Damned Yankees

Blackadar · 02-09-2003, 10:22 AM

I'm not trying to turn this into another "what's wrong with baseball" discussion, but I'm incredulous that the Yankees are starting Contreras is going to be in the bullpen. Between him and Sterling Hitchcock, they have $14 million in setup men. Their payroll is an astronomic $170 million. That's $45 million more than the next highest team, the Mets and 60% greater than the Red Sox ($103 million). Absurd.

Hell, they gave Lieber $3 million to see if he'll be able to pitch. They paid $350,000 just for the right to negotiate with RHP Ramon Ramirez of the Hiroshima Carp.

McSweeny · 02-09-2003, 10:23 AM

that's the Boss for ya. Us sox fans know what he's like. Just gives you more reason to hate the yankees more than anything

Tarkus · 02-09-2003, 10:32 AM

What you guys don't get is that this is just a smart move by the Yankees. Next year they will most likely lose Clemens, Wells, and Hitchcock, and that glut of pitching will be gone. At that point their starters will be Contreras, Weaver, Mussina and Pettitte. Lieber at this point is an unknown. That's only four starting pitchers for sure. At that point watch for the boss to go out and get Colon, who to my knowledge has yet to sign an extention and will be an FA next year. Then all you anti-Yankee whiners can start bitching some more.

Tarkus

McSweeny · 02-09-2003, 10:34 AM

sure it's a smart move, hell every team would like to have a starting 5 set for NEXT year. Hell most teams are still struggling to find 5 guys for THIS year. But i still hate the yankees more than you can imagine

Blackadar · 02-09-2003, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarkus
What you guys don't get is that this is just a smart move by the Yankees. Next year they will most likely lose Clemens, Wells, and Hitchcock, and that glut of pitching will be gone. At that point their starters will be Contreras, Weaver, Mussina and Pettitte. Lieber at this point is an unknown. That's only four starting pitchers for sure. At that point watch for the boss to go out and get Colon, who to my knowledge has yet to sign an extention and will be an FA next year. Then all you anti-Yankee whiners can start bitching some more.

Tarkus

Smart? No. With unlimited resources, any idiot could build a winning ballclub.

FBPro · 02-09-2003, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blackadar
Smart? No. With unlimited resources, any idiot could build a winning ballclub.

Exactly, describing Steinbrenner to a "T".

RoyalTen · 02-09-2003, 01:34 PM

I hate the Yankees with a passion also. Mets are my team, but anyway....you really cant blame them, its baseball which should be blamed. The Yankees are doing everything under the rules. If other teams had the money, you know they would do the same. And can you blame them? Look at how much they win, so obviously its working. But like i said, i hate the Yanks, but you really cant say anything about them until the rules are changed.

kcchief19 · 02-09-2003, 02:58 PM

This entire offseason has done nothing but underscore that the CBA agreed to last year isn't going to work. Sure, maybe once the Yankees violate the soft cap a couple of times and get in to the higher end of the luxury tax it MIGHT make a difference.

But as it is, the Yankess are the only team in line to pay a luxury tax, which is going to bring in a whopping $8 million bucks to be divied up among the have-nots, which only means that they will lose $800,000 loss than they were going to lose.

What I hate more than anything is that the defenders of the eight teams that should win every year keep doing is throwing Oakland and Minnesota out. What have those teams won? The A's won a bunch of ball games, but they have had their team ripped apart each year, this year even losing their manager to the big boys. The Twins won a division, but a division that blows beyond comprehension. The "catching lightning in a bottle" approach employed by the Twins and the A's simply isn't going to keep teams like the Royals and the Pirates afloat.

I know that contraction is out until 2006, but I don't see how some teams are going to make it until then. Some of these teams are going to relocate, but who would want them? Does baseball REALLY think there are people in Virginia or Las Vegas who are DYING to watch the Royals or Vladimir-less Expos?

lynchjm24 · 02-09-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kcchief19

But as it is, the Yankess are the only team in line to pay a luxury tax, which is going to bring in a whopping $8 million bucks to be divied up among the have-nots, which only means that they will lose $800,000 loss than they were going to lose.

What I hate more than anything is that the defenders of the eight teams that should win every year keep doing is throwing Oakland and Minnesota out. What have those teams won? The A's won a bunch of ball games, but they have had their team ripped apart each year, this year even losing their manager to the big boys. The Twins won a division, but a division that blows beyond comprehension. The "catching lightning in a bottle" approach employed by the Twins and the A's simply isn't going to keep teams like the Royals and the Pirates afloat.

