Agreed. Ownership should totally just pocket the money.

And isn't 3 wins from a *manager* pretty damn good?

NOW is the time to "Occupy the Marlins?" Wasn't the time to occupy them when they were raking in the dough and then not spending anything on the team? Seems to me that they are finally doing what we should want them to do.

Time for the public to be treated as a partner, as opposed to goodie-stuffed piñata.

Pfffft, the public at least gets to watch them play. What do Young Masters Steinbrenner get out of the Marlins scam, given that they've largely funded it?

isn't 3 wins from a *manager* pretty damn good?

Yes, I'd love a cite to that study.

What do Young Masters Steinbrenner get out of the Marlins scam, given that they've largely funded it?

They get the continued existence of their territorial rights, which are worth much more than they lose to revenue sharing.

They get the continued existence of their territorial rights,

So do the Marlins. How much are they paying for the privilege?

So do the Marlins. How much are they paying for the privilege?

Considerably less than the Yankees because it's worth considerably less.

Considerably less than the Yankees because it's worth considerably less.

Can you give me a number?

Can you give me a number?

Can you give me a number on the Yankees?

YR - I've asked this before and never gotten an answer. What is your issue with the "Yankee tax." I can understand a general dislike of it but you have a level of outrage to it that seems non-sensical. It's not like it is keeping the Yankees from being competitive or retaining beloved players and presumably you are not a minority owner of the club who has money coming out of his own pocket, I just don't understand the level of disgust.

Can you give me a number on the Yankees?

The Yankees paid out roughly $130 million between revenue sharing and luxury tax last year.

Your turn.

Why does luxury tax money count?

you are not a minority owner of the club who has money coming out of his own pocket, I just don't understand the level of disgust.

he wants the steinbrenners to finally have enough money to buy fear to put in pedro martinez' heart.

The Yankees and Mets average about $330M in revenue. Successful small-market clubs like the Brewers, Reds, and Rays average about $170M in revenue. So the Yankees paying $100M for the privilege of maintaining their territorial rights and supporting baseball in cities with far less revenue potential seems about right.

YR - I've asked this before and never gotten an answer. What is your issue with the "Yankee tax."

Well it was implemented solely to target the Yankees, and I don't think the Commissioner of Baseball should be actively looking to hinder or hamstring a specific team unless they're doing something illegal. That's one objection.

Another is the complete and total lack of transparency from the league office, for whom I hold no trust. Where, specifically, does each purloined dollar go? Are there any restrictions as to how it may be used? Can the Commissioner award money from this harvest to another team for any reason?

It's not like it is keeping the Yankees from being competitive or retaining beloved players

That doesn't make it right, it just means the wrongs aren't crippling. Here, I'll kick the beehive - as long as there's a "Coloreds Only" water fountain next to the "Whites Only" water fountain, where's the harm? Everyone still gets to drink. Hell, it's the same plumbing providing water to each!

presumably you are not a minority owner of the club who has money coming out of his own pocket

Nothing more limited than being a limited partner of Young Masters Steinbrenner!

I just don't understand the level of disgust.

The whole revenue sharing scam was a boondoggle to begin with and I think the Marlins are an excellent illustration of exactly why and how. Jeffrey Loria stuffed the money in his pockets for a decade, certainly not using it to reward his players or improve his marketing to the local fanbase. It doesn't matter what he does with it, it's free, it's his, and it won't ever stop. If this end result were known back in the late-90s when Bud's scheme was first pitched, nobody would have signed on to it - these were monies to be used by the poor underclass to dole out to their underprivileged players, not boodle to fund Carl Pohlad's new yacht or David Glass's third private jet.

And in the spirit of the Occupy Movement as referenced by the author, wouldn't it be interesting to see these ownerships, all manned by heroes of capitalism and job creators par excelance, publicly admit that mere wealth in itself can provide advantages which no amount of clever thinking or hard work can long overcome? That redistribution as a philosophy leads to improved equity and a better outcome for all?

