Another 200million for the Yankees

Talk about any other sports here.

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am
Location: napa
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:42 pm
The Yankees have just inked Mark Teixiera (dont know if i spelled that right) to an 8 year 180+ million contract. As of now, they have signed the 3 biggest FA's this offseason.

Does anybody thing this is good for baseball or sports in general, or do you think there should be a salary cap. I like the way the NBA cap works where you can go over the cap to sign your own FA's, which actually gives teams a bonus for finding and developing players, but in MLB when a player gets turned into an all star, its time for him to leave.

I am a huge baseball fan, I love the game, but things like this Yankee off-season are so off-putting.....I think its a joke. Most likely, they are still going to sign atleast one more big name pitcher........and possibly Man-Ram.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:47 pm
baseball has been a joke for a long time now. The economics of the game turned me from a hard core fan to casual observer about 8 years ago.
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:41 pm
Open economy works great in soccer, with several bigs teams competing for the top players and virtually no small team has a chance to win anythig. It's great for building dynasties.


Still, I like the salary cap better. It gives teams a chance to compete against any other (as long as they have an owner willing to pony up between the limits the salary cap sets), and also works as a financial restrictive measure against owners like Steinbrenner.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 9202
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 11:07 pm
Location: Land of the Lacob.
Poster Credit: 0
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:59 pm
Well, the Yankees are suppose to be THE TEAM in the states, so good for them and Bud Selig.

But it's crap that other teams can't offer the money they could to 3 DIFFERENT PLAYERS. I'm not a big fan of monopolies, hence why I watch baseball maybe once every other week.
Don't hate yourself in the morning... sleep 'til noon.

Moderator
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 20
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:27 pm
Im gonna sound like Woody Paige here (dunno if this is his argument):

But you guys are crazy. This is GREAT for baseball. A team who has to spend so much money year in year out, and they have the same chances of winning it than a team which spends 1/5 of it. Yankees have their own TV network, sell some tickets for $2500 (just regular season), they got a new stadium with more luxory sweets than any other team.

BAD ECONOMICS? Umm no. Baseball is the only sport that uses the Capitalistic approach. The only sport of the major sports which the clubs actually have freedom to run a team the way they want. A business who earns a lot should have the right to do whatever they want to enhance their product and Please the customer. So the fact that their demand is so high, their able to spend more for resource. Its good economics. If any other team was located in an area with such a high population density, they would want the freedom. Why should a team like the Rays, who tanked for 6 straight years (now have great players from their number 1 overall picks) have the yankees cut 50% of salary, just so what, they play catchup... no thank you.

Baseball is fine the way it is, and when the Yankees and Redsox do fail, it makes the sport more sweeter. Root for the underdogs. Anything is possible. Also, it rewards scouting that much more. I love teams like the Minnesota Twins who every single year are in the hunt, just cuz of their brilliant scouting. They scout the hard way, and the best way, not by tanking, but by research and hours of trying to maximize their quality based on scouting. Cleveland and Oakland are similar examples as well.

I'm a Giants fan. I love baseball (not as much as basketball or football) and scouting is what makes or breaks a team. Free Agency never makes a team in any sport (maybe basketball, but certainly not football or baseball). SO people should stop worrying so much on the yankees do.

PS... sorry for writing so much, i get worked up for something that shouldnt be a huge deal. This isn't new. Its been going on for a long time now.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am
Location: napa
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:39 pm
Mr. Crackerz wrote:Im gonna sound like Woody Paige here (dunno if this is his argument):

But you guys are crazy. This is GREAT for baseball. A team who has to spend so much money year in year out, and they have the same chances of winning it than a team which spends 1/5 of it. Yankees have their own TV network, sell some tickets for $2500 (just regular season), they got a new stadium with more luxory sweets than any other team.

BAD ECONOMICS? Umm no. Baseball is the only sport that uses the Capitalistic approach. The only sport of the major sports which the clubs actually have freedom to run a team the way they want. A business who earns a lot should have the right to do whatever they want to enhance their product and Please the customer. So the fact that their demand is so high, their able to spend more for resource. Its good economics. If any other team was located in an area with such a high population density, they would want the freedom. Why should a team like the Rays, who tanked for 6 straight years (now have great players from their number 1 overall picks) have the yankees cut 50% of salary, just so what, they play catchup... no thank you.

Baseball is fine the way it is, and when the Yankees and Redsox do fail, it makes the sport more sweeter. Root for the underdogs. Anything is possible. Also, it rewards scouting that much more. I love teams like the Minnesota Twins who every single year are in the hunt, just cuz of their brilliant scouting. They scout the hard way, and the best way, not by tanking, but by research and hours of trying to maximize their quality based on scouting. Cleveland and Oakland are similar examples as well.

