Does anyone think its funny...

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 12, 2005, 2:19 am

... that George Steinbrenner paid over $200 million for a team that couldn't do it, yet again? The price tag soars but all Georgie's Gold can't buy him another championship.

Personally, I don't care what sport it is, I just laugh my ass off when a team's management has their spending out of control and ends up with nothing to show for it. I feel a bit for the long time fans suffering through this, but I feel more for the fans of teams who can't afford to compete with the salaries he offers and thus watch so many of their stars migrate to the Great Vault of the East.

The sad part is, as high profile as the Yankees are, he's probably not losing much, if any money, because of the advertising and marketing revenues...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 12, 2005, 9:34 am

Only people like you who revel in sucessful people failures. I bet you love it when Bill Gates flops.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » October 12, 2005, 9:54 am

Why is it wrong to feel good when a team, that tried to pay its way into a playoff, doesnt make it?''

Personally, I love it when they fail too mainly because it shows you need to make smart decisions when getting players and not a big checkbook.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 12, 2005, 10:13 am

Because every team is trying to buy their way into a championship. It just so happens George is in a bigger market and is willing to part with more of his larger team income to get better players. I just fail to understand the problem with what he does. Personally I would get more frusrtated with the other teams that sit on their money and pocket it, rather than spend it to improve their teams.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » October 12, 2005, 10:52 am

I think we poor folk like to stick it to the rich folk when we can. It brings the rich folk down a bit closer to our level. Not a lot, but a bit.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 12, 2005, 11:43 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Because every team is trying to buy their way into a championship. It just so happens George is in a bigger market and is willing to part with more of his larger team income to get better players. I just fail to understand the problem with what he does. Personally I would get more frusrtated with the other teams that sit on their money and pocket it, rather than spend it to improve their teams.

I couldn't agree more. George doesn't have to put any money on the field if he doesn't want to. The revenue stream for this team is massive. In addition, money gets funneled back into the league due to the luxury tax and the other teams draw better when the Yanks come into town. Loving to hate a team is very good for business.

Besides, it's kinda fun seeing all of the ex-Yankees who are actually in the playoffs this year.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 12, 2005, 12:54 pm

The problem when you have a huge spending team is that other teams have to spend to compete (or think they do). If they don't spend, their fans complain about their low budget team that is not even sniffing playoffs. In order to spend the amount of money required to compete, the teams have to charge ridiculous prices for tickets, parking, concessions, etc. Soooo......all the prices come right back down to Joe Schmoe who wants to see a ball game....but then has to take out a second mortgage to take his family of 4 to see one single game.

IMO, they need to cap baseball salaries and also regulate ticket prices or increases yearly. The Yankees have a huge advanatge over the rest of the league in that they get revenue from their own network in addition to other forms of revenue that are not stadium ticket generated.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 12, 2005, 12:56 pm

The Diamondbacks proved you could buy a championship back in 2001 but it screwed them up for years afterwards (they're still screwed).

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2005, 1:06 pm

Steinbrenner's antics do actually hurt other teams. He drives up the market price for marginal players (Jaret Wright for example). Then when comparable or better pitchers are in arbitration or straight negotiations, their salary target is higher.

At any rate, why shouldn't people who don't like the Yankees be happy to see them fail?

Spending a lot of money and breaking even and not achieving your goals does not equate to success.

Everybody talks shit about how the Braves are not successful, but they spend every penny they make (happens to be around $80M) and achieved the same results the Yankees did by spending $200M.

What is more successful? I'd say doing it for 40% of the operating costs personally, though they net out the same.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » October 12, 2005, 1:39 pm

Kilmoll and Voro have pretty much summed up most of my thoughts on the issue. I look at what happened in Montreal as an example: they had a history of taking raw talent and developing it, but once it developed, they couldn't afford to keep up with the spending of other clubs to hang onto their free agents... amd each time the Yankees or someone else signs the next "biggest contract evar" it increases the pressure on the smaller markets. The Expos may not be a great example, in that they were probably held in higher regard almost every else than Montreal, and that all other sports come in a distant second to Les Canadiens, but the cycle of developing players they can't afford to keep was a major contributor to fan apathy and declining attendance.

