NYC is already a great baseball town. A third team in Brooklyn would make it baseball insanity. In a good way.

Now if the Mets (or Yankees moved), yes, there's probably an opportunity to put in 2 teams in the NY market to divide that pie, but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.

Even then there would be a big scheduling issue. Trying to put three teams in the same market means, inevitably, that two of them are going to be at home at the same time a lot of the time. Not good. Doable in a market that size, but not good.

Look, it could work. If you paid off the Mets to vacate Brooklyn (minor league team there), and built a stadium out there, and if the new owners were willing to patiently invest a generation in building a fan base in the face of generalized disinterest (and not a little bit of scorn), it could succeed. Gradually, a cottage industry would grow up of fans who took pride in NOT rooting for the big guys. Eventually, the team (if well run) would have some success, and nothing attracts fans like success. There are enough baseball fans in New York for it to work -- over the long haul.

But to suggest the challenge, and the timeline, is in any way comparable to what the Payson Mets confronted in the early 1960s is really just way off the mark. It would, IMHO, be the toughest road to success any expansion team has ever encountered. You know what/who it would take? Mark Cuban. If he doesn't get the Cubs, it would be a hoot to see him try to conquer New York with an expansion team, some money, and a dream.

A third team in Brooklyn would be insanely successful. Baseball is hurting itself by not tapping into this market with a third team. NYC is already a great baseball town. A third team in Brooklyn would make it baseball insanity. In a good way.

Why would it be insanely successful?

It's not like opening a Target in a large city that only has a Wal-Mart.

The (Major-league level) cities where MLB indisputably trumps the NFL are New York, Boston, St. Louis and Los Angeles (by virtue of there being no NFL team. It should be noted the Dodgers are trumped by the Lakers).

Places where you could make a argument that MLB trumps NFL are Houston, Detroit (although the hatred of Matt Millen may trump Baseball), Seattle, and Phoenix (although Phoenix is a Baseball city only if you include the people who live there that used to live in Chicago or a similar city. It is NOT a D-Backs city.).

New York is one of the very few cities in America where MLB trumps the NFL. Half the teams in baseball deliberately disparage themselves, their stadiums and their situation, trying to get free money. The Yankees do their best to build up their heritage, on-field product and fan experience. That is why the Yankees do well for themselves.

This would be the heritage they were so proud of that they tore the stadium down in 1973, the heritage that requires tearing down the perfectly adequate present stadium, the stadium that Steinbrenner whined about for 4 or 5 years?

I've always said, "Wait until the Yankees get their new stadium, then you will hear b!tching about big revenue v small revenue." Nobody noticed that the Yankees have been doing this for years with perhaps the worst luxury boxes in baseball, ticket prices for the most part that weren't that high, compared to even Cleveland. I can't imagine what the Yankees can get for the best luxury boxes in the new Yankee Stadium with so many big business egos around.

Still, I don't care if they buy all of the most expensive players, I am convinced you can get into just as much trouble spending on big contracts as you can win with big contracts. I am at peace with the fact the Yankees will win more than anyone. When the Brewers finally win one, it will be that much more enjoyable.

Places where you could make a argument that MLB trumps NFL are Houston,

If you expand this to football in general, High School and College, football certainly trumps all in Houston.

I would think that Baltimore could get back to being a baseball city if the Orioles were ever good for a sustained period.

Los Angeles may not have an NFL team, but it does have a pro team in USC. Add in UCLA, I'm not sure baseball trumps football.

There are arguments to be made for a third team in the tri-state area, but citing the success of the early Mets just shows sugarbear doesn't know what he's talking about.

Why would it be insanely successful?

It's not like opening a Target in a large city that only has a Wal-Mart.

1. Brooklyn has its own identity separate from that of the other boroughs that they are fiercely proud of and would support a team in droves that wore BROOKLYN across the front of their uniform.
2. Even though, initially, they wouldn't attract a tv audience as large as the Yanks/Mets, the competition for content in the NYC tv market is fierce enough that they would easily get one of the more lucrative tv packages of any MLB team.
3. Corporate money and disposable income. Banks/firms/any client based business will scoop up season tix and luxury boxes as a matter of course to accomodate clients. NYC simply dwarfs other cities when it comes to corporate money and the number of individual people with the disposable income to spend on games.
4. Easier access to games for a couple of million people in Brooklyn and Staten Island. Yankee fans or Mets fans in these areas might not drop their current teams in favor of a new Brooklyn team, but a lot would decide they were an ok second team when they realized how much easier getting to and from the game is.