Don't hold your breath. These Brooks Brothers Bolsheviks all know that only the right sort of people can be trusted with free barrels of other people's money. Give it to the untermenchen and you'll just sap their will and make them lazy.

mere wealth in itself can provide advantages which no amount of clever thinking or hard work can long overcome?

This is from a Yankee's fan? That is against revenue sharing?

mere wealth in itself can provide advantages which no amount of clever thinking or hard work can long overcome?

The freakin' Mets make $50-75M more than well-run small-market franchises like the Rays and Brewers. If you want to see what the offsets between "clever thinking / hard work" and in-born advantages are, look no further. Simply being in New York is a subsidy from the MLB cartel on the order of $100M or so.

Well, YR, I guess the only thing to do is for the Steinbrenners to get out of the game. They have been burdened too much to adequately perform their duties. Or we can truly level the playing field and allow 7 teams in the NY metropolitan area. I'm sure the Yankees would deem it more fair to actually allow other teams to compete for all those dollars than to just be forced to give a little bit of it away.

YR - Thanks. Still think you're over the top but appreciate the reasoning.

The freakin' Mets make $50-75M more than well-run small-market franchises like the Rays and Brewers. If you want to see what the offsets between "clever thinking / hard work" and in-born advantages are, look no further. Simply being in New York is a subsidy from the MLB cartel on the order of $100M or so.

It's only been in the last 3 or 4 years that either could compete, and that's because the Mets lost a lot of money on the Madoff thing and might be losing more, crippling their liquidity. 5 years from now I expect the Mets to go back to regularly topping the Brewers and Rays no matter how clever the thinking. The lack of top 10 draft picks is going to come back and hurt the Rays and the Brewers are going to fade as the Cubs, Pirates, and Astros all get their #### together.

Oh, sure. But even at the peak for the Brewers and Rays, and the trough for the Mets, the Mets are out-earning these model small-market franchises by tens of millions of dollars.

Oh, sure. But even at the peak for the Brewers and Rays, and the trough for the Mets, the Mets are out-earning these model small-market franchises by tens of millions of dollars.

Indeed. I don't see how it could get much worse for the Mets unless they send Jerry Sandusky overseas to open baseball camps for 10 year old children, yet they still have a gigantic advantage in terms of revenue.

The freakin' Mets make $50-75M more than well-run small-market franchises like the Rays and Brewers.

According to Forbes, the Padres were the most profitable team in baseball in 2010.Since the majority of their profit came from the free $30 million courtesy of confiscatory Budshovism, they had no qualms jettisoning their best, most popular player after the season, not even making an effort at an extension All this no-strings free money makes some interesting business models.

Well, YR, I guess the only thing to do is for the Steinbrenners to get out of the game.

If the Yankees are to exist to fund the rest of the league and enrich the personal coffers of other owners, it only seems wise for the league to scrape together the $1 billion+ and purchase the team outright. But of course that would be too overt and ruin all of the PR-driven subterfuge that robs the Yankees of $100 million+ each and every year. Why buy the milk when you can #### the cow for free?

Or we can truly level the playing field and allow 7 teams in the NY metropolitan area.

Who could afford to start a new franchise in NYC? These same poormouth plutocrats walking around teary-eyed in their barrel-and-suspenders outfit at the winter meetings every year, pockets everted, begging for their revenue sharing check while telling their fans they just can't afford to retain their own players?

Yes. Interesting, ain't it? I assume you'd want to open up the territorial rights for all teams though, not just the Yankees, so I think you'd find that the ownerships much prefer their insulated fiefdoms to direct competition. Nobody is going to move to New York City and run the Yankees into the ground. I wonder if Jeffrey Loria feels the same way about his walled garden in South Florida.

Matt Moore: 8th round
Desmond Jennings: 10th round
Hellickson: 4rth round.

I'll believe it when I see it. Besides, by then they'll either be contracted or in Brooklyn.

so I think you'd find that the ownerships much prefer their insulated fiefdoms to direct competition. Nobody is going to move to New York City and run the Yankees into the ground.

