Nimrod gets a bum rap. He had a pretty good career going for a while there.

That's an article well-worth reading. It uses pertinent financial information to make a logical argument -- a refreshing change of pace for the Daily News sports page.

obviously, this is purely anecdotal, but when ESPN is advertising their sunday night game of the week, they always show two players (one from each side). "on sunday night, david wright's mets visit albert pujols and the st louis cardinals".

When Michael Jordan played, my wife used to watch Bulls games. Now she doesn't.

Babe Ruth brought some fans into the park in Boston.

While Raissman is pretty much right, I don't understand the argument that the ratings growth on YES is mostly due to the Yankees' having good teams. They had good teams before A-Rod got there, and the ratings weren't as high. (And before anyone brings it up, I checked. Cablevision started carrying YES in 2003, although they didn't have a permanent deal until 2004)

I followed Nim-Rod closely ever since the minors. I think he got a bad rap on those steroid accusations.

This guy would seem to have an ax to grind against Scott Boras and A-Rod. What's it to him what Boras says about A-Rod? Nothing, really. Does Raissman's readership go up 15% when he writes about A-Rod?

When Michael Jordan played, my wife used to watch Bulls games. Now she doesn't.

Did she watch in the interregnum while Jordan was dabbling in baseball? The reason to not watch the Bulls after 1998 was they stunk on ice, not because they didn't have Jordan.

Cablevision started carrying YES in 2003, although they didn't have a permanent deal until 2004)

I've been told YES is available in significantly more households now than in 2003, not sure if that's true. But even if it's not, attendance is up across the board in the MLB. Is A-Rod responsible for that? The DBacks dumped their greatest and most beloved player, Gonzo, and attendance went up.

There is no doubt that A-Rod increased interest in the Yankees. His signing was huge news, improved the team, and many Yankees fans probably thought it guaranteed a few more World Series. But quantifying that extra interest is difficult.

Bora's argument is essentially this. We all know winning drives attendance. But even if A-Rod's contract is so onerous the team can't win more, he's such a charismatic guy that more people will tune in to watch your teams games. And eventually he'll break a few records and you'll definitely get increased viewership/attendance for those games.

When A-Rod's playing value as a 3B/1B for the next ten years probably isn't worth $25M a year, Boras has to do whatever he can to find that extra $55-$10M per, and if he can convince a team they'll get at least that out of their network, god bless him.

Michael K. Ozanian of Forbes magazine has written it's a bargain for the Yankees to pay A Rod $40 million a year for the next 10 years. www.blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoneyblog/ Does Raissman consider him to be a gullible dupe of Boras? Some of Raissman's attacks at radiohead have the syench of jealousy since his WFAN show failed miserably years ago.

The RALPH (Rockford ALlied PHonography) network would never have gotten those big ratings for Forest Citys games without Cap Anson. "Tune in, chaps, as Mister Anson's Forest Citys play a match of 'base ball' against Mister Zettelin's Chicago White Stockings! Only on RALPH!"

Wait, what?

This guy would seem to have an ax to grind against Scott Boras and A-Rod. What's it to him what Boras says about A-Rod? Nothing, really.

Yeah, it's not like he's a sports reporter in New York covering the biggest story of the offseason.

Here’s a news flash: No one baseball player, whether it be A-Rod or Nim-Rod, is a factor when it comes to valuing a network. And no one baseball player is ever going to be responsible for significantly impacting a network’s ratings.

While he may be generally correct regarding ARod's impact on the Yankees and their television ratings, I think this is a big overstatement. I wonder what will happen to the Giants without Barry Bonds?

Yeah, it's not like he's a sports reporter in New York covering the biggest story of the offseason.

He isn't just covering it. His rhetoric is such that he seems to be taking it personally. It's O.K. to be biased, but get it out there, make your first sentence, "I really hate Scott Boras."

Michael K. Ozanian of Forbes magazine has written it's a bargain for the Yankees to pay A Rod $40 million a year for the next 10 years.

Is that with or without the luxury tax? If it's $40 million total, that's less salary than what Alex opted out of.

