Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Michael Weiner On Yankees’ Payroll Goal: ‘I’ll Believe It When I See It’

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

Count Michael Weiner among those skeptical of the New York Yankees’ stated plan to reduce payroll next year.

Yankees managing general partner Hal Steinbrenner says the team wants to get under the $189 million luxury tax threshold in 2014. That means the player payroll would have to be about $178 million at most, using average annual values of contracts, since the total for the tax will include at least $11 million in benefits such as the pension plan.

“I can’t say it concerns me,” the players’ association head said Wednesday after meeting with Yankees players during his tour of the 30 spring training camps. “I imagine that Mr. Steinbrenner is sincere when he says that, but like a lot of things, I’ll believe it when I see it.”

...“We knew when we negotiated the last Basic Agreement that there were certain incentives build in for the Yankees to drop their payroll,” Weiner said. “If the Yankees decide to drop their payroll to do that, I’m not concerned because they’re dropping their payroll to put themselves in position to greatly increase their payroll the next year, and that incentive was understood.”

Repoz Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:24 AM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: business, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Hack Wilson Posted: February 28, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4377588)
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.
   2. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: February 28, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4377613)
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?
   3. tfbg9 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4377616)
What happens if they make it under the number vs. if they don't?


The Steinbrenners get more money.
   4. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: February 28, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4377620)
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.
   5. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: February 28, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4377623)
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.
   6. Swedish Chef Posted: February 28, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4377629)
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.
   7. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4377645)

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?
   8. GregD Posted: February 28, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4377656)
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.
   9. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4377667)
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.
   10. smileyy Posted: February 28, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4377682)
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.
   11. cmd600 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4377708)
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?
   12. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4377719)
Ok, here's the offer.


Under what authority are you making these offers?
   13. cmd600 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4377726)
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.
   14. tfbg9 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4377731)
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.
   15. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4377814)
Ok, here's the offer.


Under what authority are you making these offers?
   16. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 04:17 PM (#4377816)
Well that's a screwy double-post.
   17. puck Posted: February 28, 2013 at 04:18 PM (#4377818)
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.
   18. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4377829)

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.
   19. cmd600 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4377851)
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.
   20. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:01 PM (#4377870)
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.
   21. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:07 PM (#4377877)
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.
   22. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4377885)
..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.
   23. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4377892)
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.
   24. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4377896)
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?
   25. tfbg9 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4377901)
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.
   26. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4377910)
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.
   27. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4377913)
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).
   28. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4377918)
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
   29. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4377922)
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?"
   30. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4377928)
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.
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4377932)
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.
   32. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4377935)
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.
   33. jmurph Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4377938)
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.
   34. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4377949)
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.
   35. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:08 PM (#4377956)
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.
   36. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:11 PM (#4377959)
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.
   37. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4377962)
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.
   38. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4377963)
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?
   39. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:20 PM (#4377967)
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.
   40. Greg K Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:30 PM (#4377969)
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?
   41. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4377978)
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?
   42. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 07:03 PM (#4377984)
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.
   43. Ray (RDP) Posted: February 28, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4377995)
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.
   44. cmd600 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4378003)
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.
   45. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 07:57 PM (#4378011)
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.

   46. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 28, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4378016)
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.

   47. tfbg9 Posted: February 28, 2013 at 08:09 PM (#4378017)
@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?
   48. Nasty Nate Posted: February 28, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4378025)
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.
   49. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 01, 2013 at 01:01 AM (#4378138)
@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.
   50. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 01, 2013 at 01:02 AM (#4378139)
Yes, and higher fees than they would have to pay almost anywhere else,


Interesting caveat.

   51. RMc's desperate, often sordid world Posted: March 01, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4378190)
Fun fact: Jose Rijo was the first major-leaguer younger than RMc.
   52. Nasty Nate Posted: March 01, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4378267)

Interesting caveat.


It's not a caveat - it would be the Yankees/Mets choice of how much it would take for them to waive their rights. And you're crazy if you think the NY teams would willingly waive them cheaply.
   53. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 01, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4378301)
Is there any team that would waive their territorial rights cheaply?
   54. Nasty Nate Posted: March 01, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4378309)
Is there any team that would waive their territorial rights cheaply?


Cheaply compared to the Yankees and Mets.

The Rays would laugh in your face if you wanted to move into their territory: "Good luck here, buddy, but it would be easier to simply light your money on fire"
   55. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 01, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4378311)
So would you expect Tampa to renounce their territorial rights if a team wanted to move to Orlando?
   56. Nasty Nate Posted: March 01, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4378319)
So would you expect Tampa to renounce their territorial rights if a team wanted to move to Orlando?


If they have rights to Orlando, then no they wouldn't renounce them for free, but their price would be way less than the price to get the Yankees/Mets to renounce their rights. What part of this simple concept do you not understand?

Or are you so immature that you refuse to admit that some effects of the MLB cartel benefit the Yankees disproportionately? Don't worry, admitting that wouldn't mean that you think it makes up for the ways MLB artificially helps other teams, or that you love Loria now.
   57. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 01, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4378327)
If they have rights to Orlando, then no they wouldn't renounce them for free, but their price would be way less than the price to get the Yankees/Mets to renounce their rights. What part of this simple concept do you not understand?


Wouldn't Tampa be much more threatened by a team in Orlando than the Yankees would be by a team in Brooklyn (as per 42)? The Rays would be risking their entire franchise - a franchise that only continues to exist because of teams like the Yankees. Do you think this would come cheaply for the prospective Orlando Mousekateers? Assuming the Rays want to stay in business, why wouldn't they demand a kingly ransom for allowing a direct competitor to their struggling market position?

Would the Rays be able to ask for any sum they want for the invasion, or is there some sort of league framework? I honestly don't know. But if it's a willing buyer/willing seller model I can't imagine the Rays accepting any amount, assuming they want to stay viable.

Or are you so immature that you refuse to admit that some effects of the MLB cartel benefit the Yankees disproportionatel


Oh I'm plenty immature, but why won't you admit that some effects of the MLB cartel benefit the Rays disproportionately, and the Marlins disproportinately, and so on, with the Yankees forced to foot the bill on multiple levels? Sure being the Yankees carries enormous benefits, because the Yankees are the most beloved and successful team in all of sports, but these territorial rights are one of the only things keeping some teams afloat, and Yankee dollars are one of the only other things, so I just don't see why the Yankees should be genuflecting before the redistributionist oligarchs for allowing themselves to be covered by the same protections every other team enjoys.

   58. Nasty Nate Posted: March 01, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4378346)
but why won't you admit that some effects of the MLB cartel benefit the Rays disproportionately, and the Marlins disproportinately


I do, never didn't.

Sure being the Yankees carries enormous benefits, because the Yankees are the most beloved and successful team in all of sports


Let's switch to the Mets: how are they such a valuable franchise, and how have they made so much money in the past, when they AREN'T one of the most beloved and successful team in all of sports? Just maybe they have benefited from having the artificial protection to split the region that has concentration of lots of people and lots of money and lots of love for baseball with one other team.

Do you think this would come cheaply for the prospective Orlando Mousekateers?


It would come much cheaper than it would for the prospective Hoboken Honkballers.

Assuming the Rays want to stay in business, why wouldn't they demand a kingly ransom for allowing a direct competitor to their struggling market position?


They could demand all they want until the cows come home, but no one would pay much at all because it would be a financially disastrous venture. Being the 3rd team in NY would have a better chance at making money, and the Steinbrenners and Wilpons know this and thus would have leverage to extract more money.

allowing themselves to be covered by the same protections every other team enjoys.


If you think it's the same protection than you must also think an acre of land in Camden, NJ, is as valuable as an acre of land next to Central Park. I can understand a child thinking like this (an acre is an acre is an acre -> a territory is a territory is a territory), but I'm surprised an adult wouldn't understand the concept, especially one who pretends to have such understanding of baseball economics as part of his ceaseless and annoying schtick.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPete Rose’s Reckless Gamble
(6 - 1:39am, Aug 23)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogFG: Ben Revere and the Emptiest Batting Average Ever
(28 - 1:29am, Aug 23)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(100 - 1:12am, Aug 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4977 - 12:59am, Aug 23)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogManny Machado Likely Out For Season
(23 - 12:37am, Aug 23)
Last: Up2Drew

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-22-2014
(47 - 12:32am, Aug 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogVotto appears. . .and speaks | The Real McCoy | Cincinnati Reds baseball news
(13 - 11:54pm, Aug 22)
Last: Ziggy

NewsblogDowney: Let Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame already
(86 - 11:47pm, Aug 22)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogCuban outfielder Rusney Castillo to sign with the Red Sox for $72 million
(59 - 11:40pm, Aug 22)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogA Look Inside Baseball's Ever-Evolving Stimulant Culture | Bleacher Report
(45 - 11:35pm, Aug 22)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

NewsblogPhillies have decisions to make heading into '15
(26 - 11:26pm, Aug 22)
Last: Ziggy

NewsblogDRays Bay: Rays to Montreal? “Smart chronicler” says yes
(34 - 10:39pm, Aug 22)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogReddit AMA: Thad Levine (Rangers assistant GM)
(3 - 10:31pm, Aug 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-22-2014
(45 - 10:03pm, Aug 22)
Last: AndrewJ

NewsblogBrisbee: Rusney Castillo reminds us how screwed amateur players can be
(25 - 9:47pm, Aug 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 0.7174 seconds
52 querie(s) executed