So the Yankees have nothing to worry about and would be willing to waive their territorial rights I assume...

According to Forbes, the Padres were the most profitable team in baseball in 2010.

I was talking about revenue, not profit. The issue at hand is the massively greater revenue potential of large markets, and the value of the territorial rights which prevent other clubs from sharing in those revenue streams. The value of territorial rights can be seen in that way in which a very poorly run franchise in New York can bring in revenue at a rate far higher than a well-run franchise in a small market.

This is from a Yankee's fan? That is against revenue sharing?

I love baseball but let's be honest that professional sports is a fundamentally frivolous endeavor. Welfare for billionaires in the name of "fairness" is pretty repugnant when normal working people have to suffer real tangible consequences from inequality and limited access to services every day. The real measure of fairness and parity shouldn't be whether Jeffrey Loria's bank account is as big as Hal Steinbrenner's, it should be whether the vendors and parking attendants working under Mr. Loria have health insurance and quality schools.

Like I said, I'd love to hear from the various ownerships about how they feel about redistributionist schemes designed to benefit non-billionaires. Free money for me, but none for thee? Grab your own bootstraps, lad? I got mine, you get yours? Or perhaps there's a secret untapped wellspring of enthusiasm for increased taxation and public works from baseball front offices league-wide. I'd certainly like to know. Wouldn't you?

So the Yankees have nothing to worry about and would be willing to waive their territorial rights I assume...

To reiterate: I assume you'd want to open up the territorial rights for all teams though, not just the Yankees, so I think you'd find that the ownerships much prefer their insulated fiefdoms to direct competition. Nobody is going to move to New York City and run the Yankees into the ground. I wonder if Jeffrey Loria feels the same way about his walled garden in South Florida.

Like I said, I'd love to hear from the various ownerships about how they feel about redistributionist schemes designed to benefit non-billionaires. Free money for me, but none for thee? Grab your own bootstraps, lad? I got mine, you get yours? Or perhaps there's a secret untapped wellspring of enthusiasm for increased taxation and public works from baseball front offices league-wide. I'd certainly like to know. Wouldn't you?

To be clear, I'm totally on board with this. The MLB cartel engages in a process of regulation and redistribution which I'd bet most owners oppose on a national level when they aren't the ones who benefit.

BUT... you're echoing the language of Randians talking about the owners of the Yankees as if they produced all this wealth out of their own genius. (Admittedly you haven't portrayed either Steinbrenner as a sympathetic rapist, but it's at least the economic language of the Randians.) The Steinbrenners are not heroic individualist capitalists who should go Galt on the MLB system. They benefit massively from the MLB cartel, particularly in its restrictions on franchise movement and on franchise expansion, just as the wealthy in America benefit from the social, political, and economic structures of America. They have benefitted massively from the handed-down wealth not only of their father, but of the Yankee franchise which was born on third base in the biggest city in the country, just as a huge proportion of the wealthy in American society were themselves born into privilege.

I assume you'd want to open up the territorial rights for all teams though, not just the Yankees, so I think you'd find that the ownerships much prefer their insulated fiefdoms to direct competition. Nobody is going to move to New York City and run the Yankees into the ground.

Yes all teams. And so if nobody would move to NYC, do you think the Yankees would be willing to approve this?

The other major benefit provided by the cartel is the restriction on expansion. Even if other owners wouldn't move their clubs to the nyc area, free expansion would allow enterprising capitalists to take advantage of their timidity and compete for the lucrative nyc market.

isn't 3 wins from a *manager* pretty damn good?

If Ozzie were worth 3 wins, he's by far the best investment the team has made. That 10 million is spread over 4 years. Mark Buerhle will make 58 million over that span, and he's been worth about 4 wins per year over his 11 years as a starter.

It verges on performance art for someone to so thoroughly argue on behalf of Young Masters Steinbrenner how repugnant it is for people to receive millions of dollars for doing nothing.

