Comments on: News of the Day – 12/30/08 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/ Baseball Blog by Alex Belth about the Yankees Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:02:48 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: williamnyy23 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84356 williamnyy23 Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:09:18 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84356 [18] Fairness is relative. What I think is unfair is the notion that the Yankees should be held to spending limits because other teams do not have the same fan interest. MLB is a regional sport, and the areas that care about baseball the most are in the Northeast. As a result, those teams are able to attract more revenue. For that reason, I have no problem with teams in larger baseball markets being able to invest more. Why? Because more people care about the teams and are willing to spend money when they can root for a winner. The notion of a salary cap is also nonsense because unlike the NFL, MLB revenues are driven by local efforts. With a national TV contract comprising the lionshare of its revenue, there is no need for local markets to have the incentive to create new revenue. In baseball, however, massive revenue sharing would essentially place the risk burden on local teams, while the league reaps the reward. Why would any team invest millions into local revenue effort when they'd have to split the reward 30 ways? The NFL has designed its sport to be appealing TV programming. It's high ratings are the result of scarcity and casual interest, the latter stemming from gambling concerns. With a revenue base that is posied to leap past the NFL, baseball would be wise to throw the NFL blueprint into the fire. Finally, a salary cap creates an inefficient allocation of league resources, which is why NFL owners are no considering abandoning it. It makes no sense to have a salary floor because it mandates spending...even when such an action would be unwise. As a result, players in the NFL and NBA make a larger percentage of league revenue than in MLB. Deep down, I don't believe any MLB owner wants an NFL style system because it would require most to raise salaries and then hope the Yankees and Red Sox are willing to continue to grow revenue to add to the bottom line. The bottom line is that outside of the Rays, every team has a very fair chance to make the playoffs (the Yankees can't win the other divisions). If the Royals, for example, are unwilling to spend money to make money, well, that's their problem. Furthermore, if the KC market still wouldn't support a winner, then they don't deserve a franchise. Having the Yankees curtail their operations for such teams is the definition of unfair. [18] Fairness is relative. What I think is unfair is the notion that the Yankees should be held to spending limits because other teams do not have the same fan interest. MLB is a regional sport, and the areas that care about baseball the most are in the Northeast. As a result, those teams are able to attract more revenue. For that reason, I have no problem with teams in larger baseball markets being able to invest more. Why? Because more people care about the teams and are willing to spend money when they can root for a winner.

The notion of a salary cap is also nonsense because unlike the NFL, MLB revenues are driven by local efforts. With a national TV contract comprising the lionshare of its revenue, there is no need for local markets to have the incentive to create new revenue. In baseball, however, massive revenue sharing would essentially place the risk burden on local teams, while the league reaps the reward. Why would any team invest millions into local revenue effort when they’d have to split the reward 30 ways?

The NFL has designed its sport to be appealing TV programming. It’s high ratings are the result of scarcity and casual interest, the latter stemming from gambling concerns. With a revenue base that is posied to leap past the NFL, baseball would be wise to throw the NFL blueprint into the fire.

Finally, a salary cap creates an inefficient allocation of league resources, which is why NFL owners are no considering abandoning it. It makes no sense to have a salary floor because it mandates spending…even when such an action would be unwise. As a result, players in the NFL and NBA make a larger percentage of league revenue than in MLB. Deep down, I don’t believe any MLB owner wants an NFL style system because it would require most to raise salaries and then hope the Yankees and Red Sox are willing to continue to grow revenue to add to the bottom line.

The bottom line is that outside of the Rays, every team has a very fair chance to make the playoffs (the Yankees can’t win the other divisions). If the Royals, for example, are unwilling to spend money to make money, well, that’s their problem. Furthermore, if the KC market still wouldn’t support a winner, then they don’t deserve a franchise. Having the Yankees curtail their operations for such teams is the definition of unfair.

]]> By: Joel http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84351 Joel Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:53:22 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84351 "Wah! Wah! I want a salary cap." "Wah! Wah! I want cost certainty." "Wah! Wah! I want built-in profit--even if I field a shitty product." “Wah! Wah! I want a salary cap.”

“Wah! Wah! I want cost certainty.”

“Wah! Wah! I want built-in profit–even if I field a shitty product.”

