Home | Search | FAQ
Page
1
2
3
Displaying 51-59 of 59 messages in this thread. |
| Posted By | Discussion Topic: Lilly Gone From Yanks | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JohnSlack | posted on 07-08-2002 @ 11:15 PM |    | |||
| Psychopath Registered: May. 01  | quote: Thats a given. and thats my point, it can be evened out with revenue sharing. quote: This is the main problem with your argument (and those who also use it). It is related to perfomance more then any other thing - you can't just compare records and tv deals the same season. it takes a couple seasons of winning, also corrosponding with a new TV deal - Thats why hicks was smart - he signed AROD the year he was getting a new TV deal. The TV deal is directly correlated to the teams winning the few years previous, along with the future outlook. The more fans, the higher the ratings, the higher the ad buy rates, the more they get in their deal.  "Philly: It's Camden - with a bell." - Jim Norton | ||||
| JohnSlack | posted on 07-08-2002 @ 11:21 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: May. 01 | quote: You are a stupid shit. So no businesses ever work? they don't spend money to advertise, on employees, and bigger offices? they just have to hope more customers come before they have the money to do things? bullshit. Why should the royals do that? say they do it for 4 years, so they are now in a 160 million dollar hole - after those they would make that up in franchise value, TV deals, increased attendence.. How do you think the yankees got here? magic? MSG paid them a shitload for their last deal because they were a winnign franchise - now this year, their ratings on cablevision-less YES are higher then they ever were on MSG. YOU HAVE TO SPEND FUCKING MONEY TO MAKE FUCKING MONEY. ARE YOU THAT FUCKING DENSE? | ||||
| PeterDragon | posted on 07-08-2002 @ 11:46 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | quote: I disagree, I think that revenues may change, but there are unequal ceilings, but only time will tell on this one.  2002 Crack Committee Objectives: (modified version)(You gotta try and believe....) 1.Hate the Braves with PASSION and extreme prejudice 1a. Try and go a week without having to punch a wall in frustration after watching the Mets play 2. 90 Wins and somehow get the Mets into playoffs this year 3. All 5 Starters have winning records this year 3a.Have team understand it is OK to get a hit with runners on base. 4. Mets win World Series (after divine intervention) | ||||
| TeenWeek what's a status? | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 9:44 AM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Oct. 00 | Here are some more questions? I am going into many different tangents here so try to follow. When the Yankees sucked in the 80's and early 90's and were spending foolishly on Free AGents, why did no one care? How can you even compare a New York or LA to a Kansas City or Minnesota? Ny can probably support a third team. Look how good the minor legue teams are doing attendance wise. There was always a disparity in baseball history and that is not going to change. WHy was their not a big deal when the yankees were winning every single year in the 30's, 40's 50's. 60's. I read in Sport Illustrated this week that the Yankees make more money in radio than Kansas City makes in tv. Like I mentioned earlier basketball the same teams win every year but you dont hear David Stern saying that half the teams will never win. Why because Bud Selig is a disgrace as a commissioner and a disgrace to baseball. Why should Steinbrenner be forced to pay for owners mistakes when they put nothing back into the franchise. If it were teams like Oakland, Minnesota, Seattle that try to put a good team on the field I am for revenue sharing. What kills that is teams like Florida, Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Baltimore that are a complete waste of space in the major leagues put nothing back onto the field and try to steal other owner's money. Did anyone notice Selig getting booed last night in Milwaukee. His family single handedly ruined that franchise. If it were not for Tampa Bay, Milwaukee would be seen as the worst team in baseball. There is nwo way no how, the owners will ever beat the players. The players union might be more powerful than the teamsters. The only reason people bitch about the Yankees now is that every fan and every team is jealous of them. I like you petedragon, but perfect example for this is the mets. They have every single opportuinity the yankees have to make a winner being form ny. They spent over a 100 million this year and they have a .500 record to show for it. Another example are the Rangers and Knicks in their sports. They spend more than anyone else in their sport, charge more for tickets than anyone else and where did it get them, both out of the playoffs. When you win, you have a big bullseye on your back. When you stink and still buy free agents people laugh at you and could care less. Owners like Loria of the Marlins and Angelos of Baltimore are a disgrace to the game or the jackass from Texas who tried to buy a team. That guy upped salaries to the stratospehre but it is Steinbrenner who gets blamed for buying a team. Another question, explain to me how Selig approved a deal of the Red Sox to the THIRD highest bidder. Why because he was friends with the guy. Baseball is a mess. As long as the players have the power they have and Selig is owner and teams are not forced to sell to someone who cares about their teams, baseball will be going in the shitter. I love the NFL, my favorite sport, but doesn't it piss anyone off that teams are constantly cutting salary and getting rid of good players in their primes. Salary caps serve a purpose, but with it comes parity. Teams that suck and dont deserve to win will. Perfect example is the Pats this year. They got lucky as hell and needed the refs to beat Oakland.  | ||||