And seriously, how good for the game would it be if Steinbrenner was successful and won his championship every year? Most sport fans I know want their teams to have a shot at the ring, not just 2nd place...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » October 12, 2005, 2:46 pm

The Pirates are in the same boat as a lot of other small market teams, even with their new park. Good farm system, good talent evaluation and development, not enough cash to keep them from leaving to LA, NY, ect. when they hit free agency.

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » October 12, 2005, 2:54 pm

My opinion is you can't blame the Yankees or the Devil Rays (for example). The rules of baseball (or lack thereof) make it possible to spend as much or as little as you want on payroll. I believe Jason Stark said on Mike and Mike this morning that there are teams that have a payroll less than the amount they receive solely from revenue sharing; meaning, money from tickets, parking, concessions, etc. is going directly to the owner's pocket.

Obviously the solution to this problem is a salary cap AND salary minimum. Limitations on payroll must be approached delicately though. Sure you'll get competitive balance, but if fans in big markets lose interest in their mediocre teams then the entire league suffers the consequences.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 12, 2005, 4:28 pm

Voronwë wrote:Steinbrenner's antics do actually hurt other teams. He drives up the market price for marginal players (Jaret Wright for example). Then when comparable or better pitchers are in arbitration or straight negotiations, their salary target is higher.

When it comes time for the initial arbitration, that is true, but what happens to the Yankees when they get a bum contract? They get stuck with overpriced bums they can't move. How do these poeple get traded away, the Yanks eat part of the contract and empty out their farm system. Cano and Wang were /this/ close to being moved to some other team and they were the first two guys from the farm to make a dent on this team in a long time. So for 200 mil you get a collection of players while most everyone else save for Boston has to build a team.
You can be sure that owners are glad someone like Steinbrenner is around. I think he helps everyone else's finanaces more than he hurts them.

I wouldn't worry about the Yankees forever though. Their success is largely built around Rivera. You can be sure that once he's gone, the team isn't going to be anywhere near the same foe.

In order to spend the amount of money required to compete, the teams have to charge ridiculous prices for tickets, parking, concessions, etc. Soooo......all the prices come right back down to Joe Schmoe who wants to see a ball game....but then has to take out a second mortgage to take his family of 4 to see one single game.

It all comes down to wanting to see the product on the field and if you feel it's worth it. Don't go if you can't afford to go. Even though it's in the shittiest part of the Bronx with the most expensive seats short of Fenway, they get 50+k every night they take the field. The problem with Atlanta is that the town doesn't even give a shit when they are winning. There was nearly 10,000 empty seats in game one and 4,000 empty seats in game two of their playoffs. That's fucking pathetic.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 12, 2005, 5:53 pm

Obviously the solution to this problem is a salary cap AND salary minimum.

I agree. $60-120 million.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 12, 2005, 6:17 pm

Sueven wrote:
Obviously the solution to this problem is a salary cap AND salary minimum.
I agree. $60-120 million.

The Player's Association will never accept a cap. You have to at least protect the players who marquee for their teams. I always felt they should "franchise" x number of players (maybe 5ish) and the remainder of the roster gets capped in the 30 to 50 million min-max range. It prevents highest bidder syndrome for every player that's eligible by just a couple of teams yet still gives the stars (who ARE the ones bringing the people into the park) the payday.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2005, 7:00 pm

in the geographical radius that is equivalent to metropolitan Atlanta, the Yankees have over 25 million people from which to draw (as opposed to 4.5 for Atlanta). Though they share that market with 2 other teams. that being said, the amount of corporate ticket ownership in a market like New York cannot be compared to anywhere else on earth. Additionally, the Yankees have a fan base built on 85 years of success in one market. The Braves have a fan base built on 15 years of success in their 3rd market.

