Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Yankees - Signed Teixeira

New York Yankees - Signed 1B Mark Teixeira to an 8-year, $180 million contract.

I’m not a Yankees fan and I can’t envision a scenario in which I’d root for the team.

However, the strongest advocates of a salary cap, the ones ranting about salaries in light of the economy, are full of hot air.  And something else, but the site nanny won’t let me say it.

MLB’s revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues.  In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues.  In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.

For decades, wonks, wags, and wigs have told us that player salaries drive upward ticket prices and that arguments about supply and demand are theoretical constructs for an imaginary world.  But in the real world,  during a time in which the player’s slice of the pie has dropped tremendously (a $400 million loss of the pie in 2008 alone, relative to 2003), ticket prices have continued to gone up unabated.  Just as expected, savings from limiting the salaries of those mean old players have been filtered directly into the pockets of owners.  Owners who cry poverty and get welfare stadiums.  Republicans talked about welfare queens 15 years ago, but it would take thousands of so-called queens driving around in taxpayer Cadillacs to match some of the true members of that category.  Take Jeff Loria, who pockets revenue-sharing money and then turns around and gets an additional honeypot in the form an apparently imminent fancy-new stadium.  If MLB owners were in charge of the TARP funds, the $700 billion would already be completely gone and the sycophantic media, ever-hungry for prestige, quotes, and free pastrami on rye, would blame it on pay raises for local janitorial staff.

Now, to the Yankees.  I’ve been stalling on saying nice things about the team, but I guess I’ve got to bite the bullet and get it over with.  The Yankees have a mindset that is good for baseball and the US would be better off if more companies possessed the Yankee mindset.

The Yankees do spend more money than other teams in MLB, but the differences would be less drastic if the payrolls of many teams had been rising up to the waves of new cash that have entered baseball in recent years.  Going by the NFL formula, very generous considering the MLBPA is far more powerful an entity than any other union in sports, the payroll floor for 2009 would almost certainly be in the $100 million range.  58% of league revenue, as the players in NFL get, would be, in baseball, an average team payroll of a hair under $120 million.  It’s pretty clear that while the Yankees are outspending everyone comfortably, the rest of baseball has just as much to do with the payroll disparity as the Yankees do.

Now, what about the Yankee mindset?  The Steinbrenners aren’t anywhere near as rich or as liquid as some other owners in baseball such as Carl Pohlad of the Twins.  The difference is that the Steinbrenners have always invested in their team, always striven to put the best product possible out on the field.  The Yankees have certainly made some terrible trades, especially when King George was hands-on the most, but they were done with the motive of making the team better.  Yes, the Yankees got a huge, undeserved payday from the locals for their stadium, like most teams in baseball did, but it’s a mitigating factor that they’re actually plowing those funds back into the on-field product.  And the team never threatened to not compete until they got their sweet check.  Perhaps a small difference, but I see it as a good bit more ethical than Kevin McClatchy demanding taxpayer moneys to help the Pirates compete and then turn around and use all the money to fund his failing media empire.

Now, what about Mark Teixeira?  The benefits of Teixeira are pretty obvious, he’s a fine defensive 1B who hits very well and should be a relatively safe bet for the Yankees over the course of his contract.  He’s not A-Rod or peak Manny, but Teixeira’s a very good player and while he may only be a bit above-average by his mid-30s, $22.5 million likely won’t be exorbitant for an average player on the FA market in 2016.

Arte Moreno may get to have the personal satisfaction of feeling like the injured party, but this is what Tex was going to make when the Angels acquired him and if they weren’t going to play serious ball, the Angels should never have done the Kotchman trade.  Perhaps they’ll change the rules of baseball during the season and allow moral victories to win games, minimizing the damage that the team offense, 10th in the AL in runs with a huge couple of months of Teixeira thrown in, can do.

ZiPS Projection - Mark Teixeira
———————————————————————————————————————
Year   AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI   BB   SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG   OPS+
———————————————————————————————————————
2009   545 101 159 37   1 28 115   83 103   2 .292 .392 .517   137
2010   552   99 165 37   1 31 114   90 104   1 .299 .402 .538   145
2011   536   95 157 34   1 29 110   90   99   0 .293 .399 .522   141
2012   537   92 154 34   1 26 102   90 102   0 .287 .394 .499   134  
2013   533   87 148 34   1 24   97   87 104   0 .278 .384 .480   126
2014   540   87 150 34   1 24   95   88 106   0 .278 .384 .478   126  
2015   529   82 144 33   1 21   88   84 103   0 .272 .377 .457   119
2016   529   80 143 32   1 20   84   83 102   0 .270 .375 .448   116
———————————————————————————————————————

 

Dan Szymborski Posted: December 24, 2008 at 02:53 PM | 125 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. 3744nsheffield Posted: December 24, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#3037768)
This is quite possibly the best analysis of the Teixeira signing I have ever seen. No doubt you will take a tremendous amount of criticism for it, but stick to your guns. I have never understood why so many baseball fans feel that the owners are so underprivileged.
   2. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:04 PM (#3037772)
Wow. A rant. I wasn't expecting that. I kinda liked it.
   3. Darren Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#3037775)
Nice writeup, Dan.

How do you explain his jump in production in 2010?
   4. The Good Face Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:08 PM (#3037778)
How do you explain his jump in production in 2010?


More time spent benefitting from Derek Jeter's leadership obviously.
   5. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:09 PM (#3037779)
MLB's revenues have been exploding since 2003 and player salaries have simply not matched this increase in revenues. In 2003, players in baseball made 63% of league revenues. In 2008, that number appears to be 52% of league revenues, or less than any of the other major professional leagues in the US, which all have salary caps.

Do we have any firm grasp on the cost of minor league franchises (& draft bonuses)? Without those we're comparing apples to oranges, I think.

As for Teixeira, that's an underwhelming ZiPS projection. Every season is projected below his career SLG of .541 (I know, compiled in hitter friendly Texas). Are you projecting New Yankee Stadium as neutral until further notice, Dan?
   6. Farrell Arnold Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:09 PM (#3037780)
Looks like Tino Martinez.
   7. Farrell Arnold Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:10 PM (#3037781)
Just looked at Tino's stats. Looks nothing like Tino Martinez.
   8. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:11 PM (#3037782)
Are you projecting New Yankee Stadium as neutral until further notice, Dan?

Yes.
   9. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:12 PM (#3037783)
Just looked at Tino's stats. Looks nothing like Tino Martinez.