]]> By: ChrisS http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84348 ChrisS Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:56:07 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84348 I think complaining about the Yankees' payroll and revenue is always there, simmering. This year the financial advantage is particularly apparent and actually helps them more than recently. Paying $325 million for a 38 yo relief pitcher, 37 yo catcher, and a MVP they already had under contract is one thing, like shelling out $180-210 million for likes of Pavano, Wright, Johnson, Brown, Giambi, etc. the last few years. The Yankees spent a lot, but in the end they weren't so dangerous. Most baseball writers and GMs (despite popular opinion) are pretty bright and they know that the Yankees taking the top three free agents bang bang bang, while building a younger, better team in the process is dangerous. Of course, for example, in 3 years when Sabathia is recovering from his labrum surgery, AJ Burnett is struggling, and Teixeira is good but not great, ARod and Jeter are scuffling, no one will be complaining about the Yankees high payroll. And despite the acquisitions, the Yankees are no lock to win the Serious (Sure, to win 85-95 games, I'd definitely take that bet), but there're holes that could have this team scuffling (e.g., Posada, Cano, CF, and possibilities for decline in Matsui, Jeter, Damon). I think complaining about the Yankees’ payroll and revenue is always there, simmering. This year the financial advantage is particularly apparent and actually helps them more than recently. Paying $325 million for a 38 yo relief pitcher, 37 yo catcher, and a MVP they already had under contract is one thing, like shelling out $180-210 million for likes of Pavano, Wright, Johnson, Brown, Giambi, etc. the last few years. The Yankees spent a lot, but in the end they weren’t so dangerous. Most baseball writers and GMs (despite popular opinion) are pretty bright and they know that the Yankees taking the top three free agents bang bang bang, while building a younger, better team in the process is dangerous.

Of course, for example, in 3 years when Sabathia is recovering from his labrum surgery, AJ Burnett is struggling, and Teixeira is good but not great, ARod and Jeter are scuffling, no one will be complaining about the Yankees high payroll. And despite the acquisitions, the Yankees are no lock to win the Serious (Sure, to win 85-95 games, I’d definitely take that bet), but there’re holes that could have this team scuffling (e.g., Posada, Cano, CF, and possibilities for decline in Matsui, Jeter, Damon).

]]> By: SteveAmerica http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84335 SteveAmerica Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:20:10 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84335 i think the payroll is actually a few clicks lower. i think the payroll is actually a few clicks lower.

]]> By: SteveAmerica http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84331 SteveAmerica Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:18:42 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84331 Dear Frank Deford, As usual, yawn. Love Steve Dear Frank Deford,

As usual, yawn.

Love

Steve

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84322 monkeypants Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:58:01 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84322 [19] Exactly, so the "problem" has been largely fixed already by a redistributive model, one that redistributes teams and playoff spots rather than wealth. The only team that gets screwed in this model is the Rays--I refuse to accept for a moment that the Orioles, Sox and Jays (in one of the largest, wealthiest markets in North America, with a national TV audience of over 30 million people) cannot compete with the Yankees because of market/financial constraints. [16] You may be right, but I suspect that a team in, say NJ, would have its own following. Also, there may be initial passive "anti-support" for a third team: in other words, if another NY team were placed in the AL, would mets fans support it against the Yankees? Would Boston or Baltimore fans attend games because tix are relatively easy to get, to see their own team or root against other teams? A reasonable TV deal is a more difficult obstacle, but not insurmountable. I just figure that in a metro market of 20+ million, and an even larger extra-metro market, it should not be impossible to find a couple of million fans. [19] Exactly, so the “problem” has been largely fixed already by a redistributive model, one that redistributes teams and playoff spots rather than wealth. The only team that gets screwed in this model is the Rays–I refuse to accept for a moment that the Orioles, Sox and Jays (in one of the largest, wealthiest markets in North America, with a national TV audience of over 30 million people) cannot compete with the Yankees because of market/financial constraints.

[16] You may be right, but I suspect that a team in, say NJ, would have its own following. Also, there may be initial passive “anti-support” for a third team: in other words, if another NY team were placed in the AL, would mets fans support it against the Yankees? Would Boston or Baltimore fans attend games because tix are relatively easy to get, to see their own team or root against other teams? A reasonable TV deal is a more difficult obstacle, but not insurmountable.

I just figure that in a metro market of 20+ million, and an even larger extra-metro market, it should not be impossible to find a couple of million fans.

]]> By: Benjamin Kabak http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84321 Benjamin Kabak Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:57:36 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84321 The MLB Network is not a part of MLB.com. They're completely separate entities in the hierarchy of baseball. The MLB Network is not a part of MLB.com. They’re completely separate entities in the hierarchy of baseball.

]]> By: The Hawk http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84319 The Hawk Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:40:29 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84319 [18] The main argument is what it always has been. Unless something changes, it'll always be that way. I'm not talking about the argument itself, but about the quantity and intensity level of a lot of commentary. All I'm saying is, some people are reacting to the signings of late 2008 as if the Yankees shot their dog. There's no logical reason the argument should have so much passion this year as opposed to last. It's just perception. Sign your own guys (Posada and Mo) for too much money or have guys still on the team you signed for ridiculous money years ago (Giambi), and there are just the usual complaints. This year's moves may look bad in a superficial sense, but looking a little closer (the lack of overall payroll increase is a start), it becomes clear that a lot of the response has been overreaction. I'd also add that Sabathia and Teixeira are replacements for their 2008 ace and 2008 first baseman/slugger. Teixeira and Burnett had comparable offers from other teams and didn't take them. Does anyone really think Teixeira was holding out for the extra 1.5 million a year he got from the Yanks over the Sox? I really think only Sabathia qualifies as a signing only the Yankees could have pulled off, and it was an important one, at least to them. [18] The main argument is what it always has been. Unless something changes, it’ll always be that way. I’m not talking about the argument itself, but about the quantity and intensity level of a lot of commentary. All I’m saying is, some people are reacting to the signings of late 2008 as if the Yankees shot their dog. There’s no logical reason the argument should have so much passion this year as opposed to last. It’s just perception. Sign your own guys (Posada and Mo) for too much money or have guys still on the team you signed for ridiculous money years ago (Giambi), and there are just the usual complaints. This year’s moves may look bad in a superficial sense, but looking a little closer (the lack of overall payroll increase is a start), it becomes clear that a lot of the response has been overreaction.

I’d also add that Sabathia and Teixeira are replacements for their 2008 ace and 2008 first baseman/slugger. Teixeira and Burnett had comparable offers from other teams and didn’t take them. Does anyone really think Teixeira was holding out for the extra 1.5 million a year he got from the Yanks over the Sox? I really think only Sabathia qualifies as a signing only the Yankees could have pulled off, and it was an important one, at least to them.

]]> By: JL25and3 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84316 JL25and3 Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:20:49 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84316 [14], [17] Oh, and another reason that baseball is more competitive than it's ever been: three divisions and a wild card have enabled crappier teams to get to the postseason, where that dumb-luck factor comes back into it. [14], [17] Oh, and another reason that baseball is more competitive than it’s ever been: three divisions and a wild card have enabled crappier teams to get to the postseason, where that dumb-luck factor comes back into it.

]]> By: JL25and3 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2008/12/30/news-of-the-day-123008/comment-page-1/#comment-84315 JL25and3 Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:18:24 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=6514#comment-84315 [15] The fact that it hasn't gone up from last year - might even go down a tiny bit - isn't really relevant to the main argument. [14] Yes, it is unfair. It's not prohibitive - it still doesn't wrap things up in April, and there's a dumb-luck factor that overrides just about anything else in October. It still allows the Yankees to operate on different terms from any other team. The competitiveness is also a little bit of a sham. A lot of different teams have found themselves as winners over the last 10 years or so. One reason is that virtually none of them are able to sustain that winning team for very long. The Yankees and Red Sox are exceptions; so were the Braves, when Turner was playing Steinbrenner. There are a couple of other teams that should be able to build that same kind of advantage: the Red Sox, Mets, Cards, Cubs, Dodgers. That doesn't come close to a level playing field. [15] The fact that it hasn’t gone up from last year – might even go down a tiny bit – isn’t really relevant to the main argument.

[14] Yes, it is unfair. It’s not prohibitive – it still doesn’t wrap things up in April, and there’s a dumb-luck factor that overrides just about anything else in October. It still allows the Yankees to operate on different terms from any other team.

The competitiveness is also a little bit of a sham. A lot of different teams have found themselves as winners over the last 10 years or so. One reason is that virtually none of them are able to sustain that winning team for very long. The Yankees and Red Sox are exceptions; so were the Braves, when Turner was playing Steinbrenner.

There are a couple of other teams that should be able to build that same kind of advantage: the Red Sox, Mets, Cards, Cubs, Dodgers. That doesn’t come close to a level playing field.

]]>