I know that contraction is out until 2006, but I don't see how some teams are going to make it until then. Some of these teams are going to relocate, but who would want them? Does baseball REALLY think there are people in Virginia or Las Vegas who are DYING to watch the Royals or Vladimir-less Expos?

I would hardly call the A's approach catching lighting in a bottle. Also, they wanted Macha to manage the team - they were happy to see Art Howe leave.

I'm not going to bother to get into this argument now, hopefully not at all this season - but the world series was just won by a 'middle-market' team - in case you didn't notice.

While Las Vegas isn't a great location for a team - I would say yes there are a lot of people that would be excited to have the Expos in Virginia or Portland.

Bonegavel · 02-09-2003, 07:28 PM

I thought this thread was about the 80's rock group with Nugent and Co. My bad.

Blackadar · 02-09-2003, 07:54 PM

Just a dumb question: why is Oakland considered a small-market team? Geez, with SF just 5 minutes across the bay, it should be a large market team. When I was last in SF, I went to see the A's and Big Mac.

oykib · 02-09-2003, 07:59 PM

The Yanks are smart enough to realize that the luxury percentage isn't that bad this year. Next year they'll lose a lot of contracts.

Actually, it's all the greedy owners who didn't want more competetive balance and just wanted to be revenue parasites that are to blame.

They should've made a system that rewarded success. Instead they thought that they could get free rides. What they don't realize is that George is a better, smarter owner than they are. He's gonna find a way around their system. And the Players Union is gonna do everything they can to make sure that he gets around it.

sterlingice · 02-09-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Actually, it's all the greedy owners who didn't want more competetive balance and just wanted to be revenue parasites that are to blame.

That's such a load of crap. You think the players union would have passed an agreement that had anything by token revenue sharing. No. Never. It was impossible just to get them to agree to that.

Quote:

They should've made a system that rewarded success. Instead they thought that they could get free rides. What they don't realize is that George is a better, smarter owner than they are. He's gonna find a way around their system. And the Players Union is gonna do everything they can to make sure that he gets around it.

Trading for Raul Mondesi at the expense of the health care of your employees is not smart. Let's dispense with this myth right away. Just imagine what anyone could do with $160M per year on the open market. You could have signed an entire team of this years best free agents for that.

SI

oykib · 02-10-2003, 01:34 AM

The point is that George is better at producing revenue than the rest of these guys. His overwhelming drive to win causes him to make bad decisions. But he has all that money not just because he's in New York, but because he maximized the potential of that market.

He's the best owner at doing that since O'Malley, back in the day.

BTW, the Players weren't holding up the deal because of revenue sharing. THey held it up because of the luxury tax. The Union stated numerous times that the Leagues could share their money any way they wanted. The Players just didn't want the owners to stick their hands in the players pockets.

sterlingice · 02-10-2003, 03:23 AM

Quote:

He's gonna find a way around their system. And the Players Union is gonna do everything they can to make sure that he gets around it.

There already is a way around it. The CBA is 4 years long, ending in 2006, I believe. If there is no agreement before the 2007 season, the CBA rolls over another year but with no luxury tax. Look for King George to put a lot of balloon payments in 2007 (those 5-5-5-$17M-type contracts). Another sign of how far the owners were really taken for a ride.

Quote:

BTW, the Players weren't holding up the deal because of revenue sharing. THey held it up because of the luxury tax. The Union stated numerous times that the Leagues could share their money any way they wanted. The Players just didn't want the owners to stick their hands in the players pockets.

Well, that's a boldface lie and just goes to show how easily the MLBPA twisted the words that were out there last year. If you would like, I can find a hundred quotes just from local player rep Jason Grimsley or thousands from all player reps with some bullsh*t company line about how "other businesses don't share" with stupid examples about how Ford doesn't share money with GM and the like (despite the completely flawed nature of that analogy). Those weren't in response to the payroll tax but to proposals of revenue sharing. Now how in god's name they even had any say in the matter was beyond me but they did.

SI

oykib · 02-10-2003, 05:03 AM

The luxury tax is calculated on the average annual value. It doesn't use year-by-year numbers like the NFL.

Secondly, revenue sharing is not subject to collective bargaining. Only things that directly impact salaries or player safety and working conditions are. This goes for things like ticket prices, too.

The union-- disingenuous or not-- has been saying for years that if there's a problem with revenue disperity, then the owners should implement revenue sharing. They have insisted that revenue sharing come before a possible salary cap.

This is an old argument that we had for months last year. Revenue sharing should be tied to market sizes and performance rather than gross revenue. But these owners just mucked up the system more with the current plan.