I can just see MLB and a new team trying to squeeze NYC out of another $500 million for a new stadium. Right. I think the market is big enough that maybe 30 yrs from now it could happen. Its not happening anytime this generation.

1. Brooklyn has its own identity separate from that of the other boroughs that they are fiercely proud of and would support a team in droves that wore BROOKLYN across the front of their uniform.

Something like half the New Yorkers weren't here three years ago. Remember the city is still the main east coast entrepot of immigrants. Be very careful about assuming anything about local identities. Nowadays half of Brooklyn seems to be Jamaican.

If the Nets ever really moves to the Atlantic Yards, talk of a major league Brooklyn team should instantly stop.

On the other hand, an argument for a third team nobody has mentioned yet is the 18-19 dates with one of the incumbent clubs. That artificial rivalry alone might make enough money to keep the new guys afloat.

Really, isn't the solution obvious? Contract the Yankees, replace them with two AL teams. Then we're just an expansion away from 4-division, 16-team leagues.

Heck, we can even have a ceremony where they're formally retired, put a little Yankee plate on the World Series trophy, whatever. The Yankees won baseball. I'm comfortable saying that if it lets us divide the New York market up a little more effectively. In another 100 years, if some other team has won a quarter of the World Series titles, we can retire them, too.

Los Angeles may not have an NFL team, but it does have a pro team in USC. Add in UCLA, I'm not sure baseball trumps football.

Baseball trumps football in LA. UCLA doesn't even sell out. USC certainly is popular and college football blows away NFL, but the Dodgers and Angels have the attention of the entire market, more so than college football.

Nobody that follows college football would dare say LA = college football. My head would explode.

Something like half the New Yorkers weren't here three years ago. Remember the city is still the main east coast entrepot of immigrants.

False.

While it is true Manhattan has a high turnover, without even looking at the data, it is not 50% in a 3 yr period. The rest of NY, I have seen data showing that among major US cities, NYC, outside of Manhattan, has the highest % of people that were born within the city. Many people in Brooklyn have never been to all 5 boroughs, let alone CT, NJ or PA.

I also agree that Baltimore could become a Baseball town again if the team was good, but I don't think it would inarguably have trumped the NFL unless one of these two things happened: The Ravens being bad at the same time OR a homegrown Maryland Star wearing a O's uniform (see: Ripken, Cal). I think if Mark Teixera had been drafted by the O's (I seem to remember them JUST BARELY missing him) and stayed there, for example, the Orioles would be in much better shape attendance-wise.



Cities I'm not sure about: Cincy on all days that are not Opening Day, Chicago (do the fanbases of the Cubs and White Sox combined surpass DA BEARS?), Philly (Philly is one of the hardest places to read...) and Milwaukee (Is it true that the Packers are the most popular sports team in MIlwaukee?)

Many people in Brooklyn have never been to all 5 boroughs, let alone CT, NJ or PA.

This is an utterly pointless statement in this discussion. Whether the newly immigrated Guyanan Indian or Ukranian Jew or the five-generation Flatbush Italian has visited Staten Island has absolutely no bearing on baseball.

Brooklyn has not had a separate baseball identity for 50 years. The Dodgers left because the Dodger fans left for Long Island. Now the same Dodger fans have either died or moved to Florida to die. The Guyanan or Ukranian immigrant who is here gives no figs to the Dodgers, even if they cared about baseball at all.

This is an utterly pointless statement in this discussion. Whether the newly immigrated Guyanan Indian or Ukranian Jew or the five-generation Flatbush Italian has visited Staten Island has absolutely no bearing on baseball.

You are arguing a point I didn't make. Someone else said Brooklyn had it's own identity. I pointed out that it was way off to say there was massive turnover in NYC in a 3 year period, when there actually is the opposite for NYC, Manhattan excluded.

I'm sure you understand percentages? Brooklyn may have more total Russian immigrants, Guyanan or Mongolian immigrants than any other place, but there is still very large percentage of folk, larger than most cities, that were born there and stayed there, as opposed to born elsewhere and relocate to Brooklyn.

Milwaukee (Is it true that the Packers are the most popular sports team in MIlwaukee?)

Yes, by miles.

