Count Michael Weiner

This is what we need more noble titles in baseball.

Yankees managing general partner Hal Steinbrenner

Why not Prince Hal, a fitting title for such a class guy.

I know it's been covered before, so I apologize up front.

What is the benefit to the Yankees of being under the threshold in 2014? What happens if they make it under the number vs. if they don't?

What happens if they make it under the number vs. if they don't?

The Steinbrenners get more money.

Something about resetting the luxury tax clock, which increases the percentage a team has to pay the longer it's over the amount at which the tax is invoked. Once they get under, they go back to the minimum tax.

Five thousand posters will be able to give a more detailed explanation.

This year's free agent market has really been an oddity, with the complete absence of any idea that the Yankees might sign any of the big-name players.

What is the benefit to the Yankees of being under the threshold in 2014?

The tax rate is reset, so they will save money the next time they go over the threshold and get taxed at 22.5% instead of 50%. Also, they will get back the part of revenue sharing that isn't paid out to top-15 market teams (those aren't eligible anymore).

There really isn't anything special with 2014 except that it is the first opportunity for the Yankees to get their payroll down to that level, the CBA lasts until 2017 so they will have more shots.

There really isn't anything special with 2014 except that it is the first opportunity for the Yankees to get their payroll down to that level, the CBA lasts until 2017 so they will have more shots.

So how often should we expect them to go into cost-cutting mode like this?

So how often should we expect them to go into cost-cutting mode like this?

I assume their goal is to reset the clock on penalties not to get the luxury tax refund.

According to If they toe-tap under $189 million, they river ave blues, they would get $10 million refund in 2014 plus (obviously) avoid any luxury tax that year.

In 2015, let's say they go up to $220 million or something, they now pay at 17.5%. In 2016, they pay at 30% (assuming they went over in 2014.) In 2016, they pay 40%.

If, say, $220 million is their number, they would save about $60 million in reduced luxury tax payments, just for dropping that one year. If you assume they aim for $230 million, then the savings would be about another $10 million.

I assume they'd then wait to see in 2017 what the next CBA said.

What happens if they make it under the number vs. if they don't?

The Steinbrenners get more money.

Parasites get less money. Based on the apocalyptic scenarios advanced regarding the absence of revenue-stealing, I'd anticipate many franchises passing the hat at ballgames, with Bolshevik Bud himself hosting a telethon for his own office.

I thought the headline said "Matthew Weiner", and he was going to empathize with the Yankees having to have a smaller roster, and having to shorten their games by a few minutes to get more ads in.

Parasites get less money. Based on the apocalyptic scenarios advanced regarding the absence of revenue-stealing, I'd anticipate many franchises passing the hat at ballgames, with Bolshevik Bud himself hosting a telethon for his own office.

Ok, here's the offer. We move the Yankees to Kansas City (or Pittsburgh or Cleveland, etc) and we move the Royals (Pirates, Indians) into NYC. Then you guys don't have to worry about how you're going to turn that extra $250-300 million in revenue into $15-20 million in luxury tax payments. Deal?

Ok, here's the offer.

Under what authority are you making these offers?

Under what authority are you making these offers?

Ah, of course. You would love to be involved in such an arrangement, but, alas, those pesky bureaucrats are the only thing holding you back.

Parasites get less money. Based on the apocalyptic scenarios advanced regarding the absence of revenue-stealing, I'd anticipate many franchises passing the hat at ballgames, with Bolshevik Bud himself hosting a telethon for his own office.

Zzz.

Ok, here's the offer.

Under what authority are you making these offers?

Well that's a screwy double-post.

Hey…I said the same thing about there being a Weiner Microcar Museum.

I love these guys who have these wacky collections. There was a guy out in the Bay Area who had an incredible tank collection and I believe it's still available for tours. Anyone ever been to it? Yeah, this thing: Military Vehicle Technology Foundation.

Ah, of course. You would love to be involved in such an arrangement, but, alas, those pesky bureaucrats are the only thing holding you back.

Well I'm not sure I understand the proposal. You're saying the Yankees would forfeit a full century of building their brand as the world's most beloved and successful sports franchise, as well as the infrastructure they've invested in so heavily, and turn it all over to some sad-sack wearing a barrel and suspenders because he wants it? I mean, it isn't as if I hadn't heard similar ideas proposed, and even implemented, but the idea sounded better coming from Robert Mugabe.

No, the Yankees would only forfeit any advantage provided them by their location. And not only would they not have to worry about making luxury tax payments, they would be getting some!

You don't like the MLB system? Try it from the other side.