If they really wanted to, the rich teams could totally work around the current system. And-- not for nothin'-- George is the only big-market owner to have his TV revenue pegged at a number even remotely close to it's actual value. Well-- the Mets do, too. But that's because they signed a stupid under market-value local TV contract.

Blackadar · 02-10-2003, 06:11 AM

While George has done a good job maximizing his revenue, his sources are so much higher than other markets that it's absurd. The broadcasting rights in NY, given the market size, are worth so much more than a place like Kansas City that it really unbalances the game. Since local broadcasting rights are a large part of the revenues, there's no way in hell that many teams can compete. The game is out of wack and will be until they adopt an NFL-like revenue sharing scheme.

sterlingice · 02-11-2003, 12:31 AM

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html

SI

EagleFan · 02-11-2003, 01:27 AM

MLB is one huge business and should be treated as such. What the Yankees don't seem to realize is they don't make that money if every other team closes up shop. Share the revenue and install a hard salary cap, it's the only way.

Plus the owners of several teams really need to go to business school. So many teams have started to overspend their income, and then complain about it. No-on forced them to make insane offers to players.

Personlayy I say bring back the entire anti-trust exemption. I want to see teams develop their own players and build through the mnors and trades. Bring back the old days!!! Bring back ball parks that aren't made for homeruns, bring back parks like St. Louis used to have where the fence was so far out that homeruns were the exception, rather than the rule. Let's see speed actually matter again. I want to see another team like the Cardinals, they could play defense like mad and ran like the wind, just don't count on the homerun to win the game. Bring back the days when a 50 homerun season was a huge accomplishment, not something that puts you 4th in the league. Bring back days when a 4.00 ERA didn't make you a number one starter. Bring back the time when players stayed iun one place long enough to build a personality for the team like the 79 Pirates, 80 Phillies, A's of the early 70's, Cardinals of the 70's/80's. Bring back Carlton, Rose, Clark, Schmidt, Rice, Evans, Yount, Carew, Kingman, Ryan, Trammell, Brett...

Okay, enough of the pining for the old times.

02-09-2003, 10:32 AM	#3
Tarkus High School Varsity Join Date: Jun 2001	What you guys don't get is that this is just a smart move by the Yankees. Next year they will most likely lose Clemens, Wells, and Hitchcock, and that glut of pitching will be gone. At that point their starters will be Contreras, Weaver, Mussina and Pettitte. Lieber at this point is an unknown. That's only four starting pitchers for sure. At that point watch for the boss to go out and get Colon, who to my knowledge has yet to sign an extention and will be an FA next year. Then all you anti-Yankee whiners can start bitching some more. Tarkus Last edited by Tarkus : 02-09-2003 at 10:33 AM.

02-09-2003, 07:28 PM	#10
Bonegavel Awaiting Further Instructions... Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Macungie, PA	I thought this thread was about the 80's rock group with Nugent and Co. My bad. __________________

02-11-2003, 12:31 AM	#18
sterlingice Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Back in Houston!	http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html SI __________________ Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!"

02-11-2003, 01:27 AM	#19
EagleFan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Mays Landing, NJ USA	MLB is one huge business and should be treated as such. What the Yankees don't seem to realize is they don't make that money if every other team closes up shop. Share the revenue and install a hard salary cap, it's the only way. Plus the owners of several teams really need to go to business school. So many teams have started to overspend their income, and then complain about it. No-on forced them to make insane offers to players. Personlayy I say bring back the entire anti-trust exemption. I want to see teams develop their own players and build through the mnors and trades. Bring back the old days!!! Bring back ball parks that aren't made for homeruns, bring back parks like St. Louis used to have where the fence was so far out that homeruns were the exception, rather than the rule. Let's see speed actually matter again. I want to see another team like the Cardinals, they could play defense like mad and ran like the wind, just don't count on the homerun to win the game. Bring back the days when a 50 homerun season was a huge accomplishment, not something that puts you 4th in the league. Bring back days when a 4.00 ERA didn't make you a number one starter. Bring back the time when players stayed iun one place long enough to build a personality for the team like the 79 Pirates, 80 Phillies, A's of the early 70's, Cardinals of the 70's/80's. Bring back Carlton, Rose, Clark, Schmidt, Rice, Evans, Yount, Carew, Kingman, Ryan, Trammell, Brett... Okay, enough of the pining for the old times. __________________ The EagleFan YouTube Channel - Reactions Soarin' & Scratchin' YouTube Channel - We react to music, videos, TV, we talk, we are planning some field trips Soarin' & Soothin' - Meditation, Relaxation, and Sleep Aid; mental health is important