Turner Field is in a shitty part of town, as is Yankee Stadium. That being said, NYC has public transportation that is actually worth a shit. Atlanta does not, and people don't like to use it either.

I will say, that i think it was pretty sad that there were empty seats for Game 2 of the division series.

But i only draw the above comparison - not to belabor the discussion on Braves/Yankees - but to say that you cannot compare the Yankees to any other team in terms of demand for their product, cost structure, etc.

They are in the largest media market on earth, and are the kings of it. Good for them.

The problem with a cap and a minimum also is on the owners.

Baseball gets most of its media money from local market contracts. That means the Yankees will always make more money than Milwaukee. Always. There is no local market telecast for the NFL, its all national rights - which allow broadcasters to also show in local markets. plus their ratings are a lot higher (and their inventory is a lot lower - fewer games), so their advertising revenues scale accordingly.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 12, 2005, 7:16 pm

You're probably right that the players would not accept a cap, but I disagree that such a cap would prevent franchise players from being rewarded for their performance. The only team in MLB with a payroll significantly beyond $120 million are the Yankees, but that hasn't stopped Manny Ramirez, Carlos Beltran, Jim Thome and Roger Clemens from getting absurd paydays from clubs with various payrolls.

If the cap was $120 million, a team could sign two players for $20 million a season and still have $80 million to play with. Incidentally, only 11 teams have a total payroll greater than $80 million now.

It doesn't bother me that some teams choose to invest more or less of their income in their teams. What does bother me is distance between the outliers and the rest of the pack. The Yankees payroll is about 7 times that of the Devil Rays. The gap between the Yankees and the Red Sox is about $85 million-- more than all but ten teams. The Devil Rays payroll is less than half that of any playoff team.

It is not the Yankees fault that this is the case (although it very well might be the Devil Rays fault), but the fact that they are not morally responsible does not mean that no problem exists. From the point of view of the competitive well-being of baseball as a whole, the current system is unacceptable and unsustainable as the system of a legitimately competitive sports league.

Post by **Xouqoa** » October 12, 2005, 9:10 pm

Chidoro wrote:The Player's Association will never accept a cap.

That's what the NHLPA said too, and look what happened.

Salary caps are good for professional sports. That's really all there is to it.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 12, 2005, 9:38 pm

Xouqoa wrote:
Chidoro wrote:The Player's Association will never accept a cap.
That's what the NHLPA said too, and look what happened.

Salary caps are good for professional sports. That's really all there is to it.

You can't even begin to compare the two. Hockey was losing money hand over fist on all accounts. The owners refused to put them on the ice because they lost more money playing than not. The massive signings were done before they realized that tv rating for even the Stanley Cup wouldn't reach a lousy 2.0. The money was never there for Hockey to give out. Baseball, on the other hand, makes money hand over fist. The revenue streams dwarf the NHL in number of and amount of.

Baseball gets most of its media money from local market contracts. That means the Yankees will always make more money than Milwaukee. Always. There is no local market telecast for the NFL, its all national rights - which allow broadcasters to also show in local markets. plus their ratings are a lot higher (and their inventory is a lot lower - fewer games), so their advertising revenues scale accordingly.

That's because the NFL created a system before TV revenue streams could be quantified. In addition, the very nature of the NFL and it's revenue is nearly all based on it's network revenue. It had to be. They only play once a week. Rosters are double the size of other professional sports. It was smart thinking on their part. But baseball is a completely different animal.

I'd also like to add that the cost of doing business in Milwaukee is nowhere near that of NY. Furthermore, there are probably five times as many choices tugging at someone's interest in the NY metropolitan than that of Atlanta.

Suev, I'm pretty sure Boston is above 140 mil these days but I'm not positive. They are adding more seats to Fenway for a reason. You can be sure they'd be spending toe for toe w/ NY if they had 15k more seats in there. In addition, the Yankees shed 33 mil off the top this year from just two players. I'm not saying they aren't going to make it up somewhere, but it is what it is. Besides, what is the point of suggesting a solution that will never be accepted?