The Packers played 3 home games/year in Milwaukee @ County Stadium until 1995. Still to this day, there is a Green Bay season ticket package and a Milwaukee season ticket package. Only the Milwaukee package was reduced to 2 regular season games and 1 pre-season game. Milwaukee is always ranked #1 or #2 in the US in terms of NFL TV rating/share. The entire state of nearly 6 million would have the Packers ranked as their most important entity in their lives.

I think Milwaukee could be the most football mad city in the US without a football team playing games in its market. It is very ripe for a D-1A football team, either U Wisconsin-Milwaukee or Marquette. Both used to have major college football.

I'm sure you understand percentages?

Do you understand New York City?

Brooklyn /= "NYC, Manhattan excluded"

If you don't understand New York City, you should probably STFU about a third team in New York.

Do you understand New York City?

Brooklyn /= "NYC, Manhattan excluded"

Yes. You are trying to be dense.

NYC has the highest percentage of residents that were born within their own city. This despite the fact Manhattan has a large turnover and high percentage of residents that were born elsewhere. So it stands to reason, Brooklyn has a very large, percentage of residents that were born in their city of residence, perhaps as high as any city in the US.

Putting a team in Brooklyn certainly could work, as TV/Media is where most money is made in large cities, not tickets.

If you don't understand New York City, you should probably STFU about a third team in New York.

Nice. School starts soon kiddie.

This despite the fact Manhattan has a large turnover and high percentage of residents that were born elsewhere. So it stands to reason, Brooklyn has a very large, percentage of residents that were born in their city of residence, perhaps as high as any city in the US.

This is as stupid as saying that since Ohio is majority white, so it stands to reason, Cleveland is majority white.

Yep, you should STFU.

#66 you are 15. Or you are Maureen Dowd.

Here is what I said.

NYC has the highest percentage of residents that were born within their own city. This despite the fact Manhattan has a large turnover and high percentage of residents that were born elsewhere. So it stands to reason, Brooklyn has a very large, percentage of residents that were born in their city of residence, perhaps as high as any city in the US.

See ya kid.

Want some popcorn?

You still have no ####### idea that New York has four non-Manhattan boroughs and Brooklyn is only one of them.

Did anyone see a few minutes ago in the Yankees game that I-Rod almost decapitated Chamberlain on a throw to second following a swinging bunt? YES totally missed it. Kinsler hit a swinging bunt and as I-Rod went to field it, Chamberlain moved forward and was pointing for I-Rod to throw to first (there was a runner on first). I-Rod instead uncorked a throw to second with Chamberlain in its path; Chamberlain noticed right at the last second and hurled himself onto his back to avoid the throw.

There was just one replay of this particular angle -- from the overhead -- and Singleton and Cone just missed it.

Joba left the game a few batters later, grabbing his shoulder.

Baseball trumps football in LA. UCLA doesn't even sell out.

Baseball trumps NCAA football in Los Angeles, but UCLA draws well --- 76,379 on average last year, 83.5% capacity and 20th overall in NCAA (the Dodgers are only drawing 80% cpacity this year, although that should increase with Ramirez and has been higher in the past). USC was ninth in NCAA attendance last year, averaging 87,476 a game (95% capacity. Los Angeles is the only market with two large Div 1 teams.

>>>Nobody that follows college football would dare say LA = college football. <<<

I would agree, but many who follow college football aren't ardent about west coast football because of east coast bias, time zone differences, and the fact that the LA Div 1 schools don't have huge rivalries outside of Notre Dame/USC and USC/UCLA). Los Angeles is a very healthy college football city that pretty much keeps to itself.

Places where you could make a argument that MLB trumps NFL are Houston,

As a (basically) born and bred Texan, this is just flat wrong. You don't even need to add high school and college football, as someone suggested. And the Rockets are a bigger deal in Houston than the Astros, have been consistently since (at least) the championships.

Joba left the game a few batters later, grabbing his shoulder.

Yes, I see that. (I've been behind, on tivo delay.) By the way, YES did show a better replay of the incident I was talking about a few minutes later.

I went back and watched that play again to see if he may have hurt his shoulder during it. It's possible, but tough to tell. He kind of raises his arms really quick as he sees the throw from Rodriguez heading his way, and then he drops backwards to the ground and braces himself with his hands. Possible he hurt it then, but no way to know until he comments.