Who could afford to start a new franchise in NYC? These same poormouth plutocrats walking around teary-eyed in their barrel-and-suspenders outfit at the winter meetings every year, pockets everted, begging for their revenue sharing check while telling their fans they just can't afford to retain their own players?

This is absolutely hilarious everything-in-NY-is-greater bias. Yes, of course they would. There are only 2 teams smart and clever enough to find a way to make a profit off an area of +20 million rabid baseball fans? Really, that's your argument?

I assume you'd want to open up the territorial rights for all teams though, not just the Yankees, so I think you'd find that the ownerships much prefer their insulated fiefdoms to direct competition. Nobody is going to move to New York City and run the Yankees into the ground. I wonder if Jeffrey Loria feels the same way about his walled garden in South Florida.

Yes I would. I would love to see poor-team-X go "you know what, screw that baseball market in NY that has no problem selling $200 box seats, lets try to carve out a piece out of the market that's dead last in attendance in the NL."

There are only 2 teams smart and clever enough to find a way to make a profit off an area of +20 million rabid baseball fans?

And one of those two teams is the Mets.

This is absolutely hilarious everything-in-NY-is-greater bias. Yes, of course they would. There are only 2 teams smart and clever enough to find a way to make a profit off an area of +20 million rabid baseball fans? Really, that's your argument?

yeah, and it's not the NY teams who like the territorial rights, but the welfare ones because otherwise teams would be knocking down the door for a chance to re-locate to the baseball goldmines of St. Pete and Miami...

BUT... you're echoing the language of Randians talking about the owners of the Yankees as if they produced all this wealth out of their own genius.

Mr. Steinbrenner's willingness to spend money, even at the risk of pushing his ledger into the red, was a significant risk on his part. Indeed, given that I've been repeatedly told on this very site that it was entirely unfair to expect multibillionaires like Carl Pohlad to use his own person fortune to supplement the operation of his Twins, Mr. Steinbrenner's largess in providing his fanbase with a winning, exciting team may not have constituted "genius" per se (a term so laughably overused that I've repeatedly heard it applied to Little Wayne) but it does represent an assumption of risk which few others have been willing to emulate. You didn't see baseball most profitable team in 2010, the San Diego Padres, assuming any such risk in offering Adrian Gonzales a new contract equivalent to what the Red Sox did. Why should they? They're getting a $30 million check from the league every year regardless, why spend it on a player when ownership can keep it?

The Steinbrenners are not heroic individualist capitalists who should go Galt on the MLB system. They benefit massively from the MLB cartel, particularly in its restrictions on franchise movement and on franchise expansion

All of which predate Mr. Steinbrenner's purchase of the Yankees by several decades. This isn't some plum that only benefits teams in New York City, it benefits each and every team in the league. Would San Diego have been able to generate such gigantic profits if the Rays were allowed to relocate in their backyard? Qualcomm Park is still right there, making the move a much more feasible and realistic proposal than some upstart rebuilding Ebbets Field.

They have benefitted massively from the handed-down wealth not only of their father

The heritance of wealth is a much different issue than the ones I'm discussing here. The cadaverous Carl Pohlad may be gone, but the Pohlad spawn continue to rake in the bucks. That's neither here nor there.

but of the Yankee franchise which was born on third base in the biggest city in the country

Along with the Dodgers and Giants, who fled the biggest city in the country for greener pastures. Were they also born on third base? What base do they occupy currently?

just as a huge proportion of the wealthy in American society were themselves born into privilege.

And we're back to the beginning - is the forced confiscation of earned wealth in order to achieve more equitable outcomes a matter of principle amongst the ownership, or a matter of self-enriching and hypocritical greed? I suspect the later, which is why I've mocked declarations of the former since such sentiments were first foisted by Bolshevik Bud and his cronies almost 15 years ago.