I'm a Giants fan. I love baseball (not as much as basketball or football) and scouting is what makes or breaks a team. Free Agency never makes a team in any sport (maybe basketball, but certainly not football or baseball). SO people should stop worrying so much on the yankees do.

PS... sorry for writing so much, i get worked up for something that shouldnt be a huge deal. This isn't new. Its been going on for a long time now.


Mr.C,
you talk about the teams that do the great scouting....but what good does that do you, it allows you to find a great player and keep him for 5 years only to see him go along to leave in the most productive years of his career because they cannot afford him. Maybe Free Agency does not make a team, but it can break one.

All small market teams have had their hearts broken by a player that they loved and followed from the minors only to see him become a superstar on another team or become a superstar and leave for another team. Wait til Joe Mauer and Morneau become FA's, the Twins will have to the same with them that they did with Johan and Torii, wait til Sizemore becomes a FA, CC Sabathia anybody?

I agree in the Free Market Economy, but I think in a competetive industry such as sports, there needs to be some sort of competetive balance like a salary cap. Use the NBA cap for a model and give a team the ability to go over the cap to re-sign one of its own players.

And as for the Rays,
they did not tank for 6 years.....they had to play in a division with 3 huge market teams above them and the baseball draft is a total crap shoot.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:43 pm
I gotta disagree with you Crackerz.

I do agree with you that businesses that earn more should have the right to spend more to enhance their product. But we are not talking about individual entity's. We are talking about franchises that are under one umbrella.

Creating competition is the best thing for the whole of the sport. While there are team's that you pointed out that have sucess, you can pretty much throw away 20 teams at the start of EVERY year that have NO CHANCE. To me that is bad.

I understand it is not all economics... some teams have very poor management. A salary cap will not FIX baseball... I get that. But I prefer a model that creates a more level playing field.

It is no coincidence that the NFL is by far the more popular and dominant force. Football is a RATINGS magnat and a cash cow. People are into it becuase any year, there team has a chance (unless you are detroit).

Nobody watches baseball on TV anymore. Ratings have plumetted. Peopel still go to games because you can be outside and individual games are pretty cheap. Attendance is strong in MLB largely because of the new stadiums all around the country, but as these buildings age, attendance will go down.


Additionally we are talking about sports which is a competition
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM

Moderator
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 20
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:16 pm
OK, but here's the thing, I'll respond to Always first and then Bada

Why are all the best scouting teams also the lowest budgeted ones? Because they do what they can to win. The twins, A's, and to a certain extent the Rays, have proven to the league that money isn't everything. It helps, as a substitution for scouting. But if one continues to scout, and have contracts early with their product they CAN succeed. The poor Rays Locked up Longoria for like 6 more years. In a couple years, it will look like the Bargain of the Century. Being creative is what makes a small market team glamorous in baseball when done right. None have been perfect in this sense, but the potential of any team with any budget is possible. Its not like its impossible.

Are any of you guys college basketball fans right? What about college football? THIS IS THE SAME CONCEPT.

See when a mid major conference team is overshadowed for most of the season, and upsets one of the big boys come in the playoffs, that's something special. George Mason for goodness' sake went to the final four a couple years ago. They didn't have anyone special on the squat. No top recruits, no named coaches, nothing in the preseason that had them even close to making a top 25 poll. But they did anyway. They had passion, determination, hard work, and perfect chemestry. THEY DEFIED THE ODDS, AND WILL BE REMEMBER FOR IT.

The Rays almost did it. Sure they sucked forever, and those first picks helped, but all their acquisitions are cheap. a budget of 42 million went to the world series, while the 200 million dollar Yankees didn't. Also, the Milwaukee Brewers (Another Low Budget Team) made it pretty far last year too. SO.... money doesn't equal success.

And for bada, the whole football popularity vs. baseball thing has nothing to do with salary caps or a lack of one. Baseballs popularity began declining in 1994, which a staggering amount of the television fan base stop tuning in. Why? The baseball strike. My father was one of them. he said to himself, if there was another strike, he was done. And in 1994, he had enough. Many felt the same way. HOWEVER, baseball attendance numbers have been at their highest. 2007 broke all records. the economy hurt a little the numbers for 2008 and will for 2009 and 2010. But the whole deterioration thing, C'mon Bada. There's something called renovations, where you know, they fix up stadiums to make them all shiny again.

Oh and who were the favorites to win the World Series in 2008 before the season started? the Detroit Tigers! they weren't even a .500 team. And there budget was the 2nd highest. that 20 teams of out of it, is not true. Besides the Pirates and Mariners, anY team has a shot each year (AND THE MARINERS ARE RELATIVELY HIGH BUDGET TEAM).

The NFL's "you make a mistake, but still we'll help you out" approach is lame. Baseball rewards teams that succeed, and punished those that fail. If you scout real well, anything is possible.
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:05 pm
well we have diffentiating opinions on whether the economy of baseball is a good thing or a bad thing, however that is really not important.