As for other causes, if it is a shoulder issue, is there any evidence that the way he was handled in the past year might be risky? I'm talking about how he was starting in the minors in 2007, and then the Yankees called him up late and made him a reliever, and then he was relieving this spring into the season, and then changed back to starter in-season. Might a pattern such as that for a pitcher so young be a concern? I pointed this out a couple months ago when they began stretching him out to return him to the rotation. I understand pitchers swap roles a lot, and that Weaver (for example) used to break young starters in in the bullpen, but the factors here are that (1) Chamberlain is so young and (2) he has now twice switched roles in-season in consecutive years. Are those factors at all unique?

I would agree, but many who follow college football aren't ardent about west coast football because of east coast bias, time zone differences, and the fact that the LA Div 1 schools don't have huge rivalries outside of Notre Dame/USC and USC/UCLA). Los Angeles is a very healthy college football city that pretty much keeps to itself.

true, part of this problem is that LA prides itself on pretending not to be too interested in anything. Like most markets they follow winners. As successful as USC has been they still can't sell out every home game, I understand the crusty Coliseum and its perceived miserable location is a reason for this, but nobody equates LA and college football. I hold no bias against west coast college football, I'm glad LA has a good interest in UCLA and USC. However, as a Nebraska grad, it was way too easy for 30,000 Nebraska fans to find their way into the Coliseum two years ago.

As successful as USC has been they still can't sell out every home game,

That's because most USC grads have to work at the carwashes on Saturday.

>>>but nobody equates LA and college football.<<<

I'm not arguing that. I am saying that many people don't realize that Los Angeles is a viable college football market. No, it isn't "college football" in a Big Ten or SEC sense, but it is larger than many people realize.

point taken. I agree, the SEC/Big 10 and most of the Big 12 views the west coast as a college football vacuum, which the same could be said for here in Milwaukee and certainly Chicago. By 6 pm on Saturday, talk radio has dispatched with all Badger/Illini/Nwestern talk and it is on to Sunday NFL around here. I hope LA never gets NFL and continues to embrace college football, but I still think MLB controls the market.

I hope LA never gets NFL and continues to embrace college football, but I still think MLB controls the market.

I'm not sure if any sport controls the market (the NFL dominates local tv ratings, despite no team), but I would say MLB certainly has the upperhand over college football. The Lakers are a force to be reckoned with in terms of overall market (to a lesser extent UCLA basketball also). The Lakers are probably the only team that commands attention 365 days a year.

Cities screw over their taxpayers to roll out tax-exempt financing to bring select businesses that friends of city hall favor to town all the time. How many Wal-Marts do you think are paying a "normal" business tax load?

Your argument is that the Yankee's run their business just as ethically as Wal-Mart? Hmmm....

I'm not sure if any sport controls the market (the NFL dominates local tv ratings, despite no team)

I wonder how the NFL does on Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday? Friday? Saturday?....There is such a thing as GRPs and I bet baseball has more of them.

Cities I'm not sure about: Cincy on all days that are not Opening Day, Chicago (do the fanbases of the Cubs and White Sox combined surpass DA BEARS?), Philly (Philly is one of the hardest places to read...) and Milwaukee (Is it true that the Packers are the most popular sports team in MIlwaukee?)

I think if Chicago only had 1 baseball team it would surpass the Bears.

As someone who has lived in a zip code starting w/ 532 26 years of my life, yes the Packers are the most important team in Milwaukee, easily. 3 games a year for decades made it easy for this market to embrace the Packers, though I suppose Lombardi's teams didn't hurt either. The city is consistently one of the top 3 markets in the country for highest TV ratings for pro football.

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the idea that a Brooklyn club would not be anything other than wildly successful. The public memory of Brooklyn is still largely shaped by those "five generation Italians" whose grandparents rooted for the Dodgers. The borough logo is a stylized baseball script. The Brooklyn Historical Society's Dodgers exhibit was the most popular in its history. Ukranian Jews or Guyanese are irrelevant, since they likely don't watch baseball anyway. They ain't watching the Brooklyn Atlantics, but they aren't watching the Mets or Yankees either, so I'm not really understanding why they're even being discussed. Even if we say there are X amount of people from the borough who are immigrants and aren't following the team, I'd wager that would be much less than the: a) number of people from Brooklyn in other parts of the NY area who would be disposed to following the team, b) number of people from other parts of the NY area for whom a drive to a Brooklyn park would be more convenient than Shea or Yankee stadium, c) the number of people who would follow Brooklyn due to the social cachet and trendiness of associating oneself with Brooklyn and d) the number of people who might just be sick of the Yankees or Mets.