Heh, I was about the comment that the memory of Tino was stronger than the reality of Tino, who only had a 120 OPS+ 3 times in his career.
   10. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:17 PM (#3037786)
Awesome rant Dan.
   11. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:21 PM (#3037791)
Dan, I almost totally agree with the rant.

But one quibble: what about possible different baseball team expenditures that need to be compared to revenue? I imagine they spend a much higher percentage on "other" labor in order to host 81 games a year, compared to 8 to 10 for football, 41 for basketball, etc.
   12. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:25 PM (#3037796)
Keith Law made a good point on ESPN yesterday that if you're going to go after free agents, go big. Its the "middle class" contracts that tend to be the stinkers.

Of course, easier said than done.
   13. Chip Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#3037800)
Also, what are the player development costs for MLB vs. the other pro leagues?
   14. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM (#3037801)
Are you projecting New Yankee Stadium as neutral until further notice, Dan?

Yes.
New Yankee Stadium will probably play the same way as Old Yankee Stadium. Same dimensions, same orientation... it's basically the same park moved across the street.

Replacing the black seats with the black windows in center might have an impact, though.
   15. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:36 PM (#3037805)
CC Sabathia also told Francesspool that the space between home plate and the fans is much smaller, which he felt was good for the pitcher. He said it gave him the feeling that he was right on top of the batter. (kinky)
   16.   Posted: December 24, 2008 at 05:50 PM (#3037816)
I'd hate to be the batter that has Sabathia on top of him.
   17. aleskel Posted: December 24, 2008 at 06:36 PM (#3037852)
the space between home plate and the fans is much smaller, which he felt was good for the pitcher. He said it gave him the feeling that he was right on top of the batter

that's interesting, but I think you also have to take into account the reduction of foul ground, which works to the benefit of the hitter
   18. Bad Doctor Posted: December 24, 2008 at 06:41 PM (#3037859)
Keith Law made a good point on ESPN yesterday that if you're going to go after free agents, go big. Its the "middle class" contracts that tend to be the stinkers.

Of course, easier said than done.


Aside from Sabathia, is that what the Yankees did? When Mauer and Webb hit the market in 2010, will the Yankees have the cash flow to be the top bidders then, or will they be hamstrung by Teixeira and Burnett? The response I saw yesterday was that $ would be cleared from Matsui, Damon, Jeter, and Rivera, but I'll believe the last two when I see it, and you know that there will have to be replacements signed up for the first two (maybe Holliday?). Even aside from that, other big spenders like the Red Sox and Angels (even the Orioles, if the young players start to look promising by then) "lost out" on Teixeira and Burnett, so they should have more room to work around when bidding in 2010.

For all the ranting about the Yankees in sports talk world today, the team that scares me is the Red Sox. I think we'll see it in 2010 ... when there are targets worth outbidding the Yankees for, the Sox will step up. Put that with their commitment to the farm and their looking out for good small ticket finds ... they're the ones worth fearing. (Unless the Yankees just have no budget at all and scoop up Holliday, Lackey, Mauer, and Webb in the next couple years ... and if that's the case, as much as I agree with Dan's rant, something will HAVE to be done.)
   19. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 24, 2008 at 06:48 PM (#3037865)
when there are targets worth outbidding the Yankees for, the Sox will step up.

In what way are Webb and Mauer worth locking up more than Sabathia?
   20. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 06:58 PM (#3037872)
*weeps silently*
   21. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: December 24, 2008 at 06:59 PM (#3037873)
It's a matter of perceived need. Rightly or wrongly the Sox believe they are well situated for many years in the rotation. They have Daisuke for 4 more, Lester for 3 (4?) more and Beckett for 2 more plus the werewithal to re-sign them if they warrant it. Add to that Buchholz who they are still sky high on and to a lesser extent Bowden and the Sox believe that spending big money on CC would have been unnecessary.

Unrelated to Popup's question this spending spree shouldn't be surprising though. After the Sox missed the playoffs in '06 they went out and spent very aggressively to reload (Lugo, Matsuzaka, Drew) and given the salaries that came off the books and the very obvious needs in the rotation and at first it was a certainty that the Yankees would be spending like drunken sailors this off-season. At the end of the day that Yanks are going to spend about as much this year as they did last year so if people are upset about what the Yankees have done there is no reason they should be any more upset today than they were a year ago. The fact is while I believe the moves they've made make the Yankees favorites in the AL East I don't believe they are prohibitive favorites. I still think the top three are bunched enough that any order of finish 1-2-3 shouldn't be considered surprising.
   22. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:01 PM (#3037878)
Ok, for fun, here is the Yankee Payroll, heading into 2011. Obviously guys like Wang, Joba, etc. will have bigger salaries, but I'm just working on the current contracts:

Rodriguez: $31 Million
Sabathia: $23 Million
Teixeira: $22.5 Million
Burnett: $16.5 Million
Posada: $13.1 Million*
Cano: $10 Million*
Swisher: $9 Million*
Igawa: $4 Million (Christ, I hate this ####### guy)
Marte: $4 Million*
Brackman: $1.7 Million

So that's $134.8 million they alread have committed. But a huge amount of it--all the * numbers--come off the books after the 2011 season. So it basically depends on if the Yankees are willing to either raise their payroll for a year or manipulate their books somewhat but if they want to be in on Mauer and/or Webb, they will be.
Miranda: $400,000
   23. Bad Doctor Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:02 PM (#3037879)
In what way are Webb and Mauer worth locking up more than Sabathia?

I think Sabathia's great, but for whatever reason the Red Sox didn't even get into that horse race. Maybe concerns about his physique, or that his last couple of years would put his AAV off the charts in a way that didn't reflect what they considered his true value. Maybe they were wary of a bidding war with the Yankess this winter, because of all of the money coming off of NYY's books. Also, I'd imagine that, given the Yankees' big push this winter, the Red Sox and Angels may enter 2010 in more of a "hunter" mode as opposed to "prey."

Nothing's in stone, just a feeling on my part.
   24. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:09 PM (#3037889)
So that's $134.8 million they alread have committed. But a huge amount of it--all the * numbers--come off the books after the 2011 season.

Wow, lets hope they have some position player help coming from the farm at that point.
   25. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#3037893)
Aside from Sabathia, is that what the Yankees did? When Mauer and Webb hit the market in 2010, will the Yankees have the cash flow to be the top bidders then, or will they be hamstrung by Teixeira and Burnett?