02-09-2003, 10:23 AM	#2
McSweeny College Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somerville, MA	that's the Boss for ya. Us sox fans know what he's like. Just gives you more reason to hate the yankees more than anything

02-09-2003, 10:34 AM	#4
McSweeny College Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somerville, MA	sure it's a smart move, hell every team would like to have a starting 5 set for NEXT year. Hell most teams are still struggling to find 5 guys for THIS year. But i still hate the yankees more than you can imagine

02-09-2003, 01:34 PM	#7
RoyalTen n00b Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NY	I hate the Yankees with a passion also. Mets are my team, but anyway....you really cant blame them, its baseball which should be blamed. The Yankees are doing everything under the rules. If other teams had the money, you know they would do the same. And can you blame them? Look at how much they win, so obviously its working. But like i said, i hate the Yanks, but you really cant say anything about them until the rules are changed.

02-09-2003, 02:58 PM	#8
kcchief19 Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Kansas City, MO	This entire offseason has done nothing but underscore that the CBA agreed to last year isn't going to work. Sure, maybe once the Yankees violate the soft cap a couple of times and get in to the higher end of the luxury tax it MIGHT make a difference. But as it is, the Yankess are the only team in line to pay a luxury tax, which is going to bring in a whopping $8 million bucks to be divied up among the have-nots, which only means that they will lose $800,000 loss than they were going to lose. What I hate more than anything is that the defenders of the eight teams that should win every year keep doing is throwing Oakland and Minnesota out. What have those teams won? The A's won a bunch of ball games, but they have had their team ripped apart each year, this year even losing their manager to the big boys. The Twins won a division, but a division that blows beyond comprehension. The "catching lightning in a bottle" approach employed by the Twins and the A's simply isn't going to keep teams like the Royals and the Pirates afloat. I know that contraction is out until 2006, but I don't see how some teams are going to make it until then. Some of these teams are going to relocate, but who would want them? Does baseball REALLY think there are people in Virginia or Las Vegas who are DYING to watch the Royals or Vladimir-less Expos?

02-09-2003, 07:54 PM	#11
Blackadar Retired Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fantasyland	Just a dumb question: why is Oakland considered a small-market team? Geez, with SF just 5 minutes across the bay, it should be a large market team. When I was last in SF, I went to see the A's and Big Mac.

02-09-2003, 07:59 PM	#12
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	The Yanks are smart enough to realize that the luxury percentage isn't that bad this year. Next year they'll lose a lot of contracts. Actually, it's all the greedy owners who didn't want more competetive balance and just wanted to be revenue parasites that are to blame. They should've made a system that rewarded success. Instead they thought that they could get free rides. What they don't realize is that George is a better, smarter owner than they are. He's gonna find a way around their system. And the Players Union is gonna do everything they can to make sure that he gets around it.

02-10-2003, 01:34 AM	#14
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	The point is that George is better at producing revenue than the rest of these guys. His overwhelming drive to win causes him to make bad decisions. But he has all that money not just because he's in New York, but because he maximized the potential of that market. He's the best owner at doing that since O'Malley, back in the day. BTW, the Players weren't holding up the deal because of revenue sharing. THey held it up because of the luxury tax. The Union stated numerous times that the Leagues could share their money any way they wanted. The Players just didn't want the owners to stick their hands in the players pockets.

02-10-2003, 05:03 AM	#16
oykib College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	The luxury tax is calculated on the average annual value. It doesn't use year-by-year numbers like the NFL. Secondly, revenue sharing is not subject to collective bargaining. Only things that directly impact salaries or player safety and working conditions are. This goes for things like ticket prices, too. The union-- disingenuous or not-- has been saying for years that if there's a problem with revenue disperity, then the owners should implement revenue sharing. They have insisted that revenue sharing come before a possible salary cap. This is an old argument that we had for months last year. Revenue sharing should be tied to market sizes and performance rather than gross revenue. But these owners just mucked up the system more with the current plan. If they really wanted to, the rich teams could totally work around the current system. And-- not for nothin'-- George is the only big-market owner to have his TV revenue pegged at a number even remotely close to it's actual value. Well-- the Mets do, too. But that's because they signed a stupid under market-value local TV contract.

02-10-2003, 06:11 AM	#17
Blackadar Retired Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Fantasyland	While George has done a good job maximizing his revenue, his sources are so much higher than other markets that it's absurd. The broadcasting rights in NY, given the market size, are worth so much more than a place like Kansas City that it really unbalances the game. Since local broadcasting rights are a large part of the revenues, there's no way in hell that many teams can compete. The game is out of wack and will be until they adopt an NFL-like revenue sharing scheme.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)