If you want to limit the influence of money in baseball, I've been an open proponent of a hard salary cap, set at $20-40 million per team. If you aren't interested in disbursing revenues to the players when they can be pocketed by ownership, just be open about it instead of these ridiculous piecemeal efforts of revenue redistribution, luxury taxes, free draft picks, and fixed draft budgets set by the league.

is the forced confiscation of earned wealth in order to achieve more equitable outcomes a matter of principle amongst the ownership, or a matter of self-enriching and hypocritical greed?

Is your support for the Steinbrenners keeping all their revenue based on your belief that heroic capitalists should not have their money stolen at gunpoint? Or do you likewise have different standards for baseball and national political economics?

There's no question that George Steinbrenner ran the Yankees well (eventually, at least). What I've been pointing out is that we can look at the Mets to see what happens when you're born on third base and run the team poorly - you still rake in huge revenues, far larger than the revenues of well-run small market teams. The Yankees success is a function of both the intelligent risks their ownership has taken and the cartelized structure of MLB which enabled them to take those risks, just as wealthy entrepreneurs typically benefit both from their own insight and work as well as from the infrastructure, regulation, and social capital which had already developed around them in the American economy.

All of which predate Mr. Steinbrenner's purchase of the Yankees by several decades. This isn't some plum that only benefits teams in New York City, it benefits each and every team in the league.

That's like saying revenue sharing benefits each and every team in the league. E.G., no team is going to commit suicide by moving to be the 2nd team in Pittsburgh, so even though the Pirates have the same territorial rights - it happens to be worthless to them.

This is absolutely hilarious everything-in-NY-is-greater bias. Yes, of course they would. There are only 2 teams smart and clever enough to find a way to make a profit off an area of +20 million rabid baseball fans? Really, that's your argument?

Well, what would you estimate the startup costs as to create a new franchise out of whole cloth in New York City?

yeah, and it's not the NY teams who like the territorial rights, but the welfare ones because otherwise teams would be knocking down the door for a chance to re-locate to the baseball goldmines of St. Pete and Miami...

Miami would be a great baseball city with a better ownership. During their title run in 1997 they drew 2.4 million fans to a lousy stadium. Wayne Huizenga seriously damaged the fanbase in South Florida and Jeffrey Loria's penury continued the trend. I'm from Miami so I think I know of what I speak, it's the only place I've ever lived where random kids play pick-up baseball just like they play basketball in other cities.

The Marlins have finally spent a bit of that unearned money this offseason. Do you think they'll outperform last year's attendance as a result of a better team on the field?

Well, what would you estimate the startup costs as to create a new franchise out of whole cloth in New York City?

What this points out, of course, is another important benefit that the Yankees have drawn from the MLB cartel.

Because other teams have been prevented for decades from moving to New York, the infrastructure has never been laid to enable another club to start up. These decades of protection which the Yankees have received have a value in themselves which is paid off in the difficulty of relocating, if the cartel lifted its ban on franchise movement or expansion.

Miami would be a great baseball city with a better ownership. During their title run in 1997 they drew 2.4 million fans to a lousy stadium. Wayne Huizenga seriously damaged the fanbase in South Florida and Jeffrey Loria's penury continued the trend. I'm from Miami so I think I know of what I speak, it's the only place I've ever lived where random kids play pick-up baseball just like they play basketball in other cities.

That's irrelevant to what I was saying. If there was a team that could re-locate without restriction right now, there are 20 other cities that the team would prefer to move to ahead of Miami or Tampa. So therefore the territorial rights are near-worthless for them.

It verges on performance art for someone to so thoroughly argue on behalf of Young Masters Steinbrenner how repugnant it is for people to receive millions of dollars for doing nothing.

I have long suspected this was precisely what Y-R was doing.

Well, what would you estimate the startup costs as to create a new franchise out of whole cloth in New York City?

Considering how much MLB helps out in the process, and how well owners sucker taxpayers into paying their costs, not as much as you want to make it out to be. All the time, new businesses somehow manage to scratch and claw their way into the New York market, I would have to imagine MLB can do the same.

What this points out, of course, is another important benefit that the Yankees have drawn from the MLB cartel.

Free stadiums from the league?

the infrastructure has never been laid to enable another club to start up.