Mauer may re-up. Webb may get ineffective or hurt. I dno't think you can wait for FAs to hit the market when you think they're going to. Too many variables. We all know; "A CC in hand is worth two Webbs later".
   26. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:14 PM (#3037894)
Also, I'd imagine that, given the Yankees' big push this winter, the Red Sox and Angels may enter 2010 in more of a "hunter" mode as opposed to "prey."
The thing is, that's a dangerous game to play. Next year's FA class is relatively unappealing, and 2010 is not much better. Espcially because the chance that the teams who currently have the big names (like Webb and Mauer) could decide to lock them up.

It doesn't mean the Sox and/or Angels are wrong to go about it that way--it is after all how the Yankees handled the Sabathia vs. Santana debate--but there's a definitely risk of arriving at the party with all this money to spend and no one worth blowing it on.
   27. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:15 PM (#3037895)
Wow, lets hope they have some position player help coming from the farm at that point.
In fainess, they have options for both Cano and Swisher.
   28. Walt Davis Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:27 PM (#3037902)
Tell us how you really feel Dan. :-)
   29. Cowboy Popup Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:30 PM (#3037903)
Nothing's in stone, just a feeling on my part.

My only thought against it would be that every free agent, other than Beltran and A-rod has some sort of baggage. Webb will be a 31 year old pitcher with a lot of innings on his arm. Mauer will be a tall catcher. I don't know that there are going to be any big ticket players without the same kind of risk and danger of being overvalued that was present with Sabathia any time in the near future.

In fainess, they have options for both Cano and Swisher.

Yes, but will they want to exercise them? I would bet no on at least one of them.
   30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:34 PM (#3037909)
I've got to think Minnesota will extend Mauer soon.

With the new stadium coming, I can't see how they can let the home-town franchise player go. The fanbase would go absolutley ballistic.
   31. JMPH Posted: December 24, 2008 at 07:49 PM (#3037914)
The fanbase would go absolutley ballistic.

I'm not sure about that. Mauer's strongest fanbase in Minnesota is teenage girls. I think the outrage over Santana and Hunter was worse than what would happen if Mauer walked. And all it took was Carlos Gomez to be fun and speedy for the fans to forget both Santana and Hunter.

Morneau leaving, on the other hand, would piss some people off.
   32. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: December 24, 2008 at 08:46 PM (#3037943)
When Mauer and Webb hit the market in 2010, will the Yankees have the cash flow to be the top bidders then
I think it's more likely than not that within 3 years the Yankees will be able to sustain a $250 million payroll. The new stadium is going to make them a LOT more money.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 08:51 PM (#3037946)
I think it's more likely than not that within 3 years the Yankees will be able to sustain a $250 million payroll. The new stadium is going to make them a LOT more money.

Maybe five years from now, but I think the recession/depression is going to take a major bite out of the NYC economy the next 3-4 years. Wall Street has been crushed; compensation is falling ~50% at the investment banks, and I don't know if it's ever coming back. As banks they can only leverage 12.5:1 vs. 30-40:1 as investment banks. That profitability (in good markets) is gone forever.

I think the Yankees keep the payroll around $200M for the next 3-4 years.
   34. Obama Bomaye Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:05 PM (#3037950)
Looks like Tex reduced his Ks by a decent amount last season, while improving his BB a bit and maintaining his power. Could this be a precursor of further improvement as a hitter?
   35. Darnell McDonald had a farm Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:11 PM (#3037953)
"Could this be a precursor of further improvement as a hitter?"

I hope the hell not
   36. Chip Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:23 PM (#3037956)
Maybe five years from now, but I think the recession/depression is going to take a major bite out of the NYC economy the next 3-4 years. Wall Street has been crushed; compensation is falling ~50% at the investment banks, and I don't know if it's ever coming back. As banks they can only leverage 12.5:1 vs. 30-40:1 as investment banks. That profitability (in good markets) is gone forever.

I think the Yankees keep the payroll around $200M for the next 3-4 years.


How are the payment plans for the luxury boxes, premium box seats, etc. structured? Are there a bunch of individuals and/or corporations that put initial money down on that stuff for the new stadium who can still back out on additional payments for the new season, or however long they had to sign up for to get dibs on the boxes/seats? (And thus give up their seats.)
   37. NYRoyal Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:23 PM (#3037957)
"Going by the NFL formula" doesn't work for Major League Baseball, because in MLB, revenues are not fully shared like they are in the NFL. If all of MLB's TV money were shared equally, then yes a $100M payroll floor and/or a $120M payroll average would be reasonable. But when there are massive revenue disparities, there will be massive payroll disparities. Do you think the Brewers can easily afford a $120M payroll? Think they can afford it as easily as the Yankees can afford a $200M payroll. Let's not pretend that the playing field isn't massively tilted toward the large market teams.
   38. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:29 PM (#3037959)
On the projection, Teixeira is losing a lot more power than I would have expected. His HR/500 AB's over the past few seasons:

2004: 38.3 (age 24)
2005: 36.7 (age 25)
2006: 28.9 (age 26)
2007: 33.4 (age 27)
2008: 31.6 (age 28)

Sure, that's a downward trend, but it's an unweighted average of 33.8. Is Teixeira really going to be a sub-25 HR hitter after turning 32 (assuming minimal loss in playing time)? Considering his overall, broad-based offensive skill set I would have expected a more gradual decline--possibly maintaining something near his peak until age 35 or so.

The decline rate of his doubles would seem to be more likely (slight decline after turning 30, but then stable for several years well into his 30s.
   39. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:31 PM (#3037960)
"Going by the NFL formula" doesn't work for Major League Baseball, because in MLB, revenues are not fully shared like they are in the NFL.

Not all NFL revenue is shared. Teams have been more creative and keeping revenues that would normally be part of the gate split completely out of harm's way and doing a lot of licensing that's also completely outside the NFL licensing scope.
   40. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:36 PM (#3037961)
How are the payment plans for the luxury boxes, premium box seats, etc. structured? Are there a bunch of individuals and/or corporations that put initial money down on that stuff for the new stadium who can still back out on additional payments for the new season, or however long they had to sign up for to get dibs on the boxes/seats? (And thus give up their seats.)

If the major league baseball stadium packages are anything like what the Sacramento Rivercats and Kings have, then they are structure where they get renewed annually. IIRC, third-party financing is available, but payment is due in full well before the season starts. Renewal deadlines are usually shortly after the season ended. If not renewed, then the seats become available almost immediately.