| JohnSlack | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 10:46 AM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: May. 01 | quote: Of course there is unequal ceilings, but its not the revenue chasm that selig wants you to think. WHy? Because if he says everyone who has a payroll under his amount gets this amount of money, he makes sure his brewers are there. A more fair system would weight the revenue sharing - the worse shape you are in, the more money you would get. But that system wouldn't help the brewers, so bud isn't doing it. Don't you think its strange that besides the yankees, the brewers showed the largest profit last year? Revenue sharing is there to make up for the unequal ceilings of tv/radio contracts. A salary cap would be the worst thing. All it does is make owners take money out of the product you are paying for, and put it in their pockets. And do you think ticket prices would go down? "Philly: It's Camden - with a bell." - Jim Norton | ||||
| Leaking Nipples | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 2:06 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 01 | quote: Revenue Sharing? Why the hell should the money I use to spend on Yankee tickets go to the Pirates so they can sign "Operation Shutdown" Derek Bell? A salary cap would work fine. It would stop teams from gorging on the top tier players, which would even out comptetion. Once fans believe their team can compete (and that will take a few years) crappy franchises would start taking in more money. What the hell is gonna stop scumbag Carl Pohlad from just taking revenue sharing money for profit? He'll keep his team at the same 36 million payroll, and keep the money for himself. He'll take money the Mets, Yankees, Braves, Rockies, and Dodgers earn and keep it for himself. That sounds even worse than baseball today. I think there should be a salary cap and a salary floor. Every team should have to spend between $40 and $80 on payroll. No team should be lower or higher. Until something happens, I'll just sit back and enjoy championship after championship. Money didn't build the Yankees, but it sure as hell is keeping them together.  | ||||
| krahzee | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 8:23 PM | | |||
| Psychopath Registered: Mar. 02 | quote: Because other team were losing based on poor scouting and bad personel decisions, not money. Baseball did not allow free agency back then, so a team could dictate what a player's salary was. He didn't like it? Tough shit. As a result a strong team stayed that way for years. Do baseball owners make bad personel decisions? (trades, free agent signings, ect..) Yes. That having been said, some teams must let thier better players walk during free agency, or trade them before they are eligable, simply because they know there is no way in hell they can afford to resign them. The players of course, will almost always try to go to where they can get the most money. Especially guys coming off rookie contracts. One good contract can now set a player up for life. Who can offer the biggest contracts? The teams with the most $$. So superstar A goes to the Yankees or Atlanta for 70mil. When player B ( who plays the same position and has slightly better #'s) is due to resign he uses the first guy as the barometer to judge what he should be getting, and sets his sights on getting that much or more. Often as a result of pride these guys ask for more. As a result each guy down the line tries to out do the next guy, driving salaries to a rediculous level. As a result the team this guy plays for has to trade him before his conract is up, or let him go in free agency because the type of money this guy wants would mean not resigning any of the other decent players they have. That is what is wrong with baseball. The NBA's cap does work. Teams like the Clippers, Nets and Celtics have all gone through rebuilding periods. Now those rebuilding periods are starting to pay dividends. Are there frachises still in the shitter? Yup, but they are also the ones making retarded personel moves. Any type of cap will help protect the teams that make less money from being pilfered of thier stars when thier contracts are up.(Seatle) It will not protect them from making bad decisions.Mets) | ||||