No, the Yankees would only forfeit any advantage provided them by their location.

Like the Mets have, I presume.

And not only would they not have to worry about making luxury tax payments, they would be getting some!

Sounds interesting. How much do you suppose David Glass would pay to own the Yankees?

You don't like the MLB system? Try it from the other side.

The other side of where? The Iron Curtain?

You pinkos need to sack up and stop it with the confiscatory half-measures. If you're so broken up about the unfairness of the Yankees being so successful and think its solely attributable to playing in the same town the Giants and Dodgers fled, you should be demanding a complete end to all territorial rights in baseball. Open up every walled garden and let the chips fall where they may. Oakland could squirm out from under the thumb of the Giants once and for all, and franchises that can't attract a fanbase or turn a profit could move to Boston, or Miami, or Las Vegas, or anywhere else. Competition is a good thing isn't it? I mean, wasn't that the rationale behind Budshovism - that these massive distributions of income to Bud's poormouth cronies would make them competitive, and woebegone loser franchises like the Royals and Pirates could finally recapture some of their former glory with the newly-leveled playing field? And yet these annual welfare windfalls don't seem to be having that effect. I'd sure like to see every team in the league forced to open their books if they've been on the dole for 5 consecutive years. I think you'd be amazed as the transformative qualities of just a little sunlight on the dusty ledgers of these plutocrats.

Fairness! Competition! A hand-up, not a hand-out. Who could be opposed to such basic American values? Well, I think I know who, the sorts who think Robert Mugabe and Karl Marx are models of economic wisdom. Historically we've ignored that sort out-of-hand.

a complete end to all territorial rights in baseball.

I think that, based on previous threads, nearly everyone who posts here would be fine with this. So I'm not entirely understanding your point.

..to playing in the same town the Giants and Dodgers fled...

You often bring up the Giants and Dodgers as part of some insane argument that the territorial rights are not massively valuable to the Yankees (and the Mets). How about this: if MLB removed the territorial rights, where do you think being the 3rd team in NY would fall on the desirability rating for an owner? I.E. compared to being the 2nd team in Boston, 2nd team in Miami, 3rd team in Chicago, etc.

I think that, based on previous threads, nearly everyone who posts here would be fine with this.

Well it's all well and good to rail against it from your mothers' basements, but do the owners, secure in their walled fiefdoms in Kansas City and Pittsburgh and Miami echo our educated opinions? I wonder what the threat of just a little competition might do to their on-field focus.

Well it's all well and good to rail against it from your mothers' basements, but do the owners, secure in their walled fiefdoms in Kansas City and Pittsburgh and Miami echo our educated opinions? I wonder what the threat of just a little competition might do to their on-field focus.

Are you crazy? Do you think the Pirates' owner would be worried that some owner would willingly move his team to Pittsburgh if they lost their territorial rights? Do you think the A's would want to move back to KC if there were no territorial rights?

The idea that Georgie Porgie Steinbrenner and his repugnant spawn did anything except step in sh1t, is beyond laughable, and only a tiny little
crank like YR, and his like, would hold it.

How about this: if MLB removed the territorial rights, where do you think being the 3rd team in NY would fall on the desirability rating for an owner? I.E. compared to being the 2nd team in Boston, 2nd team in Miami, 3rd team in Chicago, etc.

Hard to say, I'd think that would be a very complex thing to determine. New York is a pretty dense city. Somewhere in New Jersey would probably be preferable, but this is a question for financiers. I cheerfully admit to not having any idea how to calculate such things, but I do know New York is a fairly expensive place to live with enormous competition for the entertainment dollar - the Mets, for example, playing in the same city as the Yankees but lacking the Yankee brand and worldwide popularity, finished in the bottom half of the league for attendance last season and in 4 of the previous 10 seasons. I think if you took a sad, failed husk of a franchise like the Pirates and gave them the Mets "advantages" they'd be even worse off than they are now when their primary competition for entertainment dollars is the Andy Warhol Museum and that squash that looks like Mr. Rogers.

Hard to say, I'd think that would be a very complex thing to determine. New York is a pretty dense city. Somewhere in New Jersey would probably be preferable, but this is a question for financiers.

No, it's not hard to say (or approximate), you just refuse to admit that NY territorial rights are more valuable than others (the "somewhere in NJ" would qualify as the 3rd team in NY if within the range that they now have protected - south jersey would be in the Phillies protected area). I don't see how you could claim them anywhere but at the top or very close (one could make an argument for the 3rd team in LA or the 2nd team in Boston I suppose).

but this is a question for financiers

You have all the answers about every other aspect of baseball economics, but all of a sudden you are recusing yourself for the experts? weak sauce

The idea that Georgie Porgie Steinbrenner and his repugnant spawn did anything except step in sh1t, is beyond laughable, and only a tiny little
crank like YR, and his like, would hold it.