It would surprise me if any corporate package was a multiyear deal, unless if it was tied to some sort of other marketing or media agreement.
   41. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:40 PM (#3037962)
and doing a lot of licensing that's also completely outside the NFL licensing scope

A big part of the reason the Dallas Cowboys were valued at over $1 billion by Forbes.
   42. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:41 PM (#3037963)
How are the payment plans for the luxury boxes, premium box seats, etc. structured? Are there a bunch of individuals and/or corporations that put initial money down on that stuff for the new stadium who can still back out on additional payments for the new season, or however long they had to sign up for to get dibs on the boxes/seats? (And thus give up their seats.)

Season tickets are annual, payments due around now, IIRC.

Luxury boxes are being offered now, also. There have been reports of the Yankees having trouble selling them.
   43. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 24, 2008 at 09:54 PM (#3037967)
On the projection, Teixeira is losing a lot more power than I would have expected.

I assumed this was due to park effects in part -- Arlington vs Neutral.
   44. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: December 24, 2008 at 10:30 PM (#3037978)
Turner is a pitcher's park and Angel Stadium is more or less neutral. And The Ballpark hasn't been as severe a hitter's park in recent years as it used to be. Teixeira maintained pretty comparable production across all the hitting environments (with slightly more power in the seasons he was a Ranger all year). I wouldn't think that park effect would cost him 5+ HR a year.

Even if he is just a 28 HR in 550 AB at a neutral park, he's still losing power at a faster rate than I would expect as he progresses into his 30s.
   45. AJMcCringleberry Posted: December 24, 2008 at 10:50 PM (#3037991)
Not all NFL revenue is shared. Teams have been more creative and keeping revenues that would normally be part of the gate split completely out of harm's way and doing a lot of licensing that's also completely outside the NFL licensing scope.

$2 tickets, $85 seat fee.
   46. bookbook Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:34 PM (#3038014)
Is there any chance that the best Yankees line-up involves Tex at 3B and A-Rod at 1B? A-Rod was always a better defensive SS than 3B, right? And he's an old man now.

This looks like a great signing to me, but the only thing that worries me is that I think of Tex as a poor man's Jeff Bagwell. Watching Bagwell try to play through a destroyed shoulder was painful. Yankees fans would not have treated him kindly.
   47. DL from MN Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:35 PM (#3038015)
I think that if the Twins let Mauer walk the local citizens will march downtown and burn Target Field to the ground.
   48. NYRoyal Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:46 PM (#3038021)
Not all NFL revenue is shared. Teams have been more creative and keeping revenues that would normally be part of the gate split completely out of harm's way and doing a lot of licensing that's also completely outside the NFL licensing scope.

But the vast majority of NLF revenues are shared, whereas in MLB, the vast majority of revenues are not shared. There are massive revenue disparities in MLB, while the revenue differences in the NFL are comparatively small. As I said above, if all of the MLB TV money were equally shared -- as it is in the NFL -- then every team could afford a $100M payroll. But they are not. Large market teams have revenues much greater than small market teams. Pretending that every team can easily or equally afford a $100M payroll is whistling through the graveyard.

And people who don't care about economic disparity or competitive imbalance always bring up Loria. Yeah, he's awful. He pockets the checks he gets from MLB and puts pennies back into the team. But Loria is exceptional. He is not representative of small market major league owners, many of which are spending a greater percentage of their revenues on payroll than large market teams.
   49. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:53 PM (#3038022)
Is there any chance that the best Yankees line-up involves Tex at 3B and A-Rod at 1B? A-Rod was always a better defensive SS than 3B, right? And he's an old man now.
I very much doubt it. A-Rod rated as an average defensive 3B last year, and Tex hasn't played there regularly in 6 years. Switching them both to (de-facto) new positions seems like asking for trouble.
   50. 1k5v3L Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:55 PM (#3038026)
"Attention, Steinbrenner and front-office morons! Your triumphs mean nothing. You all stink. You can sit on it, and rotate! This is George Costanza. I fear no reprisal. Extension 5-1-7-0."
   51. rfloh Posted: December 24, 2008 at 11:56 PM (#3038027)
The thing is, that's a dangerous game to play. Next year's FA class is relatively unappealing, and 2010 is not much better. Espcially because the chance that the teams who currently have the big names (like Webb and Mauer) could decide to lock them up.


Yeah. Initially, it looked that the 2007 FA season would have Buerhle, Zambrano available. In the end, teams ending up choosing between Carlos Silva and Kyle Lohse.

This year, there's a pretty good selection of starting pitchers. And slugging OFs with poor D are plentiful; if the likes of Dunn, Burrell, Abreu, Ibanez, Bradley were all available last season, there's no way Jose Guillen gets that contract. There's also a good selection of relievers.
   52. rfloh Posted: December 25, 2008 at 12:00 AM (#3038032)
I'm not sure about that. Mauer's strongest fanbase in Minnesota is teenage girls.


Teenage girls are money spending fans too. In fact, if those teenage girls primarily spend their money on the Twins because of Mauer, ie they don't really care about the team, it's more likely that a Mauer trade would lose the Twins money, than a trade of a player who is loved by fans who primarily support the laundry.
   53. robinred Posted: December 25, 2008 at 01:08 AM (#3038053)
So where do the other slugger guys go?

I say:

Dunn-Washington
Ramirez-LA Angels
Abreu-New York Mets
Burrell-?
   54. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: December 25, 2008 at 01:38 AM (#3038063)
Giambi is a slugger, too.
   55. Jeff K. Posted: December 25, 2008 at 01:56 AM (#3038067)
I've apparently forgotten the password to my Chris Hansen account, can the person behind TeenageGirl, who has already posted in this thread, please respond to #52? Comedy thanks you.
   56. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: December 25, 2008 at 02:00 AM (#3038068)
I agree with just about everything said here. I don't care how much a team wants to spend, I wish the A's could spend like the Yankees or Red Sox and if we were out signing Mark Teixeira and everyone under the sun I'd be one happy baseball fan. Hating another team is about hating their fans. Red Sox Nation is very big, and is an umbrella under which many a gigantic tool falls, so it's great fun to root against that stupid team. Likewise, on a lesser level in my opinion, it's fun to hate the Yankees and their fare of jackass supporters.


But disliking them just because they spend a lot? I think that's just jealousy.
   57. Walt Davis Posted: December 25, 2008 at 02:03 AM (#3038070)
Is there any chance that the best Yankees line-up involves Tex at 3B and A-Rod at 1B?

Not really ... but the probability that's the better line-up is higher than the probability that the Yanks would actually try such a thing. :-)

Mauer's strongest fanbase in Minnesota is teenage girls.