What IS important is that the majority of the people out there feel as I do that the economy is bad for the game and needs fixing.

The majority of people have a negative reaction to what the yankees have done in the last few weeks.

These are the people that SUPPORT the game. Baseball is making no efforts to identify with the fan base. They continually move farther from what their fan base wants.

The market themselves terrible and are completely out of touch with us fans. The sport is DYING! The amount of kids in this country participating in youth baseball is at an all time low.

There are many areas that need fixing the economy is a major one as whether it is good or bad, the fact remains that the fan base does not like it.
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM

Moderator
Posts: 5311
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 20
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:59 pm
bada wrote:well we have diffentiating opinions on whether the economy of baseball is a good thing or a bad thing, however that is really not important.

What IS important is that the majority of the people out there feel as I do that the economy is bad for the game and needs fixing.

The majority of people have a negative reaction to what the yankees have done in the last few weeks.

These are the people that SUPPORT the game. Baseball is making no efforts to identify with the fan base. They continually move farther from what their fan base wants.

The market themselves terrible and are completely out of touch with us fans. The sport is DYING! The amount of kids in this country participating in youth baseball is at an all time low.

There are many areas that need fixing the economy is a major one as whether it is good or bad, the fact remains that the fan base does not like it.


yeah i will agree on you there... the game is losing support HERE in the USA (talent wise). But don't forget Asia, Latin America, and even someday (no joke) India. The youth is growing and remaining strong.

Bada, like i said earlier, baseball attendance is breaking records, so you can't say the sport is dying. People are watching their teams on local TV networks too. So the economics of baseball are not in bad shape. Maybe in 10 years, there wont be many white players or black americans, but the sport will remain diverse (if not more so), and people will be watching it as much as today. The only league I'd worry is the NHL. People are playing less hockey everywhere, and teams are filing for bankrupcy protection (yikes). Even the NBA is in worse shape than MLB (based on revenues as a whole). So baseball is gonna be fine.

I do agree with you that baseball should do more for their fanbase. But is this MLB's fault or the individual clubs? (this ties in to the whole salary cap/lack of one discussion) Baseball's policy of clubs having more power than the other leagues allows for more freedom in their practices. The NBA and NFL do charities and promotions as a league wide thing. The United foundations and We Care organizations the two league have have all the clubs allocate certain hours and dollars by teams. MLB's ballclub has more freedom approach has a each club do their own thing.
So we see the San Francisco Giants as an organization do a whole bunch of charity work. The Giants are always listed by mlb.com in the top 5 charitable organizations. However, the A's do a lot less, again tied to revenues. Of course MLB as a whole do their own charities and promotions but as a fraction of what the NBA and NFL do as leagues themselves.

Now I do think the MLB as a whole should promote the game more. Donate more, and have more of a national approach. How can they get extra revenue? Decreasing the luxory threshold they have and increase the rate of payment. (currently its like at $150 mill, or some outrageous number... and even that its not at a 100% rate, its at 40%) SO therefore, we don't have a Cap AND you also give more of a burden on teams that spend a lot on free agency.

This example is similarly done with Polluters in Environmental Economics. instead of restricting polluters with a cap, you put a huge tax on them, they won't do it anyway, therefore they will improve their technology. To convert this back to baseball lingo. You put a more effective luxury tax with a higher rate (instead of a salary cap), and will decrease overall spending based on cost-benefit. So the Yanks spend less. Therefore the yankees will need to depend more on scouting to make up for the loss.

SORRY I WENT ALL OVER THE PLACE BADA ET AL... I do all this crazy thinking in school all the time with all the leagues. I do this hybrid economics/sports fan thinking to see how leagues can maximize revenue AND be more fun for the fan... Wait to u see what I have with the NBA schedule... I'll save that for another day. I've made u guys suffer enough for one night. :mrgreen:
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 6145
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:13 am
Location: looking down at the Warriors practice facility
Poster Credit: -7
PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:27 pm
nah, great stuff Mr Crackerz. Enjoyable read even if I dont agree with every point.
_____________________________________________________
http://WWW.GOLDENSTATEWARRIORS-RT.COM

All Star
Posts: 1128
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:06 am
Location: East Bay
Poster Credit: 5
PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 3:56 pm
you can argue that the rich get richer with FA signings and what not, yea sure the teams that sign top FA's lose their high draft picks, but thats hardly a chink in their armor. the yankees or red sox would never spend 5 years in a rebuilding processes anyway.

the team that signs a player away from another should give their pick AND pay a % of what they signed their player away for. like 3% or 5%. Getting a draft choice alone doesn't compensate at all in the short term.
"Losing is inevitably close to winning," Guber said. "They're inches apart. Drama. If you have drama, you've got a ticket to sell." "They're not real fans," Lacob said. "They don't have season tickets."
User avatar
Franchise Player
Posts: 7512
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:44 pm
Location: Brighton, England.
Poster Credit: -5
PostPosted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 4:07 pm
Just to chime in on this interesting debate.