That didn't stop the Mets. Or are we restricting our discussion to relevant teams?

These decades of protection which the Yankees have received have a value in themselves which is paid off in the difficulty of relocating

That sounds suspiciously like the talk of a shakedown artist. How much would you be willing to pay for rights previously enjoyed gratis for decades? Because, you know, it would be a shame if anything happened to them.

if the cartel lifted its ban on franchise movement or expansion.

I like the idea of free expansion. How would that work? Could we Primates all chip in a few bucks, draft a logo, and head on down to the local welfare office to apply for our revenue sharing checks? Once we get that first $50 million in-hand we'll be able to work something out with the local high school field, and I'll handle international scouting from my winter villa in the Dominican.

That's irrelevant to what I was saying. If there was a team that could re-locate without restriction right now, there are 20 other cities that the team would prefer to move to ahead of Miami or Tampa.

Why not Miami, a ripe plum with little competition? The idea that there are 20 other preferable MLB cities eager to support a new team strikes me as questionable. Bring back the Browns?

That sounds suspiciously like the talk of a shakedown artist. How much would you be willing to pay for rights previously enjoyed gratis for decades? Because, you know, it would be a shame if anything happened to them.

So, you're now agreeing that the MLB cartel has provided the Yankees with great benefits over the years, and you're just complaining that they might charge for these benefits?

Why not Miami, a ripe plum with little competition? The idea that there are 20 other preferable MLB cities eager to support a new team strikes me as questionable.

They would have the new-stadium and talent-rich Marlins as competition. You think someone would bank on there being enough baseball fans with money to spend and who have been alienated by the Marlins to support a team down there? I think they'd not be insane and would try to move somewhere else where there is more money.

Considering how much MLB helps out in the process, and how well owners sucker taxpayers into paying their costs, not as much as you want to make it out to be.

I'm not sure how eager New York taxpayers would be to fund a new stadium, having already recently contributed to two, but I wouldn't be opposed to asking the question. I'm guessing it was easier to sucker Miami taxpayers into funding one than it would be to get New York taxpayers to fund a third.

All the time, new businesses somehow manage to scratch and claw their way into the New York market, I would have to imagine MLB can do the same.

And all the time, businesses not located in New York achieve great and sustained success without demanding windfall welfare. What is it about these heroes of capitalism in the ownership suites that makes them turn so pink when league revenues are brought up? Where's that American can-do spirit of achievement?

I'm not sure how eager New York taxpayers would be to fund a new stadium, having already recently contributed to two,

Put the new team in NYS then. Keep that sucker full 162 times a year. Maybe then the City can recoup some of its investment.

So, you're now agreeing that the MLB cartel has provided the Yankees with great benefits over the years, and you're just complaining that they might charge for these benefits?

They're called territorial rights. Rights aren't benefits, they're rights. How much would you pony up for your free speech these days? What's wrong with a little poll tax between friends?

Put the new team in NYS then. Keep that sucker full 162 times a year. Maybe then the City can recoup some of its investment.

What about the Yankees' investment?

They're called territorial rights. Rights aren't benefits, they're rights.

Wait, you believe that corporations all have inborn, natural rights to prevent other corporations from locating in their region to compete with them?

I've heard some defenses of the "corporations are people" argument which indeed argue that certain human rights obtain to corporations, but I've never heard of a right against competition.

EDIT: This is the point when I leave the conversation. I've been had. YR likes to begin the thread as if he's explaining in good faith a position he actually holds, and then builds up to pure performance art. I tend to pick up on it way too slowly.

Really, post #52 might as well be asking me if I knew "gullible" wasn't in the dictionary, and I still went for it.

EDIT: This is the point when I leave the conversation. I've been had. YR likes to begin the thread as if he's explaining in good faith a position he actually holds, and then builds up to pure performance art. I tend to pick up on it way too slowly.

heh. I think you should reply everytime he posts something about 'revenue stealing' with "it's called revenue sharing, and by definition sharing isn't stealing."