Dude, teenage girls, if not tweenies, rule the consumer world.
   58. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 25, 2008 at 02:06 AM (#3038071)
But the vast majority of NLF revenues are shared, whereas in MLB, the vast majority of revenues are not shared.

That's not true. Local revenue is partially shared. Nationally money is completely shared. Merchandising completely shared. Internet completely shared. International revenue cmopletely shared.
   59. Jeff K. Posted: December 25, 2008 at 02:10 AM (#3038073)
Postseason gate is 50/50 after game 4, with the first 4 going to the league.
   60. calhounite Posted: December 25, 2008 at 06:25 AM (#3038118)
The mind set is brain-dead..Let's sign ....duh..guh.. Texurea?..

Call Foul..the agreement was old farts, broken-downs, guys who ate the city. Ok got a pass on Arod..but the general idea was they'd blow their 200 mil wad to order to maintain the competitive balance

double-crossing, lying scumbag...no bid out on Tex..yeah right
   61. Jeff K. Posted: December 25, 2008 at 06:57 AM (#3038124)
Al,

I know it's Christmas in 3 minutes, but you're supposed to put the rum in the cake, not soak the cake in rum.
   62. bookbook Posted: December 25, 2008 at 01:02 PM (#3038151)
How about Teix at 3B, ARod at SS, and Jeter at 1B? I'm pretty sure I can get everybody out of position if I try hard enough
   63. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: December 25, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#3038169)
This is fun - how about Georgie back at second?
   64. TFTIO still lacks a passion for the labels Posted: December 26, 2008 at 05:20 AM (#3038345)
I think that if the Twins let Mauer walk the local citizens will march downtown and burn Target Field to the ground.

We will choke lock and dam #1 with our dead.
   65. So Taguchi is My Sensei Posted: December 26, 2008 at 05:37 AM (#3038348)
I'm not a Yankees fan and I can't envision a scenario in which I'd root for the team.


Excellent post Dan. I think for the reasons you stated, I might actually become somewhat of a Yankee fan. I mean, at least I know they are committed to winning.
   66. Johnny Tuttle Posted: December 26, 2008 at 02:11 PM (#3038386)
It's a mark of my respect for Dan that I read this post not as ranty but reasonable.

If I were anywhere near his caliber, I'd post a picture of a nail getting it square on.
   67. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 26, 2008 at 03:52 PM (#3038407)
Watching Bagwell try to play through a destroyed shoulder was painful. Yankees fans would not have treated him kindly.

Yankee fans watched Don Mattingly play through a destroyed back, and treated him like a god. A free agent who got hurt early in his tenure probably would get ripped to shreds, but a player who gave New York what Bagwell gave Houston would not.
   68. NYRoyal Posted: December 26, 2008 at 08:07 PM (#3038552)
That's not true. Local revenue is partially shared. Nationally money is completely shared. Merchandising completely shared. Internet completely shared. International revenue cmopletely shared.
Come on, Dan. What percentage of revenues do you think gets shared? The biggest chunk of revenue comes from each team's TV deal, which is not shared. Both standard TV broadcasting contracts and money from RSN's is unshared. The disparity in gate receipts and to a larger extent the disparity in TV and RSN revenues is why there is such a huge economic disparity in MLB. It seems like you are trying to pretend that most revenue dollars are shared so there really isn't much of a disparity. Of course you know this isn't true. If you just don't care how much the economic disparity is, then say that. Don't pretend it doesn't exist.
   69. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 26, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#3038584)
What percentage of revenues do you think gets shared? The biggest chunk of revenue comes from each team's TV deal, which is not shared.

To put this as politely as possible, Dan is right and you are wrong. Every team in MLB has revenue north of $100M per year before they sell a single ticket. The lowest revenue team in MLB is the Marlins, and they made a profit of $36M in 2007 on income of $128M and an opening day payroll just over $30M. Their response to having such a great year on the balance sheet was to cut payroll by almost $9M.

There is a revenue disparity in MLB, and it isn't small -- espcially between the Yankees and everyone else. There's also a decent gap between the next four or five teams at the top and the four or five at the bottom. But the revenue gap between the Tigers and the Royals, for instance, is much much smaller at ~$40M than the payroll gap between those two teams (~$80M. And your assertion that "the biggest chunk of revenue comes from each team's TV deal" simply is not true. More than half of all revenue is shared.
   70. villainx Posted: December 26, 2008 at 09:42 PM (#3038587)
Also bolstering national and international revenue is done by teams deciding to improve their on field product. How is Pittsburgh improving the national and international package by consistently putting a bad product on the field (by not spending and bad management), and yet from the shared portion, getting an equal cut?
   71. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 26, 2008 at 10:32 PM (#3038612)
Come on, Dan. What percentage of revenues do you think gets shared? The biggest chunk of revenue comes from each team's TV deal, which is not shared. Both standard TV broadcasting contracts and money from RSN's is unshared. The disparity in gate receipts and to a larger extent the disparity in TV and RSN revenues is why there is such a huge economic disparity in MLB.

Why do I feel like I'm pulling teeth here? The revenue-sharing plan, which includes local television and ticket sales, shares at 31%. This isn't some guess.

And again, national TV, actually shared more than equally (MLB actually kicks in a little more to lower-revenue teams). International. Internet. Merchandising. All shared equally.

And a luxury tax on top of it all!

The Royals and Pirates and Marlins are getting a ridiculous amount of money that they had little part in generating.
   72. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 26, 2008 at 10:35 PM (#3038613)
he lowest revenue team in MLB is the Marlins, and they made a profit of $36M in 2007 on income of $128M and an opening day payroll just over $30M.

And Forbes tries to be conservative at that!
   73. NYRoyal Posted: December 26, 2008 at 10:46 PM (#3038617)
The Royals and Pirates and Marlins are getting a ridiculous amount of money that they had little part in generating.
And it may offend you that small market teams are getting money that they had little part in generating, but do you disagree that there is still a large economic imbalance in Major League Baseball. Add up the revenues that each team gets (the local revenues they keep and the shared revenues they receive) and you've still got a large divide between the top 10 teams and the bottom 10 teams. Those local revenues, of which teams keep 69% adds up to a hell of a lot of money for teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels and Cubs. Significant economic disparity exists, along with an attendant competitive imbalance.
   74. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 26, 2008 at 11:01 PM (#3038626)
Of course there's economic disparity (and there should be). But it's magnified because you have a number of incompetently run teams living off the teat of others.

I'd be all in favor of an economic system, which was designed to correct actual market imbalances rather than the current one or the salary cap one, which "corrects" effort imbalance.