I'm not surprised you're such an enthusiastic supporter of forced redistribution of assets, Robert Mugabe being a Catholic in good standing and all.

Really now you chattering magpie, if all your nasty little snipes don't warrant a mention in your confessorial disgorgements you should fear for your soul. Out of deepest concern for your eternal reward I really do think you should double-check and make sure your sins here can be left unconfessed before too much penance builds up. Who knows, maybe you're totally in the clear but it never hurts to find out. "But really Father, this guy is a total #########, he's a Yankee fan and everything! I don't have to be nice to him do I?"

No, it's not hard to say (or approximate), you just refuse to admit that NY territorial rights are more valuable than others (the "somewhere in NJ" would qualify as the 3rd team in NY if within the range that they now have protected

Well I don't know how to quantify that - by MLB's own calculation, for example, the "New York" that the Yankees play in is considered significantly larger than the "New York" the Mets play in (the Mets' "New York" being smaller than the Cubs "Chicago", which is itself larger than whatever city the White Sox play in). I'm just trying to address reality here by stating that New York City is crowded and expensive with enormous competition for entertainment dollars. Surely you couldn't deny a single word of that.

The whole map of "territorial rights" is an obvious gerrymander, does anyone think otherwise? The fact that New Jersey is technically considered to belong to - both the Yankees and Mets? - just highlights how foolishly it has been invoked. Why should the Royals be granted hegemony over 5 separate states and Seattle enjoy a kingdom as big as Alaska? Who benefits from this beyond their owners of these franchises, wielding blackouts and using MLB authority to preclude any sort of challenge to their rule? Nuts to all of that.

Well I don't know how to quantify that

Just name some of the options (2nd team in Boston, 2nd team in Tampa etc) that are more desirable than being the 3rd team in the NYC region. If the Yankees territorial rights are not relatively valuable, as you repeatedly insinuate, then it should be easy to name some examples of more valuable territorial rights.

No, it's not hard to say (or approximate), you just refuse to admit that NY territorial rights are more valuable than others (the "somewhere in NJ" would qualify as the 3rd team in NY if within the range that they now have protected

Well I don't know how to quantify that - by MLB's own calculation, for example, the "New York" that the Yankees play in is considered significantly larger than the "New York" the Mets play in (the Mets' "New York" being smaller than the Cubs "Chicago", which is itself larger than whatever city the White Sox play in). I'm just trying to address reality here by stating that New York City is crowded and expensive with enormous competition for entertainment dollars. Surely you couldn't deny a single word of that.

The whole map of "territorial rights" is an obvious gerrymander, does anyone think otherwise? The fact that New Jersey is technically considered to belong to - both the Yankees and Mets? - just highlights how foolishly it has been invoked.

YR I get that some massive percentage of your posts are toungue-in-cheek, and I admit you're mildly funny (that's as far as I'm going!). But the problem with your take here is that you seem to genuinely believe that:

A. Revenue-sharing is unjust
B. The territorial rights of the Yankees are sacred and well-deserved.

And I just don't get how you're reconciling those things.

Just name some of the options (2nd team in Boston, 2nd team in Tampa etc) that are more desirable than being the 3rd team in the NYC region.

Only team in Las Vegas? I'm not sure how you'd calculate the desirability of a given region for the purposes of a baseball franchise. A look at the annual attendance leaders doesn't seem to offer much guidance - the Twins outdrew the Cubs last year in both total attendance and % of seats sold? Who knew? A properly attractive facility in Vegas would probably be a great draw, assuming the league allows the franchise to inject some local color into the attractions rather than demand they conform to the canned vanilla pudding favored in other parks.

A. Revenue-sharing is unjust

Well that's clearly true. Let's take a look at this article right here. Who is expressing concern with the current model? Why it's the head of the MLB Players' Association! But why would he care if the Yankees were having their spending artificially depressed? After all, all those fat revenue sharing checks just go to those other sad, impoverished owners who will immediately turn around and spend that money on players themselves! Unless they don't. And that's the thing, isn't it. The whole goal of the "revenue stealing" model as implemented by Bolshevik Bud and his cronies is twofold - hamstring the Yankees, and reduce what players get paid. Well I find my sympathies firmly on the side of the players, whose careers are short, and not with the Jeffrey Lorias of the world, who can continue to lounge around in subsidized luxury until he's older than Young Mister Grace. If the Yankees want to reward players by overpaying them, that's good for the players. Did Russell Martin have to settle for less money this offseason because Bud's plutocrat cronies want to punish the Yankees? It's certainly a distinct possibility. That's shameful in my eyes.