The massive success of the Cyclones is a strong data point - they frequently draw over twice as many fans as the Staten Island Yankees, despite the fact that: a) unlike Staten Island, Brooklyn is not overwhelmingly a Mets area (research has indicated while the borough has a general preference for the Mets, it's not as strong as Staten Island's preference for the Yankees) and b) the Mets generally haven't had the prospects running through Brooklyn like the Yankees have had.

All that still needs an investor and an $800 million ballpark, but Jesus, it'd be a success.

edit: Just read that Brooklyn has 2.465 million people to Staten Island's 477,000..ok, nevermind about the minor league thing (though the Cyclones have sold out practically every game in their history, so I think they're holding back somewhat). but still, if Brooklyn was its own city, it'd be the 4th largest city in the US. How can this not be a good place for a baseball team?

1. Brooklyn has its own identity separate from that of the other boroughs that they are fiercely proud of and would support a team in droves that wore BROOKLYN across the front of their uniform.

I was born in Utica and I'm more BROOKLYN than Shooty.

Go back to Castro Valley where you came from, Mr. California Man!

I was born in Utica and I'm more BROOKLYN than Shooty.

Go back to Castro Valley where you came from, Mr. California Man!

Hey man, I never said I was Brooklyn!

Quick funny story about Brooklyn: When I first moved there, an old Italian guy--probably in his 70's--lived in the floor above me. He'd lived in the building for 50 years and in the neighborhood his whole life. Used to sit on the corner in front of the men's shop and BS with the few non-Puerto Ricans left. He told great stories about the Dodgers and the old mafia families. Anyway, we got to talking one day and I mentioned I'd been in Alphabet City the night before. He'd never heard of it, so I told him, You know, Avenue A, B and C in Manhattan. He thought I was making it up. You could practically see Alphabet City from the part of Brooklyn we were in. Man, he was great. I once took him to a bar for a pool tournament. he was afraid to go because it was one of the new "hipster" bars in the neighborhood so he assumed it was a gay bar. I finally convinced him it wasn't and he won the damn tournament. Then, with true style, he game me 20% of the take for tipping him off to the game. Oh yeah, and he hated the O'Malleys with the heat of a thousand suns. Still. Serioulsy great guy. I was lucky to get to know him before he moved to a retirement community.

Philly (Philly is one of the hardest places to read...)
It's Eagles territory now. In the 70s into the 80s it was baseball first, closely followed by football, hockey and basketball but Giles and company with their inept management and "small market" behavior lost at least one generation of fans. This current crop of Phillies has closed the gap a little but not much and there is a rumble of discontent about the timidity of the front office. And the Eagles are ripe for the picking as I think the Andy Reid era is slowly circling the drain but the Phillies are content to collect their profits and put on a good show.

Go back to Castro Valley where you came from, Mr. California Man!

California Man is one of the great raucous songs from The Move, the *ss-kickin' forerunners of ELO. It would make a great campaign song for you, Shooty.

Actually, I was making a direct reference to California Man by Cheap Trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt_EGX5ONdU


(Someday I'll figure out how to do that cool link thing.)

In New York City in 2008 there are Yankees and Mets fans. There is no large group of disaffected baseball fans who merely need a team to root for that isn't the Yankees or Mets. There are transplant fans who root for a team out of town, but they're not looking for a new team, either.

One thought on this - how much is there a rivalry between the Yankees and Mets, among fans of either team? I recognize on this site there's a lot less animosity bewteen the two camps, but I also recognize a higher level of sanity on this site than in the general public.

The reason I ask is that if Mets fans take pleasure in Yankees losses, and/or Yankees fans take pleasure in Mets losses, it wouldn't surprise me to see Mets fans adopt another AL team in NYC, or Yankees fans adopt another NL team. Their support for the new team would be secondary to that for their current team, obviously, but when either the Mets or Yankees aren't doing well they might turn more attention to the new team.

If a team moves into NYC they'll need to develop their own fan base, for sure, in order to survive. But (a) the deeper the hatred for the current crosstown rival, (b) the harder it is to get tickets for one's favorite team, and/or (c) the worse one's favorite team is playing, I think it's more likely that a new team in NYC could garner support from within the ranks of Yankees or Mets fans.

Earlier points on land acquisition for a stadium still hold. NYC won't do a new team any favors.

The public memory of Brooklyn is still largely shaped by those "five generation Italians" whose grandparents rooted for the Dodgers.

There is no such thing as "public memory of Brooklyn" in Brooklyn. Continuous influx of new immigrants overwhelmed it long ago. The most popular sport here is basketball. It's hard to find a baseball field within easy subway distance for most people. You can probably find more people play cricket in Queens than baseball in Brooklyn on any summer weekend.

And if the 2.5 million population is enticing, then you'll also take into account that half of them are born outside the country. If "they don't watch baseball anyway", then the 2.5 million suddenly seems much smaller than it is.

c) the number of people who would follow Brooklyn due to the social cachet and trendiness of associating oneself with Brooklyn

They are still a subset of the Yuppies.

b) number of people from other parts of the NY area for whom a drive to a Brooklyn park would be more convenient than Shea or Yankee stadium,

This is simply not true. Transportation was a problem for the Dodgers in the 50's and it still is. Brooklyn is way less well served by highways compared to Queens. Commuter rail transport is also worse than Queens or the Bronx. The only advantage is better subway coverage, but it's slow. It takes almost an hour on the Q or F from Manhattan to Coney Island. (And if you are building a new Brooklyn stadium, it probably has to be in south Brooklyn and not the semi-Queens neighborhoods like Greenpoint.)

IF there is to be a third team, Jersey is the only option.

Lassus, use that <a> thingy.
Not that there's anything wrong with Rick, Bun and the boys' version but the original version:Cheap Trick's version::Albert Pujols:Ryan Howard. IMHO, of course.

In 1963, just in case anybody missed the point, they added Duke Snider. They very deliberately chose blue (Dodgers) and orange (Giants) as their colors. Anybody who doesn't think they tapped into, and benefited from, the Dodgers' and Giants' brands doesn't know the history, doesn't know how the team was built and marketed early, and doesn't know the differences a team that tried to come in today would face.

I'm not as unversed on the matter as it may appear but I know a mismatch when I see one. If anyone's going to match Sam's erudition and knowledge on this one, it isn't me.

The parallel really isn't actual history, though; it's the following two alternative histories, neither of which strains the imagination:

1. After the 1957 season, the Dodgers stay in Brooklyn, the Giants leave. Shea Stadium opens opening day 1962 and the Mets begin play on that day.

2. After the 1957 season, the Giants stay in the Polo Grounds, the Dodgers leave. Shea Stadium opens opening day 1962 and the Mets begin play on that day.

What happens to the Mets?

The reason I ask is that if Mets fans take pleasure in Yankees losses, and/or Yankees fans take pleasure in Mets losses, it wouldn't surprise me to see Mets fans adopt another AL team in NYC, or Yankees fans adopt another NL team. Their support for the new team would be secondary to that for their current team, obviously, but when either the Mets or Yankees aren't doing well they might turn more attention to the new team.

The sterotype, of course, is that the Yankees are the Big Brother, so they (and their fans) only care about the Mets when they are playing them, while the Mets are the Little Brother, so they enjoy the Yankees losing no matter what. I have no idea how valid that actually is as it pertain to actual fans.

But I also don't think it matters when it comes to putting a third team in the NYC area. Yankee fans might "adopt" the Brooklyn Astrolands (or whatever) and enjoy seeing them beat the Mets--or vice-versa--but it doesn't matter.

A Met fan who wants to see Brooklyn beat the Yankees head-to-head isn't really going to care when Brooklyn is playing the Rockies. And that Met fan isn't going to boost attendance for the Brooklyn team when they play the Yankees because you already have all the Yankee fans buying tickets.

And if the 2.5 million population is enticing, then you'll also take into account that half of them are born outside the country. If "they don't watch baseball anyway", then the 2.5 million suddenly seems much smaller than it is.

It's not half, it's actually 37.8%, which is a difference of over 250,000 people. You're also making the fallacy of assuming no other borough in New York has foreign born residents. Queens has 48.5% of its populace born outside the US - I'll leave it to you whether the Mets are doing OK or not. Brooklyn's percentage of foreign born residents is about the same as the average for all five boroughs.

There is no such thing as "public memory of Brooklyn" in Brooklyn. Continuous influx of new immigrants overwhelmed it long ago. The most popular sport here is basketball. It's hard to find a baseball field within easy subway distance for most people. You can probably find more people play cricket in Queens than baseball in Brooklyn on any summer weekend.

Except nobody watches cricket as a spectator sport in New York and I doubt the Knicks are pulling in the big TV ratings. What you're saying is that every immigrant who comes to New York has neither interest in baseball nor interest in their borough. That simply isn't true.

They are still a subset of the Yuppies.

So they are a subset of the people who by and large actually go to baseball games?

This is simply not true. Transportation was a problem for the Dodgers in the 50's and it still is. Brooklyn is way less well served by highways compared to Queens. Commuter rail transport is also worse than Queens or the Bronx. The only advantage is better subway coverage, but it's slow. It takes almost an hour on the Q or F from Manhattan to Coney Island. (And if you are building a new Brooklyn stadium, it probably has to be in south Brooklyn and not the semi-Queens neighborhoods like Greenpoint.)

I'll accept this, but doesn't the LIRR terminate at Atlantic Avenue? OK, I was talking about driving and that's not driving, but wouldn't that be an excellent place to reach into Long Island, as good as Shea is?

You know, we can go around and around on this and never get anywhere. But owners are generally (Loria possibly excepted) smart enough to go out and do the surveys and figure out whether moving a team to New York makes economic sense. If it did, they would do it. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a 3rd NYC team can make more money than one in KC or Pittsburgh.

One thing is indisputably true: The Dolans have enough sports cable channels with nothing on them that they would snap up a new baseball team in a heartbeat. It's not a regional sports network, but it's still a lot of money right off the bat.

If it did, they would do it.

Naw. Opening up territorial rights in a Pandora's box the owners are loathe to open. Look at the concessions they had to make to Angelos. The A's have to put a park in Fremont when it makes a lot more sense to put one in San Jose. There will never be a third team in New York, which I think is a shame.

You know, we can go around and around on this and never get anywhere. But owners are generally (Loria possibly excepted) smart enough to go out and do the surveys and figure out whether moving a team to New York makes economic sense. If it did, they would do it

Shooty is right on. This will never come close to happening. Besides, although the Yankees benefit from it more than any other franchise, scarcity is good for a bunch of owners. Boston could support another team, so could Chicago and the greater LA area.

Owners might know that a third NYC team could make more money than KC or Pittsburgh or something, but it's not in their wider economic interest to start saturating markets.

One thing is indisputably true: The Dolans have enough sports cable channels with nothing on them that they would snap up a new baseball team in a heartbeat. It's not a regional sports network, but it's still a lot of money right off the bat.

Never happen. Look at the Nats. If this mythical third team ever came to be, their games would be split between YES and SNY with the team getting well under market value for the games and they would be locked into this deal for 10 years or so. And that is just the beginning of the pay off that the Steinbrenners and Wilpons would demand for opening up the NYC market to a third team.

1. Brooklyn has its own identity separate from that of the other boroughs that they are fiercely proud of

Yes.

and would support a team in droves that wore BROOKLYN across the front of their uniform.

Disagree. Every baseball fan Brooklynite I know (including myself) is a fan of either the Yankees or the Mets. A new team would pick up a few bandwagon folks. I doubt strongly that the team would pick up an audience big enough to make it worth the team's while to move there.

2. Even though, initially, they wouldn't attract a tv audience as large as the Yanks/Mets, the competition for content in the NYC tv market is fierce enough that they would easily get one of the more lucrative tv packages of any MLB team.

If they established a sizable fanbase which, as I stated above, I think is a longshot.

3. Corporate money and disposable income. Banks/firms/any client based business will scoop up season tix and luxury boxes as a matter of course to accomodate clients. NYC simply dwarfs other cities when it comes to corporate money and the number of individual people with the disposable income to spend on games.

Maybe, but enough to sustain a team in NYC.

4. Easier access to games for a couple of million people in Brooklyn and Staten Island. Yankee fans or Mets fans in these areas might not drop their current teams in favor of a new Brooklyn team, but a lot would decide they were an ok second team when they realized how much easier getting to and from the game is.

Eh, maybe, but again, enough to sustain a team?

Look, I love Brooklyn. I miss living there. The Cyclones are great, and I miss seeing them too. But if there's a pent-up demand for a Brookyln-based MLB team, well, that's another thing I must've missed.

what about new jersey?