Award pooled revenues to actual low-market (not low-revenue) based on wins and force the marginal value of wins higher for those small markets. If a free agent is worth $20 million a year in revenue to the Royals as well as the Yankees, economic imbalance is completely irrelevant if capitalization is OK (and the owner of the Royals is significantly richer than the owner of the Yankees).
   75. Darren Posted: December 26, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#3038631)
Dan,

Seriously, what's up with 2010 in the projection. I'm curious.
   76. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 26, 2008 at 11:17 PM (#3038643)
it may offend you that small market teams are getting money that they had little part in generating

I don't know if Dan is offended by this. I suspect that he is not. But now you're changing the subject. This started with you attacking him and claiming that all NFL revenue is shared while most MLB revenue is not shared. The fact is that you're flat out wrong on both of those counts. NFL franchises take in tons of non-shared local money, and more than half of all MLB income is shared.

Add up the revenues that each team gets (the local revenues they keep and the shared revenues they receive) and you've still got a large divide between the top 10 teams and the bottom 10 teams.

According to Forbes' 2007 estimates, the Cardinals and Mariners tied for tenth in revenue with $194M, while the Diamondbacks were 21st at $165M. The difference between #5 and #10 is just as big as the difference between #10 and #21. The Reds (#22) have a bigger advantage over the Marlins (#30) then the Giants (#8) have over the Blue Jays (#23). So what's the point of comparing the top ten and the bottom ten? There are revenue disparities among MLB teams, but you are woefully uninformed about how big (or small) these discrepancies are and how the teams are bunched.
   77. NYRoyal Posted: December 26, 2008 at 11:51 PM (#3038652)
Of course there's economic disparity (and there should be). But it's magnified because you have a number of incompetently run teams living off the teat of others. I'd be all in favor of an economic system, which was designed to correct actual market imbalances rather than the current one or the salary cap one, which "corrects" effort imbalance.

It appears that you are assuming that the teams who currently have lower revenue are the ones with poor management, and that market size and revenue potential is a relatively minor factor. I think a system which shares revenues to a greater degree (which would involve moving more money from the larger market teams to the smaller market teams) would be a good idea as well. Small market teams have less success over the last 10 years than large market teams. This isn't just about market size and revenue; it is also about the competence of management. But it would be nice if there were a more level playing field so that small market teams could succeed or fail based on their competence, rather than how much money they have to spend. Money is important.

(and the owner of the Royals is significantly richer than the owner of the Yankees)

I have no idea why you felt it relevant to throw that in there. You know as well as I do that professional sports owners don't invest their personal wealth in the operating budget of their team; they re-invest revenues. So the personal wealth of owners is irrelevant. The revenues and revenue potential of those franchises is what is important.



This started with you attacking him and claiming that all NFL revenue is shared while most MLB revenue is not shared.

I didn't attack anybody. I like and respect Dan. I think his work at BTF is exemplary. I pointed out a problem with his analysis. He seemed to be applying the NFL salary model to MLB without taking into account that the revenue structure is significantly different. In the NFL, every franchise has the ability to have a payroll which is up to the cap, because of how revenues are shard. In MLB, market size, revenue potential and the limited sharing of revenues does not allow every franchise to be able to afford a proportionate salary cap (say $100M-120M).

So what's the point of comparing the top ten and the bottom ten?

Because comparing the relative success of the top 10 and bottom 10 MLB teams by market size would identify if that variable (market size) has an important relationship to success. It certainly appears to over the last 10 years.
   78. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:02 AM (#3038656)
they re-invest revenues.
Which is why the current revenue sharing system is awful, and why increasing the amount distributed under the same system would be suicidal for baseball.

If you're sending tens of millions of dollars to teams that generate little revenue on their own, there isn't just no incentive to put that money back into the team, there's an incentive to NOT put the money into the team.
   79. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:09 AM (#3038659)
In the NFL, every franchise has the ability to have a payroll which is up to the cap, because of how revenues are shard. In MLB, market size, revenue potential and the limited sharing of revenues does not allow every franchise to be able to afford a proportionate salary cap (say $100M-120M).

As has been pointed out, you're misinformed about how revenues actually are shared in both the NFL and MLB, but this apparently means nothing to you.

Because comparing the relative success of the top 10 and bottom 10 MLB teams by market size would identify if that variable (market size) has an important relationship to success. It certainly appears to over the last 10 years.

Really? I seem to recall some bottom ten teams like the Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks, Twins and A's having some success in the last ten years. When was the last time that the Mets (#3) or Dodgers (#4) won a WS? How about the Cubs (#5)? How about the Tigers, who manage to sustain a top 2-5 payroll while ranking 15th in revenue (and turning a profit, I might add)? And that's without even getting to Dan's point about revenues not matching up to market size the way you seem to be assuming that they do.
   80. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM (#3038661)
If you're sending tens of millions of dollars to teams that generate little revenue on their own, there isn't just no incentive to put that money back into the team, there's an incentive to NOT put the money into the team.

The re-invest revenues; they don't just pocket them. Certainly there are some owners who have just pocketed revenue sharing money and haven't invested them in their teams (such as the Florida Marlins), but this is not the most common situation. Many small market teams spend a higher percentage of their revenues on payroll than many large market teams. Also, there are two incentives for small market owners to invest revenues in their team under any revenue sharing system. First, even with revenue sharing, winning more games means more total revenue. Second, maximizing profit isn't the only goal of a professional sports team. Winning is an important goal as well, which also happens to increase profits. The NFL is a good example of this. The vast majority of revenues are shared, which would arguably take away a big incentive to invest in your team and build a winner. However, NFL owners continue to invest in their teams at or near the cap amount because they want to win.
   81. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:18 AM (#3038663)
Many small market teams spend a higher percentage of their revenues on payroll than many large market teams.

Which they absolutely should since that was the whole intention of the free money given them.

First, even with revenue sharing, winning more games means more total revenue.

Yes, but it's the marginal revenue that matters, not the total revenue. The Mariners went from last in the league in revenue to 2nd in the late 90s and went from collecting millions of dollars to giving away millions of dollars (including, for example, the White Sox).