B. The territorial rights of the Yankees are sacred and well-deserved.

There's no disconnect here, because the territorial rights of the Yankees are only as sacred and well-deserved as the territorial rights of each and every other MLB team. I'm perfectly happy with a system that did away with them entirely, but all I see are proposals whereby the Yankees relinquish theirs but everyone else stands pat. That, of course, is the sort of shameful discrimination we as a nation should frown upon. As I've said before, the Yankees, whose popularity is worldwide and remain the top-drawing road team in baseball for the umpteenth year in a row, have less to fear from the universal revocation of territorial rights than do the owners of half-a-dozen poorly run franchises whose previously robust fanbases have been alienated and disregarded in favor of the sure thing of welfare money.

Only team in Las Vegas?

Okay, there's one. But is a team prevented from moving there because of someone's territorial rights? If not, it's kind of side-stepping the question. And if you think the question is too complex and are pleading ignorance, then you have no grounds to say that the territorial rights for the Yankees are not valuable.

As far as attendance, the question was not about which option would result in the new team having the highest attendance.

Okay, there's one. But is a team prevented from moving there because of someone's territorial rights?

I may be wrong, but IIRC the Giants and A's share the rights to Las Vegas. How's that for a WTF.

And if you think the question is too complex and are pleading ignorance, then you have no grounds to say that the territorial rights for the Yankees are not valuable.

When did I say that? Every team's territorial rights are valuable. That's why they're codified and have been since Babe Ruth was alive.

There's no disconnect here, because the territorial rights of the Yankees are only as sacred and well-deserved as the territorial rights of each and every other MLB team.

Never mind the sacredness, the Yankees territorial rights are much more valuable monetarily than the other MLB teams (or almost all of the other ones).

As I've said before, the Yankees ...have less to fear from the universal revocation of territorial rights than do the owners of half-a-dozen poorly run franchises whose previously robust fanbases have been alienated and disregarded in favor of the sure thing of welfare money.

Again, name some of these franchises that would be more reluctant than the Yankees to give up their territorial rights? If the territorial rights were stripped from the Royals or the Pirates, do you think there is a chance in hell that any team would move there?

I may be wrong, but IIRC the Giants and A's share the rights to Las Vegas. How's that for a WTF.

That may be for TV broadcast rights, but I'm pretty sure that's not for prevention/compensation for a franchise moving there.

When did I say that? Every team's territorial rights are valuable. That's why they're codified and have been since Babe Ruth was alive.

Just because every team's territorial rights are valuable doesn't mean they are all equally valuable. Every diamond is valuable, but all diamonds aren't worth the same as each other.

Never mind the sacredness, the Yankees territorial rights are much more valuable monetarily than the other MLB teams (or almost all of the other ones).

One way of thinking about it. If you were granted an expansion team, and could place it anywhere in America (Canada is for the Jays, hands off!!), where would you locate it?

When did I say that?

Here, among other places:

the Yankees ... have less to fear from the universal revocation of territorial rights than do the owners of half-a-dozen poorly run franchises

Who are these half-dozen franchises for which the territorial rights are more valuable?

I may be wrong, but IIRC the Giants and A's share the rights to Las Vegas. How's that for a WTF.

That may be for TV broadcast rights, but I'm pretty sure that's not for prevention/compensation for a franchise moving there.

Then I certainly don't know. I recall the league changed the definition of "territorial rights" a couple of times in the last 20 years or so to make them larger but I don't know the exact geography. Didn't it used to be that it only included the city (or was it county) that the team's home office was in? I think that was the original definition but I know it's ballooned outwards considerably since then.

I still don't understand why the A's are precluded from moving to San Jose.

Just because every team's territorial rights are valuable doesn't mean they are all equally valuable. Every diamond is valuable, but all diamonds aren't worth the same as each other.

It depends on how you calculate the value. As I said earlier, according to MLB itself the Mets' New York is less valuable than the Yankees' New York. Why? Because the Yankees are a more popular team. The Yankees had their diamond cut and polished by a good Hassidim, the Mets found some guy with a second-hand grinder wheel and glue-on pais.

When did I say that?