| PeterDragon | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 10:49 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | quote: Actually, people did care, but for a different reason (they were concerned that Steinbrenner was inflating salaries). This has been an issue that I can remember since Charlie Finley tried to sell Vida Blue & Joe Rudi, (remember Bowie Kuhn invoking the "Best interest of baseball rule")and this probably was discussed when Kansas City A's seemed to be acting like a Yankee farm club in the 50's. To understand my point, Try and take the name Yankees out of the equation. You could easily substitute the Arizona Diamondbacks (Randy Johnson, Jay Bell etc.), the LA Dodgers (Kevin Brown), the Texas Rangers (A-Rod), or the Orioles (Peter Angelos foolish moves in the 90's). There is no denying that because it is the Yankees it makes it a "sexy" issue, but really the reason it is more important is the disparity between "haves" & "have-nots" has never been greater, due mostly to salary escalation. quote:I could argue with you about how the Mets do not have the revenue sources that the Yankees have, but it wouldn't be an important arguement, since the Mets are definitely on the "have's" side also. quote: Rangers yes, Knicks no (at least not really anymore). My issue (and the only one I defend) isn't concerned with what teams charge, or how much profit they make. I think the Yankees are entitled to make as much as they can. My issue is how much they (or the Mets, etc) spend compared to other teams in their sports. The Rangers are just as bad as the Yankees, except they don't have the success at it that the Yankees do. If you think that the NHL isn't killing the Rangers the way MLB is killing the Yankees, then you're not paying attention. The only reason the Knicks don't quite fit this description is that the NBA limits their spending somewhat. I always hated the concept of a salary cap, since I believe players should make whatever someone wants to pay. I've turned around though here - there needs to be some maximum and some minimum salary spending. Think of it like Rotisserie leagues - you'd want to get into a league where everyone has the same to spend and needs to be smart where they put their money. Baseball doesn't need a hard cap (yet), but would it be so terrible to have a max spending of say $100 million and minimum of $50 million? Now I'm in the strange position of wanting to do this without much revenue sharing. Here is where I've always agreed with most of you Yankee fans that if you market your team wisely, or you spend enough to buy a team in a good market, that you should reap the benefits. Every time you or slack argue against putting hard earned Steinbrenner money in the hands of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, I'm right there with you. I even agree that George is good for his fans by re-investing instead of pocketing all of his profits. I just think that baseball is best served by having good competition, and that if you limit the difference in monies spent, the best team will be a result of wisest baseball moves. And even though it is MY team in hockey that is one of the biggest spenders, I feel the same should happen there. Caps are far from perfect - I agree that the NFL has spurred competition at the expense of keeping loyal players, and the NBA cap totally buries a team like the Knicks who are foolish, and doesn't allow them to fix their mistakes. However, sports are best served by competition. Which Yankee memory do you think is more enjoyable - when the Yankees won by 22 games in 1998, or 1978, when Yankees & Red Sox had to duel out in their winner-take-all one game playoff? 2002 Crack Committee Objectives: (modified version)(You gotta try and believe....) 1.Hate the Braves with PASSION and extreme prejudice 1a. Try and go a week without having to punch a wall in frustration after watching the Mets play 2. 90 Wins and somehow get the Mets into playoffs this year 3. All 5 Starters have winning records this year 3a.Have team understand it is OK to get a hit with runners on base. 4. Mets win World Series (after divine intervention) | ||||
| PeterDragon | posted on 07-09-2002 @ 11:04 PM | | |||
| O&A Board Regular Registered: Jan. 01 | quote: I know very well that ticket prices won't go down as long as people want tickets (it is very easy example of elastic demand). And I agree that giving owners an excuse not to spend isn't a great idea either. However I hate revenue sharing worse (at least the way it is implemented), and if to get a cap you increase minimum spending, that would help narrow the gap. Hell, let them take the money and spend it on the new stadiums instead of having the public do it. It isn't perfect, but having the Red Sox spend $109,558,908 (see, I didn't have to pick on the Yankees :-D ) and the Twins spend $24,350,000 (as they did in 2001) doesn't seem right either. 2002 Crack Committee Objectives: (modified version)(You gotta try and believe....) 1.Hate the Braves with PASSION and extreme prejudice 1a. Try and go a week without having to punch a wall in frustration after watching the Mets play 2. 90 Wins and somehow get the Mets into playoffs this year 3. All 5 Starters have winning records this year 3a.Have team understand it is OK to get a hit with runners on base. 4. Mets win World Series (after divine intervention) | ||||
| Page
1
2
3
Displaying 51-59 of 59 messages in this thread. |