The NFL is a good example of this. The vast majority of revenues are shared,

The NFL isn't that far ahead of MLB in shared-revenues. There's an $800 million difference between the top valued franchise and the least, which one wouldn't see if the revenue streams were truly as shared as you claim.
   82. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:20 AM (#3038664)
Really? I seem to recall some bottom ten teams like the Marlins, Rays, Diamondbacks, Twins and A's having some success in the last ten years. When was the last time that the Mets (#3) or Dodgers (#4) won a WS?
And handful or anecdotal examples don't make for good analysis. Over the last 10 years, the largest 10 market teams have made it to the playoffs twice as often as the smallest 10 market teams. Small market teams occasionally have success. Large market teams usually have success. The Dodgers have been at .500 or above in eight of the last 10 years. They have won 85 or more games in six of the last 10 years. Their money allows them to be frequently in contention. The Rays have had one season with more than 70 wins in the last 10 years. Is that a sufficient standard of success? No one is arguing that being a small market team completely precludes success or that being a large market team always guarantees success. What I'm saying is that it is a major, inherent, structural advantage for large market teams and a similar disadvantage for small market teams.

And that's without even getting to Dan's point about revenues not matching up to market size the way you seem to be assuming that they do.

No, I don't think that revenues match up exactly with market size. But market size plays a big part in revenues. Small market teams have a much lower revenue potential than large market teams for some pretty obvious reasons.

Market size matters. Success isn't all about the size of your market or the size of your payroll. But market size affects revenue potential, and thus revenue, and thus a team's chances of succeeding. MLB would do well to improve some of these inherent inequalities of opportunity.
   83. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:23 AM (#3038668)
And handful or anecdotal examples don't make for good analysis. Over the last 10 years, the largest 10 market teams have made it to the playoffs twice as often as the smallest 10 market teams.

Of course they would - so many of those smallest market teams take their bribes not to compete.
   84. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:28 AM (#3038672)
If you look at Forbes' estimates, the #1 MLB team (NYY) has revenues of $327M, #10 $194M, #20 $165M, and #30 $128M. For the NFL, #1 is also $327M (WAS), #10 $224M, $20 204M, #32 195M.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Revenue.html
   85. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:38 AM (#3038675)
And handful or anecdotal examples don't make for good analysis.

Then you really should stop your bad analysis already. The bottom ten teams are frequently represented in the playoffs, and there are bottom ten teams like the Twins and A's that are consistently competitive. There are also top ten teams like the Giants whose recent efforts at fielding competitive teams can be accurately described as futile. The Braves were a model franchise for fifteen years, but have been pretty bad for the last three; it's not because revenue dropped, it's because new ownership decided they wanted higher profits.
   86. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:39 AM (#3038676)
If you're sending tens of millions of dollars to teams that generate little revenue on their own, there isn't just no incentive to put that money back into the team, there's an incentive to NOT put the money into the team.

This isn't necessarily regarded as a 'suicidal' problem with the current system. I mean, the Washington Generals have been paid some share of the gate in all their games with the Harlem Globetrotters.
   87. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:47 AM (#3038680)
Of course they would - so many of those smallest market teams take their bribes not to compete.

Come on, Dan. So you're arguing that small market teams are less competitive because of revenue sharing? So, if they hadn't received the revenue sharing funds, they would have been more likely to compete? Even if every small market team pocketed every penny of revenue sharing money and didn't re-invest it, that wouldn't put them in a worse position to compete than if there had been no revenue sharing at all. The revenue sharing money isn't keeping small market teams from competing.
   88. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 12:51 AM (#3038682)
Then you really should stop your bad analysis already. The bottom ten teams are frequently represented in the playoffs,
"Frequently represented in the playoffs." Over the last 10 years, they have been represented in the playoffs exactly half as often as the top 10 market teams.
and there are bottom ten teams like the Twins and A's that are consistently competitive
I guess that depends on what you mean by "consistently." While there are outliers, the overall data shows a large competitive imbalance between the large market and small market teams.
There are also top ten teams like the Giants whose recent efforts at fielding competitive teams can be accurately described as futile.
Yes, very recently the Giants have been bad. And then for several consecutive years before that, they were quite good.
   89. Wes Parkers Mood (Mike Green) Posted: December 27, 2008 at 01:38 AM (#3038693)
I have no beef with the Yankees, but it would be nice if there were a third team in New York (as there was for so long) to keep the revenue imbalance between them and the rest of the AL a little tighter.

I still think that they're going to finish third again next year, unless they spend some more money and spend it wisely. Right now, they're counting on the products of their farm system (Cano, Hughes, Chamberlain) to take a step up. It could happen, of course.
   90. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 27, 2008 at 01:39 AM (#3038694)
"Frequently represented in the playoffs." Over the last 10 years, they have been represented in the playoffs exactly half as often as the top 10 market teams.

But, that's the way it should be, if the league wants to maximize revenue. An "ideal" system, from the point of view of the owners, players, networks, etc., will have the large market teams more successful. After all, they have more fans. It makes more people happy (and willing to part with their $$$) if a big market team wins. You want the large market teams to have an advantage, but not as dominant one. 2:1 playoff appearances sounds about right.
   91. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 02:20 AM (#3038702)
You want the large market teams to have an advantage, but not as dominant one. 2:1 playoff appearances sounds about right.
A 2:1 ratio isn't a "dominant advantage"? What would be a dominant advanage? 5:1? 10:1? Large market teams are, indeed, dominant small market teams by any metric. Small market teams get to the playoffs far less often and usually contend for considerably smaller stretches of time than large market teams. I don't think a significantly uneven playing field is good for the game.
   92. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: December 27, 2008 at 04:04 AM (#3038744)
A 2:1 ratio isn't a "dominant advantage"? What would be a dominant advanage? 5:1? 10:1? Large market teams are, indeed, dominant small market teams by any metric. Small market teams get to the playoffs far less often and usually contend for considerably smaller stretches of time than large market teams. I don't think a significantly uneven playing field is good for the game.

2:1 between the top 10 revenue teams and the bottom 10? No, that isn't dominant.

A significantly uneven playing field is good for the game. The Yankees have 5 times the number of fans (or more) as the Marlins, and can generate much more revenue. If they and the Marlins are winning the same number of games on average, the league is losing a ton of revenue.