Here, among other places:

Well that's just not true. I never said the Yankees territorial rights weren't valuable and it's dishonest to parse it otherwise. Every team's territorial rights are valuable, which is why they exist as a formalized structure.

Who are these half-dozen franchises for which the territorial rights are more valuable?

If a third team moves into New York City - I mean if there was a team with the capital and political influence to plop a stadium down right in the middle of Brooklyn or whatever - the Yankees will still be there 50 years from now. If a second team moves to Miami and is run properly by an ownership that nurtures and values its fanbase, the Marlins would be toast in 10 years and maybe 5 (absent free money from the league of course) unless the franchise completely changed the way it operated. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that the poormouth owners have more to fear from the abolishment of baseball's territorial system.

The Yankees can save a few tens of millions this way. I'm not sure why Weiner says "I'll believe it when I see it." We have already seen it, with the Yankees going to war without a major league catcher, having failed to show much interest in Martin; with the Yankees swapping out Swisher for Ichiro; with the Yankees going with no left fielder rather than sign someone like Soriano (who I hear is available).

By all accounts Michael Weiner is a good person; and he's fighting a difficult fight against brain cancer, which I truly hope he beats. But the Players Association under his watch has given a lot away with little to show for it in return.

the Yankees will still be there 50 years from now. If a second team moves to Miami and is run properly by an ownership that nurtures and values its fanbase, the Marlins would be toast in 10 years and maybe 5

Unless they have some of Tampa or St. Louis' magic pitching juju, both teams in Miami will be toast. Meanwhile that third team in NY will be printing money, even if the attendance lags, considering how important just getting on TV sets is right now.

But congratulations on showing that the Yankees are better run than the Marlins. That helps.

Then I certainly don't know. I recall the league changed the definition of "territorial rights" a couple of times in the last 20 years or so to make them larger but I don't know the exact geography. Didn't it used to be that it only included the city (or was it county) that the team's home office was in? I think that was the original definition but I know it's ballooned outwards considerably since then.

I don't know if this is current but Attachment #52 and Rule #52 seem to cover it here. Although I haven't looked at it closely.

Well that's just not true. I never said the Yankees territorial rights weren't valuable and it's dishonest to parse it otherwise. Every team's territorial rights are valuable, which is why they exist as a formalized structure.

I don't feel like digging up old threads to dispute all of this, but you have at the minimum disputed that the Yankees' territorial rights are and have been more valuable than the vast majority of other franchises.

Again, name some of these franchises that would be more reluctant than the Yankees to give up their territorial rights?

All the former two-team markets would go to the mattresses before they'd give up their monopolies, and the same would be th case for any one-team market threatened with competition from a 2nd franchise.

There isn't going to be a 3rd team in the NYC area unless there is a jurisdiction that would build a suitable stadium and an owner willing to pay large indemnity fees to the existing teams and lose millions for years getting started. Highly unlikely that anyone with that much money would put it to such an unproductive use, and none of the governmental entities are going to pay for another stadium. This is just the usual BBTF silly talk.

@29: Jack Chick? Is that you?

I mean, how small does your dick need be so that you gotta lamprey-onto the whole chest-pounding New York Yankees bit when you're from f*cking Mississippi? WTF?

There isn't going to be a 3rd team in the NYC area unless there is.... an owner willing to pay large indemnity fees to the existing teams....

Yes, and higher fees than they would have to pay almost anywhere else, thus making the territorial rights for which the fees compensate more valuable.

All the former two-team markets would go to the mattresses before they'd give up their monopolies, and the same would be th case for any one-team market threatened with competition from a 2nd franchise.

As would the Yankees and Mets before they'd give up their duopoly.

To some degree, all the logistical problems you mention for a 3rd NY team would also apply to a 2nd team in Boston, or a 3rd team in the bay area, or a 2nd team near Dallas, etc etc.

@29: Jack Chick? Is that you?

More like "Is that Jew" amirite? Amirite?

I mean, how small does your dick need be so that you gotta lamprey-onto the whole chest-pounding New York Yankees bit when you're from f*cking Mississippi?

Man, I wish I was from Mississippi, I love proper Southern gentility and Southern food. I'm from Miami. I'm a Yankee fan because as a kid I could catch the bus to see them play their Spring Training games in Fort Lauderdale. During the regular season the Yankees single-A team played at the complex and I'd go to those games as well. I saw Jose Rijo pitch for the team when he was, like, 17, he was fantastic.

Thinking about the size of my dongue? Make sure you confess that.

Yes, and higher fees than they would have to pay almost anywhere else,

Interesting caveat.