He isn't just covering it. His rhetoric is such that he seems to be taking it personally. It's O.K. to be biased, but get it out there, make your first sentence, "I really hate Scott Boras."

I'm not going to RTFA, but providing a contradictory stance to an agents propaganda that has made it's way through the media is an appropriate thing for a columnist to do. It may be personal, but that doesn't mean it's not within his job description.

While he may be generally correct regarding ARod's impact on the Yankees and their television ratings, I think this is a big overstatement. I wonder what will happen to the Giants without Barry Bonds?

I'll see that question and I'll raise: now that the quest for the record is over, I'd like to see what Bonds continuing in SF would itself be worth. IOW, where are the examples of good players outdrawing good teams?

Ozanian's article is flat perverse. If it isn't show me the discussions on BBTF or elsewhere arguing that players' salaries ought to be determined relative to the value of the team, which is the basis of his argument that Alex has been sorely underpaid

In 2007 A-Rod earned $27 million for playing baseball (he also earned another $3 million from endorsements, but the amount that can be directly attributable to playing in New York is insignificant for our analysis). A-Rod’s baseball earnings are equal to 2.3% of the value of the Yankees. How does that figure compare to other marquee, everyday players who work for high-revenue teams with big local television deals? This past season, outfielder Barry Bonds (OK, so he doesn’t really play every day) earned $15.5 million with the San Francisco Giants, a figure that is equal to 3.4% of the team’s value.

Outfielder Andruw Jones, who made $14 million with the Atlanta Braves, earned 3.1% of his team’s value. Shortstop Rafael Furcal pulled in $13.7 million with the Los Angeles Dodgers, or 2.2% of the team’s worth. First baseman Derrek Lee made $13.3 million, or 2.3% of the worth of the Chicago Cubs. Outfielder Manny Ramirez pulled in $17 million from the Red Sox, or 2.4% of the club’s value. First baseman Carlos Delgado earned $14.5 million with the New York Mets, or 2% of the team’s worth.

So relative to his peers, A-Rod was clearly not overpaid this past season.

Ozanian's article is flat perverse. If it isn't show me the discussions on BBTF or elsewhere arguing that players' salaries ought to be determined relative to the value of the team, which is the basis of his argument that Alex has been sorely underpaid

Wow. What sloppy thinking. Typical of the reasons why I canceled my Forbes subscription in the first place.

I'm not sure what all this fuss is about. Boras and A-Rod have staked out a position, the various club owners will weigh the benefits and risks, and eventually he'll sign a contract. Once you get past the rhetoric, this isn't any different from all the other free agents, other than an extra zero at the end of the number.

How juicy a contract it will be remains unknown for now, but however it turns out, there shouldn't be any cause for complaint on anyone's part.

Ozanian's article is flat perverse.

No it's simply wrongheaded.

Team "value" is a function of market size, team success on the field and team ability to market itself and exploit its market, and a few other odds and ends.

Player salary (n a perfect FA world) would be determined by supply and demand. The supply part is How much AROD brings to a team to enhance its value, as well as the supply of other players and the value they bring to a team to enhance its value.

Demand is how much $ the owners are willing to spend. Now the Yankees may have 2X the money to spend, but spending 2X what another team is willing to spend on a specific player is irrational, but that's what Ozanian's "logic" leads to.

AROD may be worth "more" to some teams than others, but it'd be irrational for those teams to pay more than they have to- ie: too much more than the other guy was willing to pay him.

I'm not going to RTFA, but providing a contradictory stance to an agents propaganda that has made it's way through the media is an appropriate thing for a columnist to do.

First Amendment rights aside, why is it so appropriate? What is it to Raissman or any other similarly disinterested party whether A-Rod gets $1M or $50M? Raissman is taking what he presumes to be Boras's negotiating position (which is all it is) personally, which is just idiotic, as idiotic as his image-begging Sharpie moustache.

Dr Memory ... he is not worried about Boras' negotiating stance. He is worried that the media is repeating it as gospel. He's a sports media critic.

If Scott Boras was really smart, he would expand his operation and have some of his people start representing Reporters.
Once a few of them got a grasp of their new bank accounts, these hatchet jobs would quiet down immensely.