Not to go all economics on you, but, the league is operating most efficiently when the marginal value of a win is equal across all teams. A marginal win will generate more revenue in a big market: more tickets sold, at higher prices, and better ratings on TV, simply b/c there are more people in that market. Therefore, the big market teams need to win more, so the declining marginal value of a win, can help equalize the marginal revenue per win of all teams.
   93. BleedingBlue Posted: December 27, 2008 at 05:00 AM (#3038779)
I never was in favor of a salary cap- big markets, small markets, different strategies, you know, it's part of the game- but this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Bud Lite needs to step in and do something NOW.
   94. NYRoyal Posted: December 27, 2008 at 06:20 AM (#3038791)
Snapper, I think in order for MLB to thrive in the long-term, it needs a large, nation-wide fanbase. Maximizing the interest of the fanbases in large markets is not enough. Increasingly, revenue is coming from nationwide sources like MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM). I think maximizing revenue from those sources (MLB.com, the MLB cable channel, etc.) requires that the sport doesn't lose interest in wide swaths of the midwest, west and south. While your economic points are valid, I think it is overly simplistic to say that the sport on the whole benefits most from the large market teams doing well. Major sports with national, not just regional, sources of revenue (MLBAM, national TV contracts and especially the playoffs) need a large, national audience). I think MLB allows small market teams to starve and fail to compete to its own detriment.
   95. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 27, 2008 at 06:36 AM (#3038796)
If having NY teams is good for the league because they have more fans, why isn't it good for the league to have more teams in New York?
   96. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: December 27, 2008 at 06:37 AM (#3038797)
Sorry that should be "If having NY teams win more often is good for the league because they have more fans, why isn't it good for the league to have more teams in New York"
   97. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: December 27, 2008 at 09:04 AM (#3038807)
If having NY teams win more often is good for the league because they have more fans, why isn't it good for the league to have more teams in New York


Assuming "good for the league" means more money for everyone (attendance has skyrocketed the last 10 years, right along with the Yankee payroll) ... If the Yankees are relatively dominant, given that they have a large fanbase at home and a sizable one throughout the rest of the country (the same goes for the Red Sox ...)

1. Teams who play the Yankees by selling out, or having much greater attendance at, their games, are happy and make lots of money during those games. For division rivals like the Rays and the Orioles, that's more than 10 percent of their home games.
2. If the Yankees make the playoffs, TV stations that sign huge contracts with MLB are happy, since the Yankees bring in loads of viewers. More TV money.
3. If the Yankees are successful and make boatloads of money, the smaller market teams get boatloads of free money. Jeffrey Loria loves it when the Yankees make more dinero, because he pockets all that money (thank you, socialism!). In all likelihood, so do a dozen or so other small market owners. If you're a fan of a small market team, you get a really unfair competitive advantage, in the form of millions of dollars to spend on payroll. What??? Your team owner doesn't spend it on payroll, like the Yankees? He spends it on whores, cocaine and expensive German automobiles? I'm shocked!

94: I think the World Series champions of the last several years have satisfied fans all over the country.
2001: Southwest (Diamondbacks)
2002: West (Angels)
2003: South (Florida)
2004: East (Red Sox)
2005: Midwest (White Sox)
2006: Midwest (Cardinals)
2007: East (Red Sox)

Geez, despite the evil, evil Yankees spending all that ill-gotten lucre, league championships seem to have been evenly spread around in geographical terms lately. And the Yankees ain't won nuthin'.

I never was in favor of a salary cap- big markets, small markets, different strategies, you know, it's part of the game- but this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Bud Lite needs to step in and do something NOW.


Oh no. Tons of money is coming off the books for the Yankees. How dare they keep their payroll at the same level as last year's. There oughta be a law. Bud should outlaw the Yankees. He should outlaw money! It's not fair that they try to win and that they use their monetary advantage to field a competitive team. They should pocket that extra money like (insert smaller market team here) and spend it on expensive poontang and the mesmerizing gewgaws necessary to obtain said poontang.

it would be nice if there were a third team in New York (as there was for so long)


Yes, because the years leading up to 1958 are economically comparable to the last 50 years (especially the last 25-30). There should be eight teams in New York! And they all should have $0 payrolllzzzz!!!! All play for free!!!!
   98. calhounite Posted: December 27, 2008 at 03:03 PM (#3038833)
It's too late.

They won't pay 150 grand for a bad view just cuz it's outfitted with some cheap liquor?
well, yea
Well, they won't pay 2 grand for a joe smoe seat?
well, yea
Well, they won't pay for a stadium that can't afford to sit in?
well, yea
Even if the freakin "reform" mayor holds us up for a freebie, meaning outright, well publicized graft?
well, since it's not a senate seat, ...yea

Ok. It's over. Yogi Berra said it aint over until its over and when it's over

it's over.

Forget Thoreau's "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door,"

With MLB, it's burn all the mousetraps, advertise rat-yumyums as a mousetrap, and build an 8 lane superhigway to your door cuz you'll be needin it as the world gets overrun with mice.

What you have here are two pigs mucking around in an unlimited supply of pig slop. Personally don't get give a rat's ass if one pig bites the other pig in the ass while gouging some of that slop out of its mouth.. What worth's a rat's ass is how that public-provided pig slop can be constrained so as to not bite the public (taxpayer, average joe fan) so hard in the ass while moving back in some degree to the Thoreau theory..

What the other teams provide is their existence. The Yankees would be nothing without them, a 1-. It takes good cannonfodder to show up on time, provide their own equipment, clear out the -polle while getting themselves out of the way of the incoming and outgoing Yankee bus all in the process of forming a big fat 0.

But here's the key...there must be some chance of that 0 being converted into a 1. If the Yankees truly aren't going to blow their 200 mil wad, it should be understood...there's no competing against this. What exactly is a team supposed to buy with an extra 40 or 50 mil in order to "build a better mousetrap?" With that kind of dough there's nothing worth buying..The average free agent on the market around age 31 is named "losing proposition." He's named that cuz there's usually around 40 50 coming into prime minor league guys who could give a reasonable facsimile of losingprop's performance for a fraction of the price.

The cannonfodder already sign these guys...They sign em for two reasons...1) so can hang a "this is a major league team" sign on the front door..2) when they're in the bar with Steingroup, and Steingroups barkin about that lardass Giamgi being a roider, and how he thought only wanted that roid clause in there to remove the temptation, they can join it the convo with something like "Tell me about it. why that lardbutt Lawton...."


There needs to be a hard cap. That puts a muzzle on one pig..Then the other pig won't be thinking about there being no more slop at the bottom of the unlimited slop trough.
   99. Jolly Old St. Overreacting Redneck Homophobe Posted: December 27, 2008 at 03:13 PM (#3038834)
i like the projection of 1 triple in each year of the contract. that's something he will have to take care of early in the season so that the pressure to meet expectations doesn't become too great.
   100. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 27, 2008 at 03:17 PM (#3038835)
Hey, man, if you can afford the aljunquin club, you can at least afford to watch em on TV.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 1.1805 seconds
66 querie(s) executed