I think it isnt right at all that the yankees and a select few are able to monopolise baseball, for the exact reason that ceddy said above...........all these teams that have the spending power, poaching good players from the lower teams that cant compete, needs some kind of compensation process, especially if the cap is not going to be considered.

I mean, there have been comparisions to European soccer in here, which is the closest comparison that can be found in all of sports, with the big clubs of Europe always getting the best players because they have the money.............BUT THE KET DIFFERENCE, is that they have to pay a transfer fee, aswell as the money to pay the player those high wages.

So, if a lower club brings up some young guy, and nutures him to stardom..........if he wants to move to a bigger club, or the team wants to let him go, then they are compensated with the transfer fee (I mean, a 20 year old phenom would typically fetch about $40 million! or more.........that is some kind of compensation huh? instead of just investing all your time and effort to develop the player, to have them leave for nothing)

The way baseball is set up, its like apart from 3-4 teams, the rest are just like minor league teams, feeding great youngsters and stars into the bigger teams.

You can argue all day about free economy and all that but the simple fact is that it is discouraging for the sport, its discouraging for the fans, and doesnt promote any kind of fair competition.
User avatar
All Star
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:49 am
Location: napa
Poster Credit: 2
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:05 am
bigstrads wrote:Just to chime in on this interesting debate.

I think it isnt right at all that the yankees and a select few are able to monopolise baseball, for the exact reason that ceddy said above...........all these teams that have the spending power, poaching good players from the lower teams that cant compete, needs some kind of compensation process, especially if the cap is not going to be considered.

I mean, there have been comparisions to European soccer in here, which is the closest comparison that can be found in all of sports, with the big clubs of Europe always getting the best players because they have the money.............BUT THE KET DIFFERENCE, is that they have to pay a transfer fee, aswell as the money to pay the player those high wages.

So, if a lower club brings up some young guy, and nutures him to stardom..........if he wants to move to a bigger club, or the team wants to let him go, then they are compensated with the transfer fee (I mean, a 20 year old phenom would typically fetch about $40 million! or more.........that is some kind of compensation huh? instead of just investing all your time and effort to develop the player, to have them leave for nothing)

The way baseball is set up, its like apart from 3-4 teams, the rest are just like minor league teams, feeding great youngsters and stars into the bigger teams.

You can argue all day about free economy and all that but the simple fact is that it is discouraging for the sport, its discouraging for the fans, and doesnt promote any kind of fair competition.


Good point Bigs. I didnt realize that it was like that for European soccer. How fun would it be to watch the NBA if Kobe, Lebron, CP3, Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan were all on the same team, with another wave of All-Stars coming off the bench? Having the best players at every position does not guarantee you a championship, but poaching the best players from all of the lesser financed teams pretty much guarantees that those teams will not win a championship.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 18461
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:48 am
Location: Somewhere in this site...
Poster Credit: -4
PostPosted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:46 am
bigstrads wrote:I mean, there have been comparisions to European soccer in here, which is the closest comparison that can be found in all of sports, with the big clubs of Europe always getting the best players because they have the money.............BUT THE KET DIFFERENCE, is that they have to pay a transfer fee, aswell as the money to pay the player those high wages.

So, if a lower club brings up some young guy, and nutures him to stardom..........if he wants to move to a bigger club, or the team wants to let him go, then they are compensated with the transfer fee (I mean, a 20 year old phenom would typically fetch about $40 million! or more.........that is some kind of compensation huh? instead of just investing all your time and effort to develop the player, to have them leave for nothing)


I don't know if I agree. First, in euro soccer there's a free agency of sorts, although it's reduced on its scope, due to the active transfer market. Still, each year, several big name players make wait til the end of their contracts to be free and sign with whoever they want.

Also, the transfer market is based on money, not players, which makes it more boring for fans and also means those big teams will improve no matter what, because they aren't losing anything (well, money). It's a good way to finance lesser teams, but doesn't help improve the competition level.

Problem is, without a salay cap, nobody but the big teams have a chance to win anything, which makes it quite boring in the end. Here in Spain is a two horse race year after year. Which turns some people (like myself) away from the game. I only pay attention to a few big games at the end of the season because, frankly, the rest of the season doesn't mean sh*t.

I just can't stand leagues without a salary cap. And I'd like to see the NBA with a hard salary cap, not one you can overcome with multiple exceptions (granted, it would have to be higher and player contracts couldn't be guaranteed to make it work, which means we'll never see it).
Next

Return to Sports Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests