PDA

View Full Version : Great Analysis of MLB vs. Yankees Payroll AND...How much money IS on the Southside?


Waysouthsider
11-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Really interesting discussion of rates of investment back into clubs given incomes for the club as a whole....makes you really wonder about how much money the Sox REALLY have given their rates of reinvestment compared to other clubs????:scratch::scratch:

http://www.subtraction.com/2009/11/08/watching-yankees-spending

Waysouthsider
11-10-2009, 12:56 PM
Just found a really cool analysis of payrolls and club incomes. (see link:

http://www.subtraction.com/2009/11/08/watching-yankees-spending )

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the sCrUBs we would have an additional 13.7 million to add to payroll....

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the Kitties we would have an additional 25million to add to payroll....

Kinda makes you think, eh?

Daver
11-10-2009, 01:03 PM
Where is he getting his revenue numbers from, or is he just making them up?

getonbckthr
11-10-2009, 01:04 PM
Looking at that chart here's what I gather. Mind you I may be completely off base and nuts but nonetheless. Without busting out a calculator it appears on average the difference between payroll and revenue is roughly 100 million. Based on that I'm beginning to believe the Yankees in a way were about 74 million under budget. Opposed to the Tigers who were 30 million over budget. This damning to the Padres in my opinion because thier differnece is 131 million and they only spent 43 million.

Trav
11-10-2009, 01:09 PM
Sure seems like BS when a team cries red.

voodoochile
11-10-2009, 01:11 PM
Just found a really cool analysis of payrolls and club incomes. (see link:

http://www.subtraction.com/2009/11/08/watching-yankees-spending )

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the sCrUBs we would have an additional 13.7 million to add to payroll....

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the Kitties we would have an additional 25million to add to payroll....

Kinda makes you think, eh?

Well the Kitties are supposedly losing a lot of money at present, so I don't think that's a viable option. The flubbies revenue is skewed by their sweetheart WGN deal too which simply robs the flubbies to pay the TV station and thus avoid tax issues.

In addition those are 2008 revenue numbers which are definitely higher than 2009 numbers based on attendance and I assume lower revenue from advertising which was a result of the recession - I don't know for a fact that happened, but it was anticipated to happen so that's what it was based on.

In addition, the Sox actually ended up closer to $103M roughly due to taking on about two months each of Peavy and Rios' contracts.

Finally, in 2008 the Sox payroll was $121M+ which comes out to 61.8% of 2008 revenue.

In short, I don't think much of the analysis. I think it uses last year's revenue and this year's payroll figures which is a major issue right off the bat.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=4

Waysouthsider
11-10-2009, 01:22 PM
I wondered what in the world the Pirates were doing when I saw this....


I started a thread related just to the sox on the main site and there has been some great criticism of the numbers used to produce this.... I'd like to see a more careful analysis and will look someone who's looked at historical trends...

Waysouthsider
11-10-2009, 01:24 PM
Great points guys...this really got me thinking...I'll see if I can find some additional material on historical trends as well as methodologies for computing/projecting real income and expenditures.

I've always thought that Jerry aimed to keep his funds "neutral" in regard to the Sox so this made me take a step back.

voodoochile
11-10-2009, 01:25 PM
We don't need two threads on this topic.

Is that your blog?

Jpgr91
11-10-2009, 01:28 PM
This does not account for other costs in running the club. Even though Payroll is the biggest single expense, there are other expenses every team must pay. Simply looking at how much any business spends on payroll as a % does not give any insight whatsoever to the overall financial picture of the organization.

DumpJerry
11-10-2009, 01:30 PM
Where is he getting his revenue numbers from, or is he just making them up?
He's making them up. The information is not public and several teams have multiple revenue streams from media ownership, so it is hard to pin down what a team's real "revenue" is.

If he was not making up the numbers, he would explain where he got them from. He's just a Yankee fan trying to show his team is not doing what most people accuse it of doing (buying championships).

NardiWasHere
11-10-2009, 01:30 PM
How is this guy getting revenue numbers?

I thought that was kept private.

EDIT:
This was already discussed... sorry....

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2009, 01:31 PM
Well the Kitties are supposedly losing a lot of money at present, so I don't think that's a viable option. The flubbies revenue is skewed by their sweetheart WGN deal too which simply robs the flubbies to pay the TV station and thus avoid tax issues.

In addition those are 2008 revenue numbers which are definitely higher than 2009 numbers based on attendance and I assume lower revenue from advertising which was a result of the recession - I don't know for a fact that happened, but it was anticipated to happen so that's what it was based on.

In addition, the Sox actually ended up closer to $103M roughly due to taking on about two months each of Peavy and Rios' contracts.

Finally, in 2008 the Sox payroll was $121M+ which comes out to 61.8% of 2008 revenue.

In short, I don't think much of the analysis. I think it uses last year's revenue and this year's payroll figures which is a major issue right off the bat.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=4


I think ML teams operate on "continuity" basis, which is why in most cases what you did the past season (revenue, winning, etc) dictates what you do the following season (expenses).

voodoochile
11-10-2009, 01:38 PM
I think ML teams operate on "continuity" basis, which is why in most cases what you did the past season (revenue, winning, etc) dictates what you do the following season (expenses).

Not the way I've every heard it discussed by the Sox in the media. They are always talking about anticipated revenue and basing the payroll on that.

russ99
11-10-2009, 01:39 PM
Great points guys...this really got me thinking...I'll see if I can find some additional material on historical trends as well as methodologies for computing/projecting real income and expenditures.

I've always thought that Jerry aimed to keep his funds "neutral" in regard to the Sox so this made me take a step back.

Also, player payroll is only a part of the club's expenses, albeit a large one.

I'm always one to call shenanigans on the Sox crying poor, but it's not like the Sox are bringing in $200M and only spending $100M.

Mohoney
11-10-2009, 01:40 PM
There is not enough information here to reach a valid conclusion, even if the revenue numbers are legit.

This doesn't factor in any other operating costs, which can vary greatly from team to team. It almost goes so far as to assume that all other non-payroll expenditures take up the exact same percentage of every team's revenue.

khan
11-10-2009, 01:41 PM
At a minimum, this "analysis" is poorly-sourced. At worst, it ignores so many other dimensions of revenues and so many other dimensions of expenditures.

There is very little to see or learn here, IMO.

MisterB
11-10-2009, 01:43 PM
To echo Voodoo's comment - Teams planned out their 2009 payrolls based on their projected 2009 revenues.

They do this because:
1) the lag between team performance and fan spending (i.e. bad team this year usually means lower ticket sales next year);
2) other revenue streams might change (advertising, broadcast contracts, etc.)
3) player contracts are given based on projected performance and the ability to adjust payroll during the season is limited.

asindc
11-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Aside from the % of revenue issue, I don't like the premise of the blog. He states that since the Yanks have won "only" one WS this decade, and ended their WS "drought" after nine years (one poster to the blog is right: Only a Yanks fan among all American sports teams would call nine years a "drought"), then having by far the largest payroll in baseball gives them no advantage.

BS, pure and simple. The Yanks have missed the playoffs only once since 1995, and promptly went out and became the first $200 million dollar team in American sports history as a reaction to missing the playoffs. While Posnanski wrote a blog (here it is: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/05/the-yankees-payroll/) that breaks this down better than I have here, basically what the Yanks' revenue and consequential payroll does for them is give them the inherent advantage of making the playoffs virtually every year. After all, you can't win the WS if you don't make the playoffs, which they usually don't have a problem doing because of their high payroll. So the issue isn't how many WS have they won recently, but how often do they have a viable chance to win the WS relative to every other team in baseball.

Balfanman
11-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Aside from the % of revenue issue, I don't like the premise of the blog. He states that since the Yanks have won "only" one WS this decade, and ended their WS "drought" after nine years (one poster to the blog is right: Only a Yanks fan among all American sports teams would call nine years a "drought"), then having by far the largest payroll in baseball gives them no advantage.

BS, pure and simple. The Yanks have missed the playoffs only once since 1995, and promptly went out and became the first $200 million dollar team in American sports history as a reaction to missing the playoffs. While Posnanski wrote a blog (here it is: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/05/the-yankees-payroll/) that breaks this down better than I have here, basically what the Yanks' revenue and consequential payroll does for them is give them the inherent advantage of making the playoffs virtually every year. After all, you can't win the WS if you don't make the playoffs, which they usually don't have a problem doing because of their high payroll. So the issue isn't how many WS have they won recently, but how often do they have a viable chance to win the WS relative to every other team in baseball.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I am definitely not smart enough to figure this whole issue out, but I do feel the the Yankee / Red Sox / Cub situation needs to be ironed out or it will eventually ruin baseball. I do realize that some of the small market teams problems are caused by bad management, but they have such a small room for error that you almost have to be lucky rather than good to have a chance.

I am so thankful that I am not an Oriole, Blue Jay, or Rays fan. It has to be rough going into a season knowing that things have to go perfectly for you throughout the season in order to stand a chance. Then, even if you do get that one fortunate season like the Rays did in 2008, you're most likely done again for several years.

Can you imaging if the Yankees and Red Sox were in our division? We would be talking about how we can improve enough, that with a few lucky breaks we might be able to capture third place.:(:

asindc
11-10-2009, 03:23 PM
Another poster to that blog put it even more succintly: The way MLB operates basically prevents an organization from developing the way Pittsburgh has in the NFL and San Antonio has in the NBA. Put another way, if those leagues had the revenue and salary structure that MLB has, Roethlisberger (if not for Eli Manning) and Fitzgerald would be playing for the Giants, and Tim Duncan and Wade would be playing for the Knicks.

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2009, 03:26 PM
Not the way I've every heard it discussed by the Sox in the media. They are always talking about anticipated revenue and basing the payroll on that.


That's the Sox mentality of putting the Cart before the horse. Continuity is not in their vocabulary and is the reason they took the foot off the gas after the 2006 season and had a disastrous offseason leading into 2007. 2006 was perhaps the peak point in White Sox popularity when it comes to attendance and revenue. Instead of sustaining and building off that, they decided to take way too many steps back and not add to a team which was still pretty damn good to compete in the AL.

The great teams pay for the product up front and anticipate the fan base to buy into it.

voodoochile
11-10-2009, 03:40 PM
That's the Sox mentality of putting the Cart before the horse. Continuity is not in their vocabulary and is the reason they took the foot off the gas after the 2006 season and had a disastrous offseason leading into 2007. 2006 was perhaps the peak point in White Sox popularity when it comes to attendance and revenue. Instead of sustaining and building off that, they decided to take way too many steps back and not add to a team which was still pretty damn good to compete in the AL.

The great teams pay for the product up front and anticipate the fan base to buy into it.

That's changing the subject and delving into motives. I disagree and I'll leave it at that. I used to feel the same way, but I think they've proven me wrong or changed the way the team is run or whatever you want to call it so I cannot in good faith endorse your sentiments.

Domeshot17
11-10-2009, 04:06 PM
Its more complex then this but this is the numbers I expected to be honest. I figured we are about middle of the pack. You know JR is has and always will be a business first man. He has proven it with the Sox and Bulls. He isn't CHEAP, but he won't operate at a loss, when feels the pockets tighten, he tightens the teams pockets.

That said, if you factored in other expenses we won't be much higher. It has been noted by a very different places over time: We don't spend money in the draft, we don't spent all that much money on scouting and we don't spend very much in international scouting. We don't have some kick ass minor league coaching staff etc. and our marketing plans aren't anything to ever boost about.

In essence, as an infamous coach might say "The Sox are who we thought they were". They aren't cheap, but they aren't lavish spenders. Atleast they don't reflect it upon the fans too poorly. While last year the fans decided Ticket Prices and the insane number of Premium Games were too much for a piss poor slopped together team, atleast we aren't charged thousands of dollars for premium seats. Our ticket prices if I remember also fall into the middle of the league.

LoveYourSuit
11-10-2009, 04:16 PM
That's changing the subject and delving into motives. I disagree and I'll leave it at that. I used to feel the same way, but I think they've proven me wrong or changed the way the team is run or whatever you want to call it so I cannot in good faith endorse your sentiments.


The moves they made for Peavy and Rios late last season have proven me wrong also. I hope the train won't stop there this time and Kenny and JR realize that what they have in the rotation here cannot go to waste once again. This team can do HUGE things here in 2010 if management continues to stay aggresive.

If they build it, we will come.

Madscout
11-10-2009, 04:44 PM
Just found a really cool analysis of payrolls and club incomes. (see link:

http://www.subtraction.com/2009/11/08/watching-yankees-spending )

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the sCrUBs we would have an additional 13.7 million to add to payroll....

If Jerry reinvested revenues into payroll at the same rate as the Kitties we would have an additional 25million to add to payroll....

Kinda makes you think, eh?
And if he had access to half of the largest market in the nation and kept that percentage the same, according to this guy's numbers, he would have
$87,681,500 more to spend on payroll. It is the access to much larger markets that make this team able to afford such players as CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, Alex Rodriguez, and Mark Texiera. 3 of those players came last year, were upgrades from what they had from last year, and help push them from 86 or so wins and no playoffs to 103 wins and a WS championship. This guy's arguement and numbers are bull****.

Ranger
11-10-2009, 05:14 PM
To echo Voodoo's comment - Teams planned out their 2009 payrolls based on their projected 2009 revenues.

They do this because:
1) the lag between team performance and fan spending (i.e. bad team this year usually means lower ticket sales next year);
2) other revenue streams might change (advertising, broadcast contracts, etc.)
3) player contracts are given based on projected performance and the ability to adjust payroll during the season is limited.

This is actually pretty accurate, from what I understand.


That's the Sox mentality of putting the Cart before the horse. Continuity is not in their vocabulary and is the reason they took the foot off the gas after the 2006 season and had a disastrous offseason leading into 2007. 2006 was perhaps the peak point in White Sox popularity when it comes to attendance and revenue. Instead of sustaining and building off that, they decided to take way too many steps back and not add to a team which was still pretty damn good to compete in the AL.

The great teams pay for the product up front and anticipate the fan base to buy into it.

Not really. The Sox are not in the position to be able to spend a bunch up front and hope that the fans exceed expectations in coming out to the park. They are not a team that has that luxury. Remember it took Sox fans 4 months before they started regularly selling out games in 2005, and they were in first place the entire season and up by 10 games by July. And there were still games in Spetember where they didn't even get 30,000 to show up.

They still had 4th highest payroll in the game in 2007, so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they "took their foot off the gas" after '06. They really didn't. You wanted them to outspend the New York clubs? You can be unhappy with the money spent, but you can't say they weren't spending it because that's just factually incorrect.

LoveYourSuit
11-12-2009, 01:29 PM
This is actually pretty accurate, from what I understand.




Not really. The Sox are not in the position to be able to spend a bunch up front and hope that the fans exceed expectations in coming out to the park. They are not a team that has that luxury. Remember it took Sox fans 4 months before they started regularly selling out games in 2005, and they were in first place the entire season and up by 10 games by July. And there were still games in Spetember where they didn't even get 30,000 to show up.

They still had 4th highest payroll in the game in 2007, so I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say they "took their foot off the gas" after '06. They really didn't. You wanted them to outspend the New York clubs? You can be unhappy with the money spent, but you can't say they weren't spending it because that's just factually incorrect.


The Sox won 90 games in 2006 and broke attendance records (and I would assume revenue too) and yet their offseason investments/moves for 2007 were Erstad, Floyd, Danks, Masset, Aardsma, Cisco.

I guess it wasn't taking their foot of of the gas and more like slamming on the damn brakes.

UChicagoHP
11-12-2009, 02:32 PM
This has always been Reinsdorf's philsophy...and one of the main reasons I wish he would sell the team. He 'aint an ideal owner, from a fan's perspective. Don't get me wrong, the situation could be much worse, but it could be much better as well.

spawn
11-12-2009, 03:15 PM
This has always been Reinsdorf's philsophy...and one of the main reasons I wish he would sell the team. He 'aint an ideal owner, from a fan's perspective. Don't get me wrong, the situation could be much worse, but it could be much better as well.
Really? The guy has 7 championships (6 NBA, 1 MLB). How many team owners in the city of Chicago can match that?

Ranger
11-12-2009, 03:56 PM
The Sox won 90 games in 2006 and broke attendance records (and I would assume revenue too) and yet their offseason investments/moves for 2007 were Erstad, Floyd, Danks, Masset, Aardsma, Cisco.

I guess it wasn't taking their foot of of the gas and more like slamming on the damn brakes.

Again, you're not understanding how these economics work. The 2006 salary was based on ticket sales projections (both season tickets, and individual game) for 2006. It has nothing to do with the previous year (except that they knew from winning the World Series in '05, they could pretty much guarantee a nearly sold out 2006). The money made in a given year is essentially the money that funds the payroll THAT year, not the following year. 2007's payroll funds do not come from what happened in 2006, they come from what's projected, and ultimately made, in 2007.

Oh, and I'll reiterate: they STILL had the 4th highest payroll in baseball in 2007. And I'll again ask you: you wanted them to do what exactly?

This has always been Reinsdorf's philsophy...and one of the main reasons I wish he would sell the team. He 'aint an ideal owner, from a fan's perspective. Don't get me wrong, the situation could be much worse, but it could be much better as well.

This is pretty much how every owner in sports operates, with the exception of a small, crazy handful. They don't want to, nor should they have to, spend their own money on payroll.

cards press box
11-12-2009, 05:25 PM
And if he had access to half of the largest market in the nation and kept that percentage the same, according to this guy's numbers, he would have
$87,681,500 more to spend on payroll. It is the access to much larger markets that make this team able to afford such players as CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, Alex Rodriguez, and Mark Texiera.

You are absolutely right. Every time I hear that the Steinbrenners spend so much because of their will to win, I have to laugh. In the context of owning the Yankees and their vast pool of media revenue, the "will to win" argument is a complete joke. If the Steinbrenners owned K.C with their local media market and still spent $200 million on payroll, that would support such an argument. Unless I am mistaken, the Yanks spend a lesser percentage of revenue that comes in from baseball activity than do the White Sox or Washington Nationals. The Yankees just have a lot more money at their disposal than everyone else does. They spend exorbitant amounts of money because they can and still turn a substantial profit. That reflects more on MLB's crazy economic system than it does on the Yankees' skill or desire to win. Anyone who tries to read some moral superiority into the Yankees' wild spending sprees regarding the will to win is seriously and profoundly mistaken.

LoveYourSuit
11-12-2009, 05:43 PM
Again, you're not understanding how these economics work. The 2006 salary was based on ticket sales projections (both season tickets, and individual game) for 2006. It has nothing to do with the previous year (except that they knew from winning the World Series in '05, they could pretty much guarantee a nearly sold out 2006). The money made in a given year is essentially the money that funds the payroll THAT year, not the following year. 2007's payroll funds do not come from what happened in 2006, they come from what's projected, and ultimately made, in 2007.

Oh, and I'll reiterate: they STILL had the 4th highest payroll in baseball in 2007. And I'll again ask you: you wanted them to do what exactly?

.

Not sure if you have been here (Chicago) long enough to recall the words out of JR when fans would bitch about payroll :

paraphrase - " you show up, we will spend"

That's what JR said. So to me, that tells me the Sox budget is based on previous year's earnings or it would make no sense to say something like that. Unless spending to them is picking up a 1 year rental in late July. You assemble your team before the season starts and not when the season is in progress. You can pick up some pieces on the way, but the bulk of your work should be done before the season starts.

So again. They are putting the cart before the horse, that's how they have always done it. 2006 was the one season where I felt so great about where we stood as a franchise. When we picked up Thome and Javy, in my lifetime that is the first time I felt like my team was going for it all. It was awesome. It didn't work out, but IMO it was was the first time we went for it at 110% from day one.


And yes Ranger you are correct that 2007 was the 4th largest payroll but it was a payroll that we all knew was heading on a decline. We did not sustain and we lost a good portion of the casual fanbase after that debacle of a season. I think had we sustained that momentum we had going, we would be like the Anaheim Angels right now. The Angels took advantage of that World Series and took off from there with out looking back. I honestly feel we dropped the ball big time in 2007.

gosox41
11-12-2009, 08:40 PM
You are absolutely right. Every time I hear that the Steinbrenners spend so much because of their will to win, I have to laugh. In the context of owning the Yankees and their vast pool of media revenue, the "will to win" argument is a complete joke. If the Steinbrenners owned K.C with their local media market and still spent $200 million on payroll, that would support such an argument. Unless I am mistaken, the Yanks spend a lesser percentage of revenue that comes in from baseball activity than do the White Sox or Washington Nationals. The Yankees just have a lot more money at their disposal than everyone else does. They spend exorbitant amounts of money because they can and still turn a substantial profit. That reflects more on MLB's crazy economic system than it does on the Yankees' skill or desire to win. Anyone who tries to read some moral superiority into the Yankees' wild spending sprees regarding the will to win is seriously and profoundly mistaken.


And anyone who thinks using the Yankees business model will generate the same exact dollar amount in revenues in just about any ML city is mistaken.


Bob

gosox41
11-12-2009, 08:45 PM
Not sure if you have been here (Chicago) long enough to recall the words out of JR when fans would bitch about payroll :

paraphrase - " you show up, we will spend"

That's what JR said. So to me, that tells me the Sox budget is based on previous year's earnings or it would make no sense to say something like that. Unless spending to them is picking up a 1 year rental in late July. You assemble your team before the season starts and not when the season is in progress. You can pick up some pieces on the way, but the bulk of your work should be done before the season starts.



I'm guessing budget is based on both. They have always reinvested previous year profits back into salary. On the flipside they look forward to project renvenue. For example when the Sox had lots of advertising deals expire at the end of 2008 and they were renewed at a much lower rate, this was reflecfted in their 2009 payroll.

Where they screwed up was by raising ticket prices while decreasing their payroll.


Bob

Ranger
11-13-2009, 03:16 PM
Not sure if you have been here (Chicago) long enough to recall the words out of JR when fans would bitch about payroll :

paraphrase - " you show up, we will spend"

That's what JR said. So to me, that tells me the Sox budget is based on previous year's earnings or it would make no sense to say something like that. Unless spending to them is picking up a 1 year rental in late July. You assemble your team before the season starts and not when the season is in progress. You can pick up some pieces on the way, but the bulk of your work should be done before the season starts.

So again. They are putting the cart before the horse, that's how they have always done it. 2006 was the one season where I felt so great about where we stood as a franchise. When we picked up Thome and Javy, in my lifetime that is the first time I felt like my team was going for it all. It was awesome. It didn't work out, but IMO it was was the first time we went for it at 110% from day one.


And yes Ranger you are correct that 2007 was the 4th largest payroll but it was a payroll that we all knew was heading on a decline. We did not sustain and we lost a good portion of the casual fanbase after that debacle of a season. I think had we sustained that momentum we had going, we would be like the Anaheim Angels right now. The Angels took advantage of that World Series and took off from there with out looking back. I honestly feel we dropped the ball big time in 2007.


Why would you argue with the economics if this is how it's done and has to be done? Teams that operate normally (meaning they don't have this abundance of cash lying around...which means pretty much everyone) have to base their payroll on what they will make (or believe they will make) in that given season, not on what they make the year before. This is how it's done. There is no argument here.

I appreciate your passion for your team, but you just don't have a basic understanding of the financial side of it. The Sox took advantage of their explosion in popularity after 2005 and increased the payroll by $25 million the next season. That was a 33% jump. The money they knew they were going to get, they spent.

Now, after missing the playoffs in '06, they knew the following season there would be a dropoff...and there was. Even with that being the case, they STILL held steady with payroll and had the 4th highest in the game. Again, what sort of "taking off" did you want them to do? I just don't understand what you're trying to say or how you think it would have been economically feasible. You wanted them to outspend both New York teams and Los Angeles that year when they drew less than 2.7 million fans? Still a decent number, but the other teams drew 4.3, 3.9, and 3.4. And despite being smack in the middle of baseball attendance (15th of 30), they were near the top in payroll. Mediocre attendance yet spending like they're in the elite. How could you possibly complain about that?

I just think you're holding on to the history of how things used to be and making your judgements on that. This is not the same era any longer, and what happened from 1901 to 2001 does not apply here any longer.

You can argue that you didn't like the money they did spend, but you cannot argue they were cheap. They have proven that when fans come out, they spend the money. The numbers support that 100%. When Reinsdorf says what he did, he means that if they can project good attendance, they'll be able to spend for that season. When they won the championship, they knew they would make money the following year because they knew season tickets were gonna skyrocket. And they did. People that own teams are business people. Projections are how it's done.

LoveYourSuit
11-13-2009, 03:44 PM
Why would you argue with the economics if this is how it's done and has to be done? Teams that operate normally (meaning they don't have this abundance of cash lying around...which means pretty much everyone) have to base their payroll on what they will make (or believe they will make) in that given season, not on what they make the year before. This is how it's done. There is no argument here.

I appreciate your passion for your team, but you just don't have a basic understanding of the financial side of it. The Sox took advantage of their explosion in popularity after 2005 and increased the payroll by $25 million the next season. That was a 33% jump. The money they knew they were going to get, they spent.

Now, after missing the playoffs in '06, they knew the following season there would be a dropoff...and there was. Even with that being the case, they STILL held steady with payroll and had the 4th highest in the game. Again, what sort of "taking off" did you want them to do? I just don't understand what you're trying to say or how you think it would have been economically feasible. You wanted them to outspend both New York teams and Los Angeles that year when they drew less than 2.7 million fans? Still a decent number, but the other teams drew 4.3, 3.9, and 3.4. And despite being smack in the middle of baseball attendance (15th of 30), they were near the top in payroll. Mediocre attendance yet spending like they're in the elite. How could you possibly complain about that?

I just think you're holding on to the history of how things used to be and making your judgements on that. This is not the same era any longer, and what happened from 1901 to 2001 does not apply here any longer.

You can argue that you didn't like the money they did spend, but you cannot argue they were cheap. They have proven that when fans come out, they spend the money. The numbers support that 100%. When Reinsdorf says what he did, he means that if they can project good attendance, they'll be able to spend for that season. When they won the championship, they knew they would make money the following year because they knew season tickets were gonna skyrocket. And they did. People that own teams are business people. Projections are how it's done.


Well I guess my gripe is really on how they spent the "4th largest pay roll" in baseball and got little back from it, and this coming just 1 season removed from the World Series. I would have preferred them to throw more money into the fire to try to fix the problem, especially with the World Series momentum.

Ranger
11-13-2009, 04:00 PM
Well I guess my gripe is really on how they spent the "4th largest pay roll" in baseball and got little back from it, and this coming just 1 season removed from the World Series. I would have preferred them to throw more money into the fire to try to fix the problem, especially with the World Series momentum.

It is disappointing, you're right. Unfortunately, they are not in position to be able to outspend their mistakes, if you know what I mean. They really can't do what the Yankees do by spending even more money to cover for current players' underperformance.

"What's that? ARod and Jeter haven't won us a championship yet? That's fine, let's just go get CC, AJ, and Teixeira. In one offseason."

Lip Man 1
11-13-2009, 05:08 PM
Ranger:

I have to get ready for a broadcast tonight so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like in this discussion that you are having with Love.

I'd simply like to interject some points for whatever they may be worth:

1. I've spoken with two individuals in the past. One is a former player who knows two members of the board of directors and the other was a member of the White Sox media who knew something about the financial situation. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in a long time." (direct quote). If the Sox put every dollar into the team then logically they shouldn't be making any money. It should be a zero/sum game. If the Sox are making money, than they aren't putting every dollar back into the team on the field.

How much of a difference there is between the two, I have no idea...it could be pennies or it could be substancial.

2. In the book, "The Lords of the Realm," by Pulitzer Prize winning author John Helyar, he gives a detailed account of the lease agreement between the Sox and Jerry Reinsdorf and the state of Illinois calling it "one of the greatest sweetheart leases in pro sports." There may be much more funds available than many think because the Sox aren't paying the going rate for stadium operations, fees, taxes and so forth.

3. Just to use last season as an example and as I discussed with Mark Gonzales the way to draw fans and keep advertisers isn't to cut payroll the 2nd largest amount in MLB, raise ticket prices and have basically a do-nothing off season. If you want to keep advertisers and at least maintain the status quo with your ticker holders you have to do something that merits them thinking twice about if they want to drop the Sox. (And with respect, duds like Corky Miller, Wilson Betemit and Brent Lillibridge aren't the answer to that problem)

4. In the forward to Richard Lindberg's amazing White Sox encyclopedia, Eddie Einhorn wrote that what he realized from seeing the Sox World Series parade was that owning the Sox is maintaining a "public trust." Nowhere in that does he say a word about making a profit or keeping the board of directors happy.

So what am I saying? Do I think the Sox can do what the Yankees can do? Absolutely not.

Do I think given the highest average attendance in a four year stretch in franchise history (higher than the period from 1990-1993 and without the draw of the closing of a landmark stadium and the opening of a new one), the breaks they get in the stadium agreement (built at taxpayer expense) and the market they are located in, that they can do more in overall team payroll and the acquisition of talent?

Absolutely.

Lip

LoveYourSuit
11-13-2009, 06:15 PM
Ranger:

I have to get ready for a broadcast tonight so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like in this discussion that you are having with Love.

I'd simply like to interject some points for whatever they may be worth:

1. I've spoken with two individuals in the past. One is a former player who knows two members of the board of directors and the other was a member of the White Sox media who knew something about the financial situation. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in a long time." (direct quote). If the Sox put every dollar into the team then logically they shouldn't be making any money. It should be a zero/sum game. If the Sox are making money, than they aren't putting every dollar back into the team on the field.

How much of a difference there is between the two, I have no idea...it could be pennies or it could be substancial.

2. In the book, "The Lords of the Realm," by Pulitzer Prize winning author John Helyar, he gives a detailed account of the lease agreement between the Sox and Jerry Reinsdorf and the state of Illinois calling it "one of the greatest sweetheart leases in pro sports." There may be much more funds available than many think because the Sox aren't paying the going rate for stadium operations, fees, taxes and so forth.

3. Just to use last season as an example and as I discussed with Mark Gonzales the way to draw fans and keep advertisers isn't to cut payroll the 2nd largest amount in MLB, raise ticket prices and have basically a do-nothing off season. If you want to keep advertisers and at least maintain the status quo with your ticker holders you have to do something that merits them thinking twice about if they want to drop the Sox. (And with respect, duds like Corky Miller, Wilson Betemit and Brent Lillibridge aren't the answer to that problem)

4. In the forward to Richard Lindberg's amazing White Sox encyclopedia, Eddie Einhorn wrote that what he realized from seeing the Sox World Series parade was that owning the Sox is maintaining a "public trust." Nowhere in that does he say a word about making a profit or keeping the board of directors happy.

So what am I saying? Do I think the Sox can do what the Yankees can do? Absolutely not.

Do I think given the highest average attendance in a four year stretch in franchise history (higher than the period from 1990-1993 and without the draw of the closing of a landmark stadium and the opening of a new one), the breaks they get in the stadium agreement (built at taxpayer expense) and the market they are located in, that they can do more in overall team payroll and the acquisition of talent?

Absolutely.

Lip


Hid the nail dead on the head there Lip.

And your last point about the highest attendance average in the last 4 years, don't forget to add the impact of what winning a World Series meant for this town. The Sox had a huge window to significantly close the gap between the other team in town similar to what the Angels did to the Dodgers. But we lost it and it slipped out of our hands.

doublem23
11-13-2009, 06:24 PM
And your last point about the highest attendance average in the last 4 years, don't forget to add the impact of what winning a World Series meant for this town. The Sox had a huge window to significantly close the gap between the other team in town similar to what the Angels did to the Dodgers. But we lost it and it slipped out of our hands.

That's taking a very closed look at the Sox over the past few years. Even before the World Series title, the Sox were making headway after the doldrums of the '90s. Given where the Sox were after the 1999 season, the past 10 years have been remarkable. We're on the right path.

Noneck
11-13-2009, 09:05 PM
Given where the Sox were after the 1999 season, the past 10 years have been remarkable. We're on the right path.

Unfortunately that path as begun to meander downhill. This coming year is an important year to continue climbing uphill. A weak division, possible chaos on the other side of town and a starting staff that doesn't come around often, is something that has to be taken advantage of. Another sub .500 year could turn this path into a ski slope.

Ranger
11-13-2009, 11:16 PM
Ranger:

I have to get ready for a broadcast tonight so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like in this discussion that you are having with Love.

I'd simply like to interject some points for whatever they may be worth:

1. I've spoken with two individuals in the past. One is a former player who knows two members of the board of directors and the other was a member of the White Sox media who knew something about the financial situation. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in a long time." (direct quote). If the Sox put every dollar into the team then logically they shouldn't be making any money. It should be a zero/sum game. If the Sox are making money, than they aren't putting every dollar back into the team on the field.

How much of a difference there is between the two, I have no idea...it could be pennies or it could be substancial.

2. In the book, "The Lords of the Realm," by Pulitzer Prize winning author John Helyar, he gives a detailed account of the lease agreement between the Sox and Jerry Reinsdorf and the state of Illinois calling it "one of the greatest sweetheart leases in pro sports." There may be much more funds available than many think because the Sox aren't paying the going rate for stadium operations, fees, taxes and so forth.

3. Just to use last season as an example and as I discussed with Mark Gonzales the way to draw fans and keep advertisers isn't to cut payroll the 2nd largest amount in MLB, raise ticket prices and have basically a do-nothing off season. If you want to keep advertisers and at least maintain the status quo with your ticker holders you have to do something that merits them thinking twice about if they want to drop the Sox. (And with respect, duds like Corky Miller, Wilson Betemit and Brent Lillibridge aren't the answer to that problem)

4. In the forward to Richard Lindberg's amazing White Sox encyclopedia, Eddie Einhorn wrote that what he realized from seeing the Sox World Series parade was that owning the Sox is maintaining a "public trust." Nowhere in that does he say a word about making a profit or keeping the board of directors happy.

So what am I saying? Do I think the Sox can do what the Yankees can do? Absolutely not.

Do I think given the highest average attendance in a four year stretch in franchise history (higher than the period from 1990-1993 and without the draw of the closing of a landmark stadium and the opening of a new one), the breaks they get in the stadium agreement (built at taxpayer expense) and the market they are located in, that they can do more in overall team payroll and the acquisition of talent?

Absolutely.

Lip

I think you fall into the same trap that LYS does. You are relying too much on past decades to formulate your jdugements of what is happening today. You're of the skeptical/conspiracy theory/ownership-always-trying-to-screw-the-fans mindset. That's just how you are. The truth is, they are not.

You said it yourself: they said they haven't "lost money in a long time." That isn't saying they've made a ton of money. That's saying they just haven't lost anything. I'm sure there's probably some kind of something the board members get for their trouble (as in with every singel sports franchise in the world), but it isn't significant enough to be a gamechanger in terms of payroll.

To say they could do much better is factually incorrect. Lip, I just don't find this hard to understand: a team with mediocre attendance has no business being in the top 4 in payroll. And if they are, it's apparent they're doing just about everything they can to spend what they can.

Hey, if they can guarantee advertisers will come to their aid, then of course, they should spend more money. But advertisers do their homework. They know the Sox fanbase can be fickle and they won't commit unless they feel confident they'll get a return.

I see an organization trying every possible thing they can to generate revenue so they can have a competetive payroll. 2006 is absolute proof in that. The damn payroll jumped by 1/3 in one year, Lip. That's extraordinary. And that's because they knew the money would be there that year.

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 02:25 AM
Chris:

This and that.

1. History shows many cases of ownership doing or trying to do just that (i.e. screw the players, screw the fans etc.) Forgive me for being skeptical. I have good reason to. Three recent examples are the extortion of a new stadium in Chicago by threatening to move a charter member of the American League, trying to break and destroy the MLBPA in 1994 and shooting the Sox in the foot in the process and the White Flag Trade of 1997.

Are those past events? Yes. But they aren't 75 years ago either...they still have an impact and relevence to a percentage of the fan base.

For all of the good this ownership has done (and they've certainly done some of that, no question) these are also part of the historical legacy.

2. Please define for me what you mean by 'mediocre attendance'. Based on the numbers which are historically the highest in franchise history it seems to me to be anything but mediocre. The are averaging roughly 2.6 million a season the past four years.

If the Sox have issues payroll wise with that attendance they perhaps JR needs to hold and press conference and SPECIFICALLY say how many fans the franchise needs to draw so that it isn't. Give me a number and put the fans on notice. Right now without specifics, ownership can always claim the fans aren't supporting them enough. Seems to be very unfair no?

3. Eddie Einhorn's comments to me again emphasize the point. Profit margin, pressure from the board of directors whatever you wish to call it should have nothing to do with ownership of a public trust. This isn't Joe's hardware store or the local grocery. A sports franchise is in a totally and completely different universe from a normal business. It shouldn't be operated as such nor should normal business standards and expectations apply to it in my opinion. (Certainly not when the public financed and payed for the stadium in the first place which increased the value of the franchise by millions and millions of dollars)

The payroll jumped in 2006 a significant amount because Kenny convinced ownership to follow what he publicly had been stating to the media for a long time. (That is a matter of record and I'm sure you can find his comments on these lines) It was his goal to win something significant so that the fans would turn out in large numbers which would mean more revenue which would mean the Sox would get better talent, which would enable the franchise to keep winning significant things.

The Sox won the World Series and the fans set an attendance record. Why the Sox decided to deviate from what Kenny had been saying for years, I can't answer. Perhaps with the sources that you have, you can. The Sox fans certainly did their part. The Sox did too, no question...for awhile. The issue is they stopped doing it.

4. Finally just from a personal standpoint..it has nothing to do with the discussion but I would just as soon have Kenny not say a word about payroll, attendance, crying poor, whatever you wish to call it.

I'm tired of the old "woe is us" spiel that Kenny has been stating since literally the day he took over as G.M. when he made his famous "I can't ask the owner to spend a dollar if he only has fifty cents remark."

Actually Kenny you can when said owner got a new stadium built for him with taxpayer money and has a sweetheart lease agreement. Again that's just my personal thoughts. If the Sox in fact are doing what they can or are having some money woes, I don't want to hear about it and I think the majority of fans don't want to either. These are incredibly rich individuals quibbling over why they aren't making even more money than they already are. That's not the prime issue in sports in my opinion...it's to win. First, last, always.

If things are that difficult then sell the franchise to a Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet or Paul Allen to name a few individuals. I'm sure they'll get far more money than they originally invested when they purchased the franchise in 1981.

Lip

Noneck
11-14-2009, 02:35 AM
Lip, I stayed up way past my bedtime just to read your response. And it was worth the loss of sleep.

MisterB
11-14-2009, 05:00 AM
2. Please define for me what you mean by 'mediocre attendance'. Based on the numbers which are historically the highest in franchise history it seems to me to be anything but mediocre. The are averaging roughly 2.6 million a season the past four years.

If the Sox have issues payroll wise with that attendance they perhaps JR needs to hold and press conference and SPECIFICALLY say how many fans the franchise needs to draw so that it isn't. Give me a number and put the fans on notice. Right now without specifics, ownership can always claim the fans aren't supporting them enough. Seems to be very unfair no?

How about this:

From 2005-2008 ('09 totals aren't out yet) the Sox attendance ranked 17th, 9th, 15th, and 16th in the majors.

Their payroll over that time ranked 13th, 4th, 5th, and 5th.

Nowadays you need 3M+ attendance to be in the top third in the majors.

dickallen15
11-14-2009, 07:33 AM
How about this:

From 2005-2008 ('09 totals aren't out yet) the Sox attendance ranked 17th, 9th, 15th, and 16th in the majors.

Their payroll over that time ranked 13th, 4th, 5th, and 5th.

Nowadays you need 3M+ attendance to be in the top third in the majors.


How about this, the White Sox family index which is the 4 tickets to a game, parking and concessions is the fifth highest in baseball. Only the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs charge more, and we all know the White Sox spend a lot of time trying to be family friendly. The White Sox have a sweetheart lease deal, one of the better local broadcast deals, and high prices. Also what they paid in payroll was less than their ranking in reality as they were getting money for Thome and a couple of others over that time except for 2005 when their rankings were pretty much equal.

russ99
11-14-2009, 07:38 AM
How about this:

From 2005-2008 ('09 totals aren't out yet) the Sox attendance ranked 17th, 9th, 15th, and 16th in the majors.

Their payroll over that time ranked 13th, 4th, 5th, and 5th.

Nowadays you need 3M+ attendance to be in the top third in the majors.

Except that it's pretty much impossible to draw 3M+ attendance due to the capacity of U.S. Cellular Field and our early-season weather.

If we sell out every game, we'd be at 3.2-3.3M.

dickallen15
11-14-2009, 07:46 AM
Why would you argue with the economics if this is how it's done and has to be done? Teams that operate normally (meaning they don't have this abundance of cash lying around...which means pretty much everyone) have to base their payroll on what they will make (or believe they will make) in that given season, not on what they make the year before. This is how it's done. There is no argument here.

I appreciate your passion for your team, but you just don't have a basic understanding of the financial side of it. The Sox took advantage of their explosion in popularity after 2005 and increased the payroll by $25 million the next season. That was a 33% jump. The money they knew they were going to get, they spent.

Now, after missing the playoffs in '06, they knew the following season there would be a dropoff...and there was. Even with that being the case, they STILL held steady with payroll and had the 4th highest in the game. Again, what sort of "taking off" did you want them to do? I just don't understand what you're trying to say or how you think it would have been economically feasible. You wanted them to outspend both New York teams and Los Angeles that year when they drew less than 2.7 million fans? Still a decent number, but the other teams drew 4.3, 3.9, and 3.4. And despite being smack in the middle of baseball attendance (15th of 30), they were near the top in payroll. Mediocre attendance yet spending like they're in the elite. How could you possibly complain about that?

I just think you're holding on to the history of how things used to be and making your judgements on that. This is not the same era any longer, and what happened from 1901 to 2001 does not apply here any longer.

You can argue that you didn't like the money they did spend, but you cannot argue they were cheap. They have proven that when fans come out, they spend the money. The numbers support that 100%. When Reinsdorf says what he did, he means that if they can project good attendance, they'll be able to spend for that season. When they won the championship, they knew they would make money the following year because they knew season tickets were gonna skyrocket. And they did. People that own teams are business people. Projections are how it's done.

According to Forbes, from 2005-2008 the White Sox made over $70 million combined in profit. That's after paying every salary and fueling JR's private jet for all of his junkets. I think KW's "I can't spend $1 if I only have $.50" is getting beyond old, and I hope we don't have to hear him talk about all day games because they won't be able to pay the electric bill in the middle of a huge recession when many of the people that are his customers are out of work, may be facing foreclosure, and have other real financial difficulties.

I don't fault the White Sox for making money. If I owned a business, I would try to make money. I just don't want to hear the BS, and it is BS, that every dime that comes into the team goes out to making the team and fan experience better, and the constant chirping about how money is tight. JR's edict is not to lose money, not break even. Look how he runs the Bulls. Totally different situation I know with the salary cap, but they have 10 players healthy and he won't sign a guy to play for the minimum because it will knock them barely over the luxury tax and cost him $1,000,000 or so and even though still will be well in the black and have been for many many years.

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 11:26 AM
Mister B:

You may very well be correct. If so again I submit, let JR hold a press conference and give everyone a number to remove all question.

I think as others have stated that the numbers you talk about while seemingly back up your position, in reality, really don't.

Just my opinion.

I know for example that in addition to Thome, some of Contreras salary was being paid for by the Yankees. There may have been one or two more players but I don't remember for sure.

Lip

Carolina Kenny
11-14-2009, 02:00 PM
According to Forbes, from 2005-2008 the White Sox made over $70 million combined in profit. That's after paying every salary and fueling JR's private jet for all of his junkets. I think KW's "I can't spend $1 if I only have $.50" is getting beyond old, and I hope we don't have to hear him talk about all day games because they won't be able to pay the electric bill in the middle of a huge recession when many of the people that are his customers are out of work, may be facing foreclosure, and have other real financial difficulties.

I don't fault the White Sox for making money. If I owned a business, I would try to make money. I just don't want to hear the BS, and it is BS, that every dime that comes into the team goes out to making the team and fan experience better, and the constant chirping about how money is tight. JR's edict is not to lose money, not break even. Look how he runs the Bulls. Totally different situation I know with the salary cap, but they have 10 players healthy and he won't sign a guy to play for the minimum because it will knock them barely over the luxury tax and cost him $1,000,000 or so and even though still will be well in the black and have been for many many years.

JR's private jet on the back's of the poor working class Sox fans. Give me a break.

Ranger
11-14-2009, 02:53 PM
Chris:

This and that.

1. History shows many cases of ownership doing or trying to do just that (i.e. screw the players, screw the fans etc.) Forgive me for being skeptical. I have good reason to. Three recent examples are the extortion of a new stadium in Chicago by threatening to move a charter member of the American League, trying to break and destroy the MLBPA in 1994 and shooting the Sox in the foot in the process and the White Flag Trade of 1997.

Are those past events? Yes. But they aren't 75 years ago either...they still have an impact and relevence to a percentage of the fan base.

For all of the good this ownership has done (and they've certainly done some of that, no question) these are also part of the historical legacy.

2. Please define for me what you mean by 'mediocre attendance'. Based on the numbers which are historically the highest in franchise history it seems to me to be anything but mediocre. The are averaging roughly 2.6 million a season the past four years.

If the Sox have issues payroll wise with that attendance they perhaps JR needs to hold and press conference and SPECIFICALLY say how many fans the franchise needs to draw so that it isn't. Give me a number and put the fans on notice. Right now without specifics, ownership can always claim the fans aren't supporting them enough. Seems to be very unfair no?

3. Eddie Einhorn's comments to me again emphasize the point. Profit margin, pressure from the board of directors whatever you wish to call it should have nothing to do with ownership of a public trust. This isn't Joe's hardware store or the local grocery. A sports franchise is in a totally and completely different universe from a normal business. It shouldn't be operated as such nor should normal business standards and expectations apply to it in my opinion. (Certainly not when the public financed and payed for the stadium in the first place which increased the value of the franchise by millions and millions of dollars)

The payroll jumped in 2006 a significant amount because Kenny convinced ownership to follow what he publicly had been stating to the media for a long time. (That is a matter of record and I'm sure you can find his comments on these lines) It was his goal to win something significant so that the fans would turn out in large numbers which would mean more revenue which would mean the Sox would get better talent, which would enable the franchise to keep winning significant things.

The Sox won the World Series and the fans set an attendance record. Why the Sox decided to deviate from what Kenny had been saying for years, I can't answer. Perhaps with the sources that you have, you can. The Sox fans certainly did their part. The Sox did too, no question...for awhile. The issue is they stopped doing it.

4. Finally just from a personal standpoint..it has nothing to do with the discussion but I would just as soon have Kenny not say a word about payroll, attendance, crying poor, whatever you wish to call it.

I'm tired of the old "woe is us" spiel that Kenny has been stating since literally the day he took over as G.M. when he made his famous "I can't ask the owner to spend a dollar if he only has fifty cents remark."

Actually Kenny you can when said owner got a new stadium built for him with taxpayer money and has a sweetheart lease agreement. Again that's just my personal thoughts. If the Sox in fact are doing what they can or are having some money woes, I don't want to hear about it and I think the majority of fans don't want to either. These are incredibly rich individuals quibbling over why they aren't making even more money than they already are. That's not the prime issue in sports in my opinion...it's to win. First, last, always.

If things are that difficult then sell the franchise to a Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet or Paul Allen to name a few individuals. I'm sure they'll get far more money than they originally invested when they purchased the franchise in 1981.

Lip


I think the "mediocre attendance" definition is simple: they have average attendance compared to the rest of baseball. For a large market team, it's actually quite low. And it isn't low because of ticket prices. Unfortunately, it's low because of the greater interest in the team up north (I hate to say it, but more people in this city call themselves Cubs fans than they do Sox fans. It sucks, but it's true), less advertising interest, and because of the skeptical fanbase. I'm not criticizing any of that, I'm just telling you that it is what it is. But if you want to criticize the spending efforts of the White Sox, know that they've spent MUCH more in the last 4 years than their attendance would indicate.

The bottom line is that people who think the Sox are cheap will always think the Sox are cheap. Regardless of any evidence that suggests otherwise.

Lip, the biggest historical mistake the Sox have made, in my opinion, is moving the broadcasts away from WGN. Of all the decisions made in the last 5 decades, that is the one that impacts the current franchise the most. But that was 40 years ago, and what's done is done. Now they have to do what they can to make up for it and I just don't believe the franchise's mindset is the same as it used to be.

dickallen had mentioned that it would be hard to draw 3 million fans because of the Cell's capacity. Well yeah, but they don't fill a 40,000 seat stadium , what makes anyone think they would fill a 50,000 seat park?

LoveYourSuit
11-14-2009, 03:15 PM
I think the "mediocre attendance" definition is simple: they have average attendance compared to the rest of baseball. For a large market team, it's actually quite low. And it isn't low because of ticket prices.


Here is the answer to dis-prove your point there.


How about this, the White Sox family index which is the 4 tickets to a game, parking and concessions is the fifth highest in baseball. Only the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox and Cubs charge more, and we all know the White Sox spend a lot of time trying to be family friendly. The White Sox have a sweetheart lease deal, one of the better local broadcast deals, and high prices. Also what they paid in payroll was less than their ranking in reality as they were getting money for Thome and a couple of others over that time except for 2005 when their rankings were pretty much equal.


The Cubs can draw 3 million compared to our 2.5 million. But we can sell a ton more luxury seats (scouts, jim beam, suites, etc ) than they can and I can bet our parking revenue to theirs is 8:1 for every home date. And the Cubs with so much limited concessions inside the ballpark, I bet we can take them on revenure there 3:1 also. Add also all the advertising oppurtinity inside of our park compared to theirs, it's no contest.

LoveYourSuit
11-14-2009, 03:17 PM
Mister B:

You may very well be correct. If so again I submit, let JR hold a press conference and give everyone a number to remove all question.

I think as others have stated that the numbers you talk about while seemingly back up your position, in reality, really don't.

Just my opinion.

I know for example that in addition to Thome, some of Contreras salary was being paid for by the Yankees. There may have been one or two more players but I don't remember for sure.

Lip


Don't forget Javy's deal came with a good chunk of cash coming our way from AZ.

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 04:29 PM
Chris:

I absolutely agree 100% with you on WGN. Read Rich Lindberg's interview with me at WSI for a fascinating story of what Jack Brickhouse told Rich in an interview about that decision made by the Sox.

Rich spoke with Jack before he passed away.

I'll go a step further and state that the WGN decision was compounded by the SportsVision debacle and the decision by current ownership basically to ceed Chicago to the Cubs in the 1980's before the Tribune Company really got rolling with their marketing / advertising / media power. All this garbage like "we don't compete with the Cubs," or "we're Chicago's American League team..." was absolute nonsense. It's no coincidence that this started to take place almost immediately after they won the 1983 division and the price of poker per say went up. Plus of course collusion was coming into play because of Selig and JR if you believe Fay Vincent wrote that those two men created it in his book.

They lost an entire generation of fans by basically being off free TV from 1982 through 1990 and their unwillingness to take on the Cubs.

Lip

Ranger
11-14-2009, 04:34 PM
Here is the answer to dis-prove your point there.

The Cubs can draw 3 million compared to our 2.5 million. But we can sell a ton more luxury seats (scouts, jim beam, suites, etc ) than they can and I can bet our parking revenue to theirs is 8:1 for every home date. And the Cubs with so much limited concessions inside the ballpark, I bet we can take them on revenure there 3:1 also. Add also all the advertising oppurtinity inside of our park compared to theirs, it's no contest.

Perhaps you aren't sure what "disprove" means.

Parking/concessions/etc. is nothing compared to ticket sales. Ticket sales drive EVERYTHING and are far and away the largest portion of revenue. For example, people think that on half-price nights the team makes up in concessions what they lose in ticket prices, and that having 35,000+ on those nights are equal to getting 25,000 on any other night. That is completely, 100% unture. It isn't even close.

The Sox may have those boxes/suites available, but they don't fill them. There are several of them empty on a nighlty basis. The Cubs have boxes too and in some cases, more expensive than Sox suites and in other cases less expensive. The Cubs also have the deal with the rooftops, and they essentially scalp their own tickets.

You're also confusing available advertising space with actual advertising opportunity. Just because teh Sox have more in-house billboards, doesn't mean they have more advertising.

And you really think that because the Sox have more food choices than the Cubs that they make more concession money? You can't be serious. Ever heard of beer sales? Beer is about the most expensive thing sold at the ballpark and the Cubs sell a lot of it. Factor in the bleachers, the "drunk frat guy" perception, and the daily sellouts, and then tell me you still think the Sox are outdoing the Cubs 3:1 in concessions.

I seriously hope you aren't trying to present a "Sox revenue is comparable to the Cubs" argument.

dickallen15
11-14-2009, 04:46 PM
JR's private jet on the back's of the poor working class Sox fans. Give me a break.
I just find it symbolic like the auto execs who flew their private jets to Washington looking for a bailout. Last year the winter meetings were in Vegas. KW and JR took JR's jet from Phoenix. 303 miles.

Ranger
11-14-2009, 04:47 PM
Chris:

I absolutely agree 100% with you on WGN. Read Rich Lindberg's interview with me at WSI for a fascinating story of what Jack Brickhouse told Rich in an interview about that decision made by the Sox.

Rich spoke with Jack before he passed away.

I'll go a step further and state that the WGN decision was compounded by the SportsVision debacle and the decision by current ownership basically to ceed Chicago to the Cubs in the 1980's before the Tribune Company really got rolling with their marketing / advertising / media power. All this garbage like "we don't compete with the Cubs," or "we're Chicago's American League team..." was absolute nonsense. It's no coincidence that this started to take place almost immediately after they won the 1983 division and the price of poker per say went up. Plus of course collusion was coming into play because of Selig and JR if you believe Fay Vincent wrote that those two men created it in his book.

They lost an entire generation of fans by basically being off free TV from 1982 through 1990 and their unwillingness to take on the Cubs.

Lip

It was such a crucial era too. A terrific time to establish a fanbase through television. Now, of course, it's much tougher to do that because television audiences are more segmented and there are far too many entertainment options for people. In the 80's and before, TV audiences were captive to a small selection of choices. Thus, the viewer had a higher chance (or risk) of being exposed to the Cubs, and a greater chance of becoming a fan. That's one reason the Cubs have such a large national following.

The Sportsvision thing was just too far ahead of it's time (kind of like Chicago Sports Webio). That idea would work in the team's favor only when EVERYONE had cable. Much like CSWebio could only work when internet stations are available in every single car.

The Sox would be much better off today had that history been different.

Lip Man 1
11-14-2009, 08:38 PM
Chris (and others):

You may find this interesting:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip

gosox41
11-14-2009, 09:24 PM
Mister B:



I know for example that in addition to Thome, some of Contreras salary was being paid for by the Yankees. There may have been one or two more players but I don't remember for sure.

Lip


That was from the original contract. The renewed contact he signed (the 2007-2009 deal) was not covered at all the by the Yankees. You're looking at data that's from the original trade. The Sox paid 100% of Contreras salary the last 3 years.

Ranger
11-14-2009, 09:34 PM
Chris (and others):

You may find this interesting:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=2096

Lip


Yep. In all reality, the idea of SportsVision wasn't a bad one at all. It was innovative. It's just that it wasn't going to work under these circumstances, and just a bit too far ahead of its time. I don't think I mentioned this in my previous post (and you touched on it in that article), but when I was growing up in St. Louis in the early 80s, we could not watch Cardinals home games on TV. They weren't televised. And unless I'm out of my mind, there were home games on TV you could pay to watch on an individual basis. I'm pretty sure we used to get them sometimes. The Cardinals could get away with that because, as you said, no competition AND people were baseball nuts. Maybe I'm thinking of Game of the Week, but I don't think so.

gosox41
11-14-2009, 09:50 PM
I just find it symbolic like the auto execs who flew their private jets to Washington looking for a bailout. Last year the winter meetings were in Vegas. KW and JR took JR's jet from Phoenix. 303 miles.


Without arguing semantics, there is a different between a private jet and a corporate jet. The auto execs flew corporate jets to DC.

I'm not aware of the Sox having their own jet.


Bob

gosox41
11-14-2009, 10:01 PM
Ranger:

I have to get ready for a broadcast tonight so I can't go into as much detail as I'd like in this discussion that you are having with Love.

I'd simply like to interject some points for whatever they may be worth:

1. I've spoken with two individuals in the past. One is a former player who knows two members of the board of directors and the other was a member of the White Sox media who knew something about the financial situation. Both have told me the Sox haven't lost money "in a long time." (direct quote). If the Sox put every dollar into the team then logically they shouldn't be making any money. It should be a zero/sum game. If the Sox are making money, than they aren't putting every dollar back into the team on the field.

How much of a difference there is between the two, I have no idea...it could be pennies or it could be substancial.

2. In the book, "The Lords of the Realm," by Pulitzer Prize winning author John Helyar, he gives a detailed account of the lease agreement between the Sox and Jerry Reinsdorf and the state of Illinois calling it "one of the greatest sweetheart leases in pro sports." There may be much more funds available than many think because the Sox aren't paying the going rate for stadium operations, fees, taxes and so forth.

3. Just to use last season as an example and as I discussed with Mark Gonzales the way to draw fans and keep advertisers isn't to cut payroll the 2nd largest amount in MLB, raise ticket prices and have basically a do-nothing off season. If you want to keep advertisers and at least maintain the status quo with your ticker holders you have to do something that merits them thinking twice about if they want to drop the Sox. (And with respect, duds like Corky Miller, Wilson Betemit and Brent Lillibridge aren't the answer to that problem)

4. In the forward to Richard Lindberg's amazing White Sox encyclopedia, Eddie Einhorn wrote that what he realized from seeing the Sox World Series parade was that owning the Sox is maintaining a "public trust." Nowhere in that does he say a word about making a profit or keeping the board of directors happy.

So what am I saying? Do I think the Sox can do what the Yankees can do? Absolutely not.

Do I think given the highest average attendance in a four year stretch in franchise history (higher than the period from 1990-1993 and without the draw of the closing of a landmark stadium and the opening of a new one), the breaks they get in the stadium agreement (built at taxpayer expense) and the market they are located in, that they can do more in overall team payroll and the acquisition of talent?

Absolutely.

Lip

Lip,

In response to your points:
1. Assume the Sox fiscal year ends Dec 31. The Sox clearly made money in 2005. What if the Sox took their profits and reinvested it into 2009 payroll? They still made money in 2008, but they may not have declared any dividends. Your argument has some holes.

And to take it one step futher, it is possible that JR did pay a dividend to the owners as they are entitled to make money on their investment once in awhile.

2. Like Ranger says, you're looking at a book that is like 15 years old. I think the Sox lease deal has changed when they renewed it and it is more favorbale to the state. But the date of the book doesn't take into account all the other stadiums that were built since it was written. The Sox started the trend of new stadiums. Bu times have changed since that book was written.

And for the record, new Comiskey came in at a cost of around $140 million. It came in about $20 mill or so UNDER budget. Let's look at the cost of building stadiums today. They cost 5 times that (or more) and how many lately have come 10-15% under budget?

According to you, the evil JR may have screwed over taxpayers, but so did a lot of other owners. As a matter of fact a lot of politicians and bigger individual corps have cost tax payers more for personal gain then JR.

3. I agree with you here. It was a big mistake to cut payroll and raise ticket prices.

4. This statement is completely open ended and can be interpreted more then one way.


Bob

LoveYourSuit
11-14-2009, 11:17 PM
Perhaps you aren't sure what "disprove" means.

Parking/concessions/etc. is nothing compared to ticket sales. ....

.


I think you are highly mistaken that parking. luxury seating and conecessions is irrelevant to "day of game" revenue for any given ball club. The Sox compared to the Cubs have about 7,000 parking spaces to about 1,000 for them. At an average $20 per parking space, that's about $10 million in yearly addtl revenue for the club. And concession sales are a big deal too. The Sox have a concourse with a ton of walking space for concession workers. The Cubs do not have that luxury. I can agree with you that the beer consumption at Wrigley is higher than the US Cellular but let's not act as if US Cellular is immune to heavy drinking. On the contrary, Beer is much easily accessible to fans at the Cell than it is at Wrigley including variety import products which tend to cost a bit more. And Food is no contest. People actually have dinner/lunch inside the park when they go to Sox games because of the lack of establishments outside the park. And the Food is not too bad. People have options outside of Wrigley and many of my Cub fan friends prefer to eat outside before or after than game instead of going thru the hassel of missing 3 innings of a game to get a bad burger.


The gap between "day of game" revenue between the two clubs IMO is much closer than you and many fans realize. Don't look just at the difference between the 40K to 30K attendance numbers. Look at all these other factors.

If this was not a fact, then why the hell does Ricketts have a Wrigley Field Renovation as #1 on his list? Becuase he knows he is getting killed and missing out on all this other revenue potential on "day of game."

Lip Man 1
11-15-2009, 12:13 AM
Bob:

It came in under budget because according to the HOK people directly quoted in the book, "Ballpark: The Building of Camden Yards," they offered JR the option of literally building Camden Yards in Chicago and again directly quoting those people he said, no.

He chose the cheaper more sterile design that Sox fans grew to hate after the 'newness' of the park wore off and that would still be with us if not for the fact that he sold the naming rights and got U.S. Cellular to get him off the hook. (He certainly wasn't going to spend any of his money to correct his mistake...)

I know you have been a big supporter of this ownership in the past and for the record my opinion of JR has changed over the years, he has done some very good things for the franchise, as I have certainly acknowleged, but as stated, the past can not be ignored, the leopard can not change his spots.

In my opinion, based on the reasons that I have given in previous posts I still think with this ownership it is more important to make a profit or break even than win championships.

To me that is flat out wrong especially when the stadium was built with taxpayer funds gotten by threatening to move the franchise. It doesn't matter how long ago that was, that's historical fact.

I realize other owners have done this but two wrongs, or three wrongs or five wrongs doesn't make it right just because others did it first.

Lip

DSpivack
11-15-2009, 12:36 AM
Bob:

It came in under budget because according to the HOK people directly quoted in the book, "Ballpark: The Building of Camden Yards," they offered JR the option of literally building Camden Yards in Chicago and again directly quoting those people he said, no.

He chose the cheaper more sterile design that Sox fans grew to hate after the 'newness' of the park wore off and that would still be with us if not for the fact that he sold the naming rights and got U.S. Cellular to get him off the hook. (He certainly wasn't going to spend any of his money to correct his mistake...)

I know you have been a big supporter of this ownership in the past and for the record my opinion of JR has changed over the years, he has done some very good things for the franchise, as I have certainly acknowleged, but as stated, the past can not be ignored, the leopard can not change his spots.

In my opinion, based on the reasons that I have given in previous posts I still think with this ownership it is more important to make a profit or break even than win championships.

To me that is flat out wrong especially when the stadium was built with taxpayer funds gotten by threatening to move the franchise. It doesn't matter how long ago that was, that's historical fact.

I realize other owners have done this but two wrongs, or three wrongs or five wrongs doesn't make it right just because others did it first.

Lip

There are numerous models to operating a successful franchise, but one think I am glad is that JR and co. don't go out and overspend and end up having the team in debt in terms of payroll. I completely understand your argument, that they could do more. I can't argue with that, I don't know the books of the team or whether they could hike up payroll a bit each season or not. That said, I'm glad we don't have the kind of team that goes all in one season, and ends up paying for that by having to reduce payroll and shed off talent for financial reasons. I like that we seem to be competitive and solvent every season, especially for a 2nd tier team in terms of revenue.

Without Reinsdorf's ownership of Chicago teams, I would know not what it feels like to see a team I'm a fan of win a championship. Now, of course his ownership group have committed many errors, have been far from perfect and certainly could have done a lot better, but in the end it's hard for me to truly fault an owner like that, especially looking around town. The combination of Reinsdorf, Williams, and Guillen is perhaps my "favorite" management group that I've seen as a fan of any Chicago team I've ever rooted for.

Call me a homer or what not, and I'm not that knowledgeable about baseball as a whole in its operation, but it seems to me that this franchise has come a long way this decade, and not just because of 2005. I look forward to what the future brings.

Ranger
11-15-2009, 02:05 AM
I think you are highly mistaken that parking. luxury seating and conecessions is irrelevant to "day of game" revenue for any given ball club. The Sox compared to the Cubs have about 7,000 parking spaces to about 1,000 for them. At an average $20 per parking space, that's about $10 million in yearly addtl revenue for the club. And concession sales are a big deal too. The Sox have a concourse with a ton of walking space for concession workers. The Cubs do not have that luxury. I can agree with you that the beer consumption at Wrigley is higher than the US Cellular but let's not act as if US Cellular is immune to heavy drinking. On the contrary, Beer is much easily accessible to fans at the Cell than it is at Wrigley including variety import products which tend to cost a bit more. And Food is no contest. People actually have dinner/lunch inside the park when they go to Sox games because of the lack of establishments outside the park. And the Food is not too bad. People have options outside of Wrigley and many of my Cub fan friends prefer to eat outside before or after than game instead of going thru the hassel of missing 3 innings of a game to get a bad burger.


The gap between "day of game" revenue between the two clubs IMO is much closer than you and many fans realize. Don't look just at the difference between the 40K to 30K attendance numbers. Look at all these other factors.

If this was not a fact, then why the hell does Ricketts have a Wrigley Field Renovation as #1 on his list? Becuase he knows he is getting killed and missing out on all this other revenue potential on "day of game."


And I know a lot of Sox fans that eat at home before they come to the park, regardless of the food quality.

Suit, I'm looking at all of the factors. I know all of the factors. And I'm sorry, but you're just not right about this. The Sox revenue does not compare because, well, they just don't have as many people at the park to buy those concessions. And your argument is also based on the assumption that Sox are selling every one of those parking spaces every night. Obviously, they are not. Well, sure, if the Sox are selling out parking every night, then they're making more parking money than the Cubs. But, again, they are not. And if the Sox were to sell out their park every night, certainly they would be rivaling Cubs revenue. Then that would be the end of the discussion anyway, wouldn't it?

The amenities at the Cell are unquestionably nicer, but that doesn't mean they're being fully used. Some concession stands aren't even operating on many game days.

As you said, all of what you said is your opinion. I'm giving you fact. Like I said earlier, concessions are important, but they aren't even close to what ticket sales generate. Trust me, it isn't close and I'm not giving you opinion. I was suprised myself when I learned about the difference.

Ricketts wants to renovate Wrigley for the ultimate reason that he realizes that ballpark is already a gold mine and the more they can improve and streamline it, he is aware that will make it run at it's maximum. It's not because "he's getting killed" because he's not getting killed. He is a business man and completely understands that they could make even MORE money than they already do. Most importantly, he knows that the better shape Wrigley is in, the longer he can keep it operational.

roylestillman
11-15-2009, 07:16 AM
Bob:

It came in under budget because according to the HOK people directly quoted in the book, "Ballpark: The Building of Camden Yards," they offered JR the option of literally building Camden Yards in Chicago and again directly quoting those people he said, no.

He chose the cheaper more sterile design that Sox fans grew to hate after the 'newness' of the park wore off and that would still be with us if not for the fact that he sold the naming rights and got U.S. Cellular to get him off the hook. (He certainly wasn't going to spend any of his money to correct his mistake...)


Lip

To be honest the US Cellular sponsorship could be considered "his" money or at least ownership's money. He could have just let those payments fall into the bottom line and live with the original park. The fact that all of it was plowed into a financing deal that resulted in the much improved facility we have today is something ownership should be applauded for.

Ranger
11-15-2009, 12:45 PM
To be honest the US Cellular sponsorship could be considered "his" money or at least ownership's money. He could have just let those payments fall into the bottom line and live with the original park. The fact that all of it was plowed into a financing deal that resulted in the much improved facility we have today is something ownership should be applauded for.


If I'm not mistaken, almost all of the $68 mil was used for renovation.

jabrch
11-15-2009, 02:44 PM
Chris:
Three recent examples are the extortion of a new stadium in Chicago by threatening to move a charter member of the American League, trying to break and destroy the MLBPA in 1994 and shooting the Sox in the foot in the process and the White Flag Trade of 1997.

The first was needed - the old building was a dump. If they didn't get it, the franchise may or may not have remained economically viable. Were they aggressive with their threats? Yes - of course. Extortion? I guess that's a matter of semantics. You call it extortion, I call it negotiation. You think it is terrible, I think it had to happen.

The second would have been an awesome thing if it worked. I have no problem with an attempt to bust the MLBPA. They are a major part of the problem of what is wrong with baseball as a whole.

And the third - well that's strictly a matter of opinion that has been debated over and over again. I try to avoid crying over trades made or not made because we never know what would happen if they weren't made.

You can hate JR and his co-owners all you want. And we know you do. You can say other owners would have done more for you - and that's probably true. But it is also true that other owners would have done less. it is also true that this ownership has won a WS. They are part of the reason we have a very nice park to go to, and an entertaining team to watch that is often competitive. We can go back in time and wonder "what if" a million times. I'll pass. I feel blessed to have gotten some of the great moments I have from this franchise, and look forward to many more.

Daver
11-15-2009, 02:51 PM
The second would have been an awesome thing if it worked. I have no problem with an attempt to bust the MLBPA. They are a major part of the problem of what is wrong with baseball as a whole.


Yeah, Curt Flood screwed up everything by wanting to control what team he played for and fighting for an end to the reserve clause in baseball, things were much better when the owners had absolute control over player salaries and movement.

jabrch
11-15-2009, 02:56 PM
Yeah, Curt Flood screwed up everything by wanting to control what team he played for and fighting for an end to the reserve clause in baseball, things were much better when the owners had absolute control over player salaries and movement.

Those are your words - not mine. I personally don't believe everything has to be that black and white...that absolute... I also think the problems with the union, as with most unions, is much deeper than just about one issue. A union that did something good a long time ago has run its course - long past being a "labor union" out there to protect the welfare of its membership from being abused by management. You are welcome to disagree - but let's not discuss the union today and give it credit for Curt Flood. Today's MLBPA is nothing close to that one.

Daver
11-15-2009, 03:03 PM
Those are your words - not mine. I personally don't believe everything has to be that black and white...that absolute... I also think the problems with the union, as with most unions, is much deeper than just about one issue. A union that did something good a long time ago has run its course - long past being a "labor union" out there to protect the welfare of its membership from being abused by management. You are welcome to disagree - but let's not discuss the union today and give it credit for Curt Flood. Today's MLBPA is nothing close to that one.

No it isn't, it's the same association, it has just grown after winning legal battles with MLB over various attempts by the owners to violate labor laws, to say that the players association is to blame for all the leagues problems is both narrow minded and asinine.

Carolina Kenny
11-15-2009, 06:52 PM
I just find it symbolic like the auto execs who flew their private jets to Washington looking for a bailout. Last year the winter meetings were in Vegas. KW and JR took JR's jet from Phoenix. 303 miles.

And you are jealous you have to fly coach. Too bad for you that you don't own a major league team.

whitesoxfan1986
11-15-2009, 08:00 PM
Daver, Why is it okay for baseball to allow a team to buy a championship. That is essentially what the Yankees did this offseason. The Yankees threw $50 million over what the next highest offer was to both Teixeira and Sabathia. They would have been fools not to take it. The Yankees should not be allowed to operate this way. As long as I've been following baseball. The Yankees have never had to worry about a player on their team who is becoming a free agent leaving, while every other team has to worry about that. Furthermore, with the way the salary structure in MLB is, If you develop, 3 all-star caliber players from your farm sytem, unless you're the Yankees, Red Sox or Mets, you basically have to choose one that you can keep. A small market team can't really afford a superstar free agent because if they spend the amount needed to sign that player, they can't put a group of complimentary players around him unless they develop them in their farm system.
The Yankees are paying 5 players next year more than, IIRC, 27 teams entire payrolls. How exactly is this good for baseball? I would be willing to go through a year, or if necessary, two, of no baseball for a salary cap to be implemented. And I don't care if the NFL is locked out for the entire 2011 if the salary cap is kept/restored. This kind of competitive imbalance is not good for a sport. The only way that this imbalance could be solved without a cap is if every owner decided to operate at a loss, and I don't know what sane businessperson would do that. Is that what you think? I'm curious

Daver
11-15-2009, 08:28 PM
Daver, Why is it okay for baseball to allow a team to buy a championship. That is essentially what the Yankees did this offseason. The Yankees threw $50 million over what the next highest offer was to both Teixeira and Sabathia. They would have been fools not to take it. The Yankees should not be allowed to operate this way. As long as I've been following baseball. The Yankees have never had to worry about a player on their team who is becoming a free agent leaving, while every other team has to worry about that. Furthermore, with the way the salary structure in MLB is, If you develop, 3 all-star caliber players from your farm sytem, unless you're the Yankees, Red Sox or Mets, you basically have to choose one that you can keep. A small market team can't really afford a superstar free agent because if they spend the amount needed to sign that player, they can't put a group of complimentary players around him unless they develop them in their farm system.
The Yankees are paying 5 players next year more than, IIRC, 27 teams entire payrolls. How exactly is this good for baseball? I would be willing to go through a year, or if necessary, two, of no baseball for a salary cap to be implemented. And I don't care if the NFL is locked out for the entire 2011 if the salary cap is kept/restored. This kind of competitive imbalance is not good for a sport. The only way that this imbalance could be solved without a cap is if every owner decided to operate at a loss, and I don't know what sane businessperson would do that. Is that what you think? I'm curious

A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margins.

whitesoxfan1986
11-15-2009, 08:34 PM
A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margins.
So should owners operate at a loss in order to compete with the big men on campus? I don't know what sane businessperson would do that. Do you think that sports team ownership should be considered a highly expensive hobby for extremely wealthy individuals? Please explain how a salary cap and a simultaneous floor would not promote parity?

DSpivack
11-15-2009, 08:40 PM
So should owners operate at a loss in order to compete with the big men on campus? I don't know what sane businessperson would do that. Do you think that sports team ownership should be considered a highly expensive hobby for extremely wealthy individuals? Please explain how a salary cap and a simultaneous floor would not promote parity?

MLB has seen more teams win titles and get to the championship level this decade than any other sport.

whitesoxfan1986
11-15-2009, 08:54 PM
MLB has seen more teams win titles and get to the championship level this decade than any other sport.
While I know this to be true, I do not think that the Yankees should be able to buy a championship. There should be much more involved in winning a championship than throwing substantially more money than the next highest bidder at the best free agents on the market. Hey there is a 27 year old superstar who is a free agent, and just going into his prime. a few teams offer around $100 million for 6 years. Hey I'm the Yankees, I have much more money than everyone else. I'm going to offer $180 million for 8 years. Most other teams would be handcuffed with that salary so nobody matches. The Yankees have the means to get whomever they want on the free agent market. It is BS, and they are like a big bully.

jabrch
11-15-2009, 10:03 PM
No it isn't, it's the same association, it has just grown after winning legal battles with MLB over various attempts by the owners to violate labor laws, to say that the players association is to blame for all the leagues problems is both narrow minded and asinine.

Are you serious? Are you serious Daver?

Go show me where I said that.


You are the one who is narrow minded in that you are creating people to argue against you by pinning them to positions that they aren't taking.

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 07:22 AM
Without arguing semantics, there is a different between a private jet and a corporate jet. The auto execs flew corporate jets to DC.

I'm not aware of the Sox having their own jet.


Bob

The Sox fly charter. JR has his own jet but I'm sure the Sox get charged the bill when he flies to things related to the team.

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 07:27 AM
And I know a lot of Sox fans that eat at home before they come to the park, regardless of the food quality.

Suit, I'm looking at all of the factors. I know all of the factors. And I'm sorry, but you're just not right about this. The Sox revenue does not compare because, well, they just don't have as many people at the park to buy those concessions. And your argument is also based on the assumption that Sox are selling every one of those parking spaces every night. Obviously, they are not. Well, sure, if the Sox are selling out parking every night, then they're making more parking money than the Cubs. But, again, they are not. And if the Sox were to sell out their park every night, certainly they would be rivaling Cubs revenue. Then that would be the end of the discussion anyway, wouldn't it?

The amenities at the Cell are unquestionably nicer, but that doesn't mean they're being fully used. Some concession stands aren't even operating on many game days.

As you said, all of what you said is your opinion. I'm giving you fact. Like I said earlier, concessions are important, but they aren't even close to what ticket sales generate. Trust me, it isn't close and I'm not giving you opinion. I was suprised myself when I learned about the difference.

Ricketts wants to renovate Wrigley for the ultimate reason that he realizes that ballpark is already a gold mine and the more they can improve and streamline it, he is aware that will make it run at it's maximum. It's not because "he's getting killed" because he's not getting killed. He is a business man and completely understands that they could make even MORE money than they already do. Most importantly, he knows that the better shape Wrigley is in, the longer he can keep it operational.

Yeah, I do believe the Cubs make up for the lack of parking by getting a cut of the rooftop business, but the fact remains they are going to have a payroll $50 million or so higher than the Sox. Their new owner is going to pay down a $400 million loan to buy the team and is staring at a $200 million renovation that he himself must pay for. They are going to raise the payroll. They did draw almost 1,000,000 more people last year, so maybe it is right in line with White Sox spending, all things considered but I would think the Sox had some money to play with.

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 07:31 AM
And you are jealous you have to fly coach. Too bad for you that you don't own a major league team.

That's not the point, although I wish I had my own jet.

Oblong
11-16-2009, 07:43 AM
A salary cap serves one purpose, it guarantees the owners profit margins.

Bingo.

It sets their biggest fixed cost and provides a mechanism to replace fiscal discipline. Financial decisions get made for you.

I would hate it if baseball had a salary cap. It's one of the reasons I hate the NBA now. Cap Space is the most sought over player now in that league. I'd love for my team to develop 3 high quality, $15-20 million a year players. And I'd love for the decision to keep those players to be something my team decides on it's own.

I also think the lack of a salary cap provides it's own set of competitive circumstances. Do you take the risk and sign this guy for 3 years $35 million? In a cap world that decision could be made for them.

The imbalance in NY is not due to lack of a cap, it's due to only have 2 teams in such a huge media market. Get a third team in there. Or Fourth.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 08:40 AM
I also think the lack of a salary cap provides it's own set of competitive circumstances. Do you take the risk and sign this guy for 3 years $35 million? In a cap world that decision could be made for them.

The imbalance in NY is not due to lack of a cap, it's due to only have 2 teams in such a huge media market. Get a third team in there. Or Fourth.

I am certainly no expert on this subject and I am most certainly no finance major. Heck, I have trouble keeping a home budget. This post does seem to make a lot of sense to me though. Can I ask if someone knows why there is not more teams in the New York Metro area?

I know that there used to be. The Giants & Dodgers were both there at one time. Were they forced to leave?

It would make sense to me that if teams like the Pirates or Rays could not stay afloat where they're at then they should be able to relocate to where they can survive. I'm sure that MLB would not allow this, but I don't know why.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 09:00 AM
And Food is no contest. People actually have dinner/lunch inside the park when they go to Sox games because of the lack of establishments outside the park. And the Food is not too bad. People have options outside of Wrigley and many of my Cub fan friends prefer to eat outside before or after than game instead of going thru the hassel of missing 3 innings of a game to get a bad burger.

I have no idea about the actual numbers for concessions, but I for one disagree with the premise of this paragraph. I am not a wealthy man by any means and I cannot afford to take my family to dinner at the Cell. I will say that the food at the Cell is excellent, but much too expensive for my budget.

I live about 2 hours away from the Cell and I take my family to 1 or 2 games a year. We make a day of it when we go but we eat at a restaraunt outside of the ballpark. Halstead street for example has a lot of places where we can get a hamburger / brat / hot dog / etc. and I can feed the family for at least 1/3 of price that we can eat inside the ballpark. I don't speak for everyone, but I'm sure that most families can't afford to eat inside the ballpark, especially in this economy. Inside the park we watch the game, tour the stadium, and maybe get a softdrink or two and some peanuts or something; but we can't afford to eat a full meal there. JMHO

P. S. This is why I stated on post 20 of this thread that I feel that MLB needs to get this figured out or they are going to lose whole families eventually. That will show up in attendance 15 - 20 years from now.

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 09:18 AM
The Sox fly charter. JR has his own jet but I'm sure the Sox get charged the bill when he flies to things related to the team.

Oh you're sure are you? So that link is actually to your frontal lobe and not some actual website with proof?

Oblong
11-16-2009, 09:18 AM
I am certainly no expert on this subject and I am most certainly no finance major. Heck, I have trouble keeping a home budget. This post does seem to make a lot of sense to me though. Can I ask if someone knows why there is not more teams in the New York Metro area?

I know that there used to be. The Giants & Dodgers were both there at one time. Were they forced to leave?

It would make sense to me that if teams like the Pirates or Rays could not stay afloat where they're at then they should be able to relocate to where they can survive. I'm sure that MLB would not allow this, but I don't know why.

Because Steinbrenner would do whatever he could to block it. Same with the Mets. There's probably some stipulation in the MLB charter that prevents it. I think you need the permission of the teams in the market to put a team within a certain radius.

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 09:27 AM
I am certainly no expert on this subject and I am most certainly no finance major. Heck, I have trouble keeping a home budget. This post does seem to make a lot of sense to me though. Can I ask if someone knows why there is not more teams in the New York Metro area?

I know that there used to be. The Giants & Dodgers were both there at one time. Were they forced to leave?

It would make sense to me that if teams like the Pirates or Rays could not stay afloat where they're at then they should be able to relocate to where they can survive. I'm sure that MLB would not allow this, but I don't know why.

They left for the greener pastures of California because it was wide open territory and because they were tired of competing with the Yankees who even when the other teams were there were still the 800 pound gorilla of MLB. Remember the Yankees have averaged over 2 WS wins per decade since they were incorporated and have won 40 pennants.

Now I think they'd need the Steinbrenner's permission to put more teams in NY proper. They might be able to get by with NJ, but where? I'm not even sure the Mets would approve more teams in NY and adding teams would lower all the other teams' national media money so not like the cheapo owners who are sucking every dime they can out of their teams would agree.

Even if the averages continue that still leaves 7+ championships/decade for the other teams to divvy up. Even having the biggest payroll in baseball and spending it wisely is no guarantee of a championship.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 10:11 AM
They left for the greener pastures of California because it was wide open territory and because they were tired of competing with the Yankees who even when the other teams were there were still the 800 pound gorilla of MLB. Remember the Yankees have averaged over 2 WS wins per decade since they were incorporated and have won 40 pennants.

Now I think they'd need the Steinbrenner's permission to put more teams in NY proper. They might be able to get by with NJ, but where? I'm not even sure the Mets would approve more teams in NY and adding teams would lower all the other teams' national media money so not like the cheapo owners who are sucking every dime they can out of their teams would agree.

Even if the averages continue that still leaves 7+ championships/decade for the other teams to divvy up. Even having the biggest payroll in baseball and spending it wisely is no guarantee of a championship.

I'm not really disagreeing with you Voodoo, but that's really not what I'm talking about. Sure there are other championships to be won but I think that the fact of Yankee domination wil eventually ruin things as well. As I mentioned earlier, if I was a Oriole / Blue Jay / Rays fan I would of most likely given up by now seeing as I had only a very small chance of competing each year.

I'm focusing on the money aspect. because the Yankees can afford to drive the price up on players, it in turn drives the price up for everyone. This ultimately ends up in the wallet of the average fan. Quite frankly, my wife and I are deciding whether or not we can even afford one game next season. I'm sure that we are not the only family making this decision either. To get by on the cheap, between gas, food, tickets, parking, etc., we could probably squeeze a game in for around $250.00. Now I love baseball more than any other sport and if it was just me I would find a way to squeeze in a game. While the rest of the family likes baseball, we also enjoy other things like the beach, fishing, camping, going out for pizza, etc., of which we could probably do all of those things at least twice over for what it would cost us to attend one major league game. I realize that there are some people out there where money is not as much of an object, but I think that the average family would tend to think along these lines. I still have my job and I would say that my job is fairly secure right now, but who knows how long in this economy. I will continue to root for the Sox no matter what, but I may be reduced to catching a few games on T. V. and following them on Soxtalk. JMHO

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 10:35 AM
I'm not really disagreeing with you Voodoo, but that's really not what I'm talking about. Sure there are other championships to be won but I think that the fact of Yankee domination wil eventually ruin things as well. As I mentioned earlier, if I was a Oriole / Blue Jay / Rays fan I would of most likely given up by now seeing as I had only a very small chance of competing each year.

I'm focusing on the money aspect. because the Yankees can afford to drive the price up on players, it in turn drives the price up for everyone. This ultimately ends up in the wallet of the average fan. Quite frankly, my wife and I are deciding whether or not we can even afford one game next season. I'm sure that we are not the only family making this decision either. To get by on the cheap, between gas, food, tickets, parking, etc., we could probably squeeze a game in for around $250.00. Now I love baseball more than any other sport and if it was just me I would find a way to squeeze in a game. While the rest of the family likes baseball, we also enjoy other things like the beach, fishing, camping, going out for pizza, etc., of which we could probably do all of those things at least twice over for what it would cost us to attend one major league game. I realize that there are some people out there where money is not as much of an object, but I think that the average family would tend to think along these lines. I still have my job and I would say that my job is fairly secure right now, but who knows how long in this economy. I will continue to root for the Sox no matter what, but I may be reduced to catching a few games on T. V. and following them on Soxtalk. JMHO

The Orioles consistently spend a lot of money they just don't spend it well. The Rays just won the pennant last year.

And again for the like 1,000,000th time ticket prices have NOTHING to do with player salaries. Teams charge what fans will pay. If salaries all dropped to $1M a year the Yankees would simply make a LOT more money.

Not buying it. The history of baseball is filled with teams choosing to spend more and becoming more successful in the process.

Oh and you don't have to spend $250 to attend a baseball game. You think your kids are going to have less fun sitting in the upper deck instead of box seats or not getting a cap? Eat before hand and limit your purchases to a few items and drinks and don't drink beer. You can get out of the park for less ~ $120 easily including parking. Less if you can find cheap tickets on-line.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 11:35 AM
The Orioles consistently spend a lot of money they just don't spend it well. The Rays just won the pennant last year.

And again for the like 1,000,000th time ticket prices have NOTHING to do with player salaries. Teams charge what fans will pay. If salaries all dropped to $1M a year the Yankees would simply make a LOT more money.

Not buying it. The history of baseball is filled with teams choosing to spend more and becoming more successful in the process.

Oh and you don't have to spend $250 to attend a baseball game. You think your kids are going to have less fun sitting in the upper deck instead of box seats or not getting a cap? Eat before hand and limit your purchases to a few items and drinks and don't drink beer. You can get out of the park for less ~ $120 easily including parking. Less if you can find cheap tickets on-line.

I fully admit that I'm not qualified to discuss this issue intelligently. I do think that while the Rays did compete last year it was probably a once a decade season for them. They still have talent but don't have the money to fix problems that the Yankees just go out and buy replacements for. I think that it is more likely that the Rays will stay within striking distance for another season or two and then see that they need to rebuild and finish in last again for several seasons. Orioles / Rays / Blue jays will alternate in this process.

I also realize that salaries don't impact ticket prices directly, but isn't that what clubs use as a "reason" for any ticket price increase?

There are clubs that spend and become successful, but I don't believe that is the norm, and I don't believe that those clubs obtain prolonged success. Aren't there far more examples of teams that spend, get competetive for a season or two, and then are broke and have to go rebuild for several seasons. We discuss that philosphy on message boards often of should we sell the farm to go after a certain player that could put us over the top, even if that means massive rebuilding 3-5 years from now.

We do sit in the upper deck (which I believe are the best seats anyway), don't drink beer, and only get a couple of souveniers. You can't go to a game 1 - 2 times a year and get absolutely nothing or it kind of ruins the experience. It's great to have something to remember the experience by.

Again this is just my humble opinion and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But I doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 11:54 AM
I fully admit that I'm not qualified to discuss this issue intelligently. I do think that while the Rays did compete last year it was probably a once a decade season for them. They still have talent but don't have the money to fix problems that the Yankees just go out and buy replacements for. I think that it is more likely that the Rays will stay within striking distance for another season or two and then see that they need to rebuild and finish in last again for several seasons. Orioles / Rays / Blue jays will alternate in this process.

I also realize that salaries don't impact ticket prices directly, but isn't that what clubs use as a "reason" for any ticket price increase?

There are clubs that spend and become successful, but I don't believe that is the norm, and I don't believe that those clubs obtain prolonged success. Aren't there far more examples of teams that spend, get competetive for a season or two, and then are broke and have to go rebuild for several seasons. We discuss that philosphy on message boards often of should we sell the farm to go after a certain player that could put us over the top, even if that means massive rebuilding 3-5 years from now.

We do sit in the upper deck (which I believe are the best seats anyway), don't drink beer, and only get a couple of souveniers. You can't go to a game 1 - 2 times a year and get absolutely nothing or it kind of ruins the experience. It's great to have something to remember the experience by.

Again this is just my humble opinion and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. But I doubt that I'm the only one who feels this way.

Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion and of course like any opinion, it isn't incorrect from your perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but the only solution to this problem is to force more revenue sharing on the MLB and I can understand why the Yankees would balk at a true NFL style revenue sharing plan because there are too many teams who flat out aren't trying to field a winner and there is no guarantee they would do so if they suddenly started receiving more cash.

That's the flipside for every high payroll go for it all on a regular basis team there are an equal number of Marlins, Royals and Pirates who just aren't making any effort to field competitive teams. They'd rather pocket their checks then up the payroll and build a winner.

No there are no guarantees that more money = championship, but eventually you have to make a run at it if you want to be taken seriously. If you cannot build a good enough farm system where adding a few pieces every few years gives you a shot at the playoffs then you need to do something different. Build a better system, then add a few pieces and go for a winner. When's the last time the Pirates (for example) did that?

dickallen15
11-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion and of course like any opinion, it isn't incorrect from your perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but the only solution to this problem is to force more revenue sharing on the MLB and I can understand why the Yankees would balk at a true NFL style revenue sharing plan because there are too many teams who flat out aren't trying to field a winner and there is no guarantee they would do so if they suddenly started receiving more cash.

That's the flipside for every high payroll go for it all on a regular basis team there are an equal number of Marlins, Royals and Pirates who just aren't making any effort to field competitive teams. They'd rather pocket their checks then up the payroll and build a winner.

No there are no guarantees that more money = championship, but eventually you have to make a run at it if you want to be taken seriously. If you cannot build a good enough farm system where adding a few pieces every few years gives you a shot at the playoffs then you need to do something different. Build a better system, then add a few pieces and go for a winner. When's the last time the Pirates (for example) did that?

The problem with the way baseball shares revenue is a lot of the poorer teams don't spend it. They pocket it. With revenue sharing and television contracts and licensing fees, the Pirates and Marlins would turn a profit if they locked their gates and allowed no one in.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 01:22 PM
Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion and of course like any opinion, it isn't incorrect from your perspective.

I understand what you are saying, but the only solution to this problem is to force more revenue sharing on the MLB and I can understand why the Yankees would balk at a true NFL style revenue sharing plan because there are too many teams who flat out aren't trying to field a winner and there is no guarantee they would do so if they suddenly started receiving more cash.

That's the flipside for every high payroll go for it all on a regular basis team there are an equal number of Marlins, Royals and Pirates who just aren't making any effort to field competitive teams. They'd rather pocket their checks then up the payroll and build a winner.

No there are no guarantees that more money = championship, but eventually you have to make a run at it if you want to be taken seriously. If you cannot build a good enough farm system where adding a few pieces every few years gives you a shot at the playoffs then you need to do something different. Build a better system, then add a few pieces and go for a winner. When's the last time the Pirates (for example) did that?

I agree with you & D. A. here. I guess the question is how do we force teams to at least try to put a competitive team on the field?
How does the NFL do it. I'm not a big NFL fan but aren't most NFL teams competitive most years due to parity?

Madscout
11-16-2009, 02:25 PM
I agree with you & D. A. here. I guess the question is how do we force teams to at least try to put a competitive team on the field?
How does the NFL do it. I'm not a big NFL fan but aren't most NFL teams competitive most years due to parity?
The NFL does it by putting a cap above, and a hard floor below. If you go below the floor, you are not going to make money from payroll savings. If you go above, you get punished as well. If the MLBPA truly spoke for all players, and not just the A-Rods and Sabathias, it would support this.

MisterB
11-16-2009, 02:29 PM
I understand what you are saying, but the only solution to this problem is to force more revenue sharing on the MLB and I can understand why the Yankees would balk at a true NFL style revenue sharing plan because there are too many teams who flat out aren't trying to field a winner and there is no guarantee they would do so if they suddenly started receiving more cash.

That's the flipside for every high payroll go for it all on a regular basis team there are an equal number of Marlins, Royals and Pirates who just aren't making any effort to field competitive teams. They'd rather pocket their checks then up the payroll and build a winner.

Of course the stupid thing about this particular situation is that the owners get to approve anyone wanting to buy a team, so all these guys running AAA teams out there and pocketing the revenue sharing money are there because of the rest of the owners allowed them to have a team. :rolleyes:

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 03:11 PM
The NFL does it by putting a cap above, and a hard floor below. If you go below the floor, you are not going to make money from payroll savings. If you go above, you get punished as well. If the MLBPA truly spoke for all players, and not just the A-Rods and Sabathias, it would support this.


NFL is also different because players come to the league ready to play. MLB draft is a crapshoot. yeah there are busts who take the money and run (Leaf, McNown, etc.) but for the most part a first round draft pick can be counted on to start contributing immediately or within a year depending on who is in front of them.

It's harder to develop baseball players because the skills required are so different from most other sports. I mean if you can run fast, you can probably find a place on a football field.

I don't know that there is an easy solution to force parity on MLB. Even if you put in a salary floor many owners would get around it by simply paying their prospects to hang on to them longer. Which might actually lead to a bit more parity, but only if they owners are willing to put the money into their minor league systems.

I just want to reiterate that I disagree that the Yankees represent some unstoppable force. I think the system is okay the way it is. Good management teams who are given the budget to work with will find ways to win and those teams will increase their own revenue and in theory grow a self-feeding perpetual cycle of success. The teams that don't won't, but to say it's impossible to do belies the obvious success stories that continue to show up on a regular basis.

jabrch
11-16-2009, 03:37 PM
The NFL does it by putting a cap above, and a hard floor below. If you go below the floor, you are not going to make money from payroll savings. If you go above, you get punished as well. If the MLBPA truly spoke for all players, and not just the A-Rods and Sabathias, it would support this.

Well said...this MLBPA is not looking out for the best interest of the majority of membership.

jabrch
11-16-2009, 03:39 PM
I just want to reiterate that I disagree that the Yankees represent some unstoppable force.

I don't think people are saying they are an unstoppable force - only that the deck is slanted in their favor - and that it is slanted against the small market teams.

asindc
11-16-2009, 03:50 PM
I will reiterate the point I made earlier in this thread that the issue is not how often the Yanks win the WS, but the extent to which its payroll disparity gives them an inherent advantage in making the playoffs. They have missed the playoffs only once since 1995 and, as noted earlier, promptly went out and made themselves the first $200 million dollar team in U.S. sports history. This illustrates that they can afford to make more mistakes than anyone else.

Relying on Chien-Ming Wang to stay healthy? No problem if it doesn't work out, we'll just sign C.C. Sabathia.

Jason Giambi not quite working out? No problem, we'll just pay Mark Teixeira $20.6 million this season. What, we will already be paying Sabathia $15.2 million this season? Don't sweat it.

Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes don't seem quite ready to be mainstays in a rotation for a playoff-contending team? Well, we'll just sign A.J. Burnett for $16.5 million this season, with more to come.

What, you mean we have signed three players for a combined $52.3 million in salary for this season alone just to make up for the lack of success in some of our recent management decisions? Well, not to worry, there is plenty where that came from.

The fact that the Yanks are the only team in MLB that can have that discussion in their front office is a problem. The NBA and NFL recognized that economic imbalance among its teams distorted the competitive balance of their leagues and did something about it years ago. Some might not like the solutions, but the point here is that other leagues recognized economic imbalance as an issue that had to be addressed. I would like to see MLB address the issue as well.

Madscout
11-16-2009, 04:04 PM
NFL is also different because players come to the league ready to play. MLB draft is a crapshoot. yeah there are busts who take the money and run (Leaf, McNown, etc.) but for the most part a first round draft pick can be counted on to start contributing immediately or within a year depending on who is in front of them.

It's harder to develop baseball players because the skills required are so different from most other sports. I mean if you can run fast, you can probably find a place on a football field.

I don't know that there is an easy solution to force parity on MLB. Even if you put in a salary floor many owners would get around it by simply paying their prospects to hang on to them longer. Which might actually lead to a bit more parity, but only if they owners are willing to put the money into their minor league systems.

I just want to reiterate that I disagree that the Yankees represent some unstoppable force. I think the system is okay the way it is. Good management teams who are given the budget to work with will find ways to win and those teams will increase their own revenue and in theory grow a self-feeding perpetual cycle of success. The teams that don't won't, but to say it's impossible to do belies the obvious success stories that continue to show up on a regular basis.Any differences with players can easily be taken into account. I am not saying a bigger league min. is in order. I am saying that teams like the Tampa Bay Rays should not happen, just as much as the Yankees should not happen. And now it is getting as bad as teams are not picking the best player they can, because they know that they can't sign them. That makes things like the Florida Marlins in 03 and the Rays in 08 not even possibilities.

I know that payroll =/= winning. I'm just saying, that in the NFL, there is no one team that has dominance over the free agent market, and there is no one team that can buy itself out of a bad spot, as the Yankees did last year. This reality needs to change, and the fans know it.

Balfanman
11-16-2009, 04:07 PM
I will reiterate the point I made earlier in this thread that the issue is not how often the Yanks win the WS, but the extent to which its payroll disparity gives them an inherent advantage in making the playoffs. They have missed the playoffs only once since 1995 and, as noted earlier, promptly went out and made themselves the first $200 million dollar team in U.S. sports history. This illustrates that they can afford to make more mistakes than anyone else.

Relying on Chien-Ming Wang to stay healthy? No problem if it doesn't work out, we'll just sign C.C. Sabathia.

Jason Giambi not quite working out? No problem, we'll just pay Mark Teixeira $20.6 million this season. What, we will already be paying Sabathia $15.2 million this season? Don't sweat it.

Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes don't seem quite ready to be mainstays in a rotation for a playoff-contending team? Well, we'll just sign A.J. Burnett for $16.5 million this season, with more to come.

What, you mean we have signed three players for a combined $52.3 million in salary for this season alone just to make up for the lack of success in some of our recent management decisions? Well, not to worry, there is plenty where that came from.

The fact that the Yanks are the only team in MLB that can have that discussion in their front office is a problem. The NBA and NFL recognized that economic imbalance among its teams distorted the competitive balance of their leagues and did something about it years ago. Some might not like the solutions, but the point here is that other leagues recognized economic imbalance as an issue that had to be addressed. I would like to see MLB address the issue as well.

Here, here! I agree :gulp:

We are fortunate that we are not in the A. L. East. The main problem that I would have as an Oriole fan for example is that I would realize that we might....might be able to actually, seriously, compete with the Yankees / Red Sox 1 or 2 seasons out of every ten. When those 1 or 2 seasons came around you better cash in because you will be also rans for the other 8 - 9 seasons. That would be extremely discouraging.

Last year for example, as bad as the White Sox were, we still had a chance up until the last few weeks of the season. If we were in the A. L. East we would have been completely finished by around July 1st.

jabrch
11-16-2009, 04:23 PM
I will reiterate the point I made earlier in this thread that the issue is not how often the Yanks win the WS, but the extent to which its payroll disparity gives them an inherent advantage in making the playoffs. They have missed the playoffs only once since 1995 and, as noted earlier, promptly went out and made themselves the first $200 million dollar team in U.S. sports history. This illustrates that they can afford to make more mistakes than anyone else.

Relying on Chien-Ming Wang to stay healthy? No problem if it doesn't work out, we'll just sign C.C. Sabathia.

Jason Giambi not quite working out? No problem, we'll just pay Mark Teixeira $20.6 million this season. What, we will already be paying Sabathia $15.2 million this season? Don't sweat it.

Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes don't seem quite ready to be mainstays in a rotation for a playoff-contending team? Well, we'll just sign A.J. Burnett for $16.5 million this season, with more to come.

What, you mean we have signed three players for a combined $52.3 million in salary for this season alone just to make up for the lack of success in some of our recent management decisions? Well, not to worry, there is plenty where that came from.

The fact that the Yanks are the only team in MLB that can have that discussion in their front office is a problem. The NBA and NFL recognized that economic imbalance among its teams distorted the competitive balance of their leagues and did something about it years ago. Some might not like the solutions, but the point here is that other leagues recognized economic imbalance as an issue that had to be addressed. I would like to see MLB address the issue as well.

100% spot on. And the union doesn't care to stop it...because they don't believe ownership will ever contract, so why bother? Keep the low end jobs there in the crappy markets where kids and vets can make a few bucks, while keeping the huge payrolls in the big 5 or 6 markets. Why pluck feathers from the Golden Goose?

Bob Roarman
11-16-2009, 04:26 PM
I don't understand what people expect them to do with all the money they make. Nothing is going to change, there isn't going to be a salary cap anytime soon, this is the way it's going to be. The Yankees are one of the most popular teams in the world, they're always going make the most money. For me, the bigger outcry would be that they make all this money and don't field a competitive team. That would be a bigger deal to me.

voodoochile
11-16-2009, 04:33 PM
Any differences with players can easily be taken into account. I am not saying a bigger league min. is in order. I am saying that teams like the Tampa Bay Rays should not happen, just as much as the Yankees should not happen. And now it is getting as bad as teams are not picking the best player they can, because they know that they can't sign them. That makes things like the Florida Marlins in 03 and the Rays in 08 not even possibilities.

I know that payroll =/= winning. I'm just saying, that in the NFL, there is no one team that has dominance over the free agent market, and there is no one team that can buy itself out of a bad spot, as the Yankees did last year. This reality needs to change, and the fans know it.

I'd just like to point out that for all the hand wringing over the Yankees "buying their way out of a jam" the fact is their payroll went down last year. That's because they had contracts that expired. So they were able to spend money that came off the books. Their payroll has been pretty much stable for the last 6 years with a low of $184M and a high of $209M.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=9

DSpivack
11-16-2009, 04:37 PM
The Yankees dominating isn't exactly anything new. They did pretty well in the 20s, the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, the late 70s, the 90s, and are back to their winning ways with this past World Series. The Yankees have ALWAYS been the big bad villain that everyone else supposedly can't compete with. Competitive imbalance was a much worse problem in the 1950s than it was today, what with the Yankees having a big league farm club in the Kansas City A's.

And the NFL revenue model can't really be applied to MLB. The NFL as a whole acts more a single entity than MLB ever could.

Lip Man 1
11-16-2009, 04:37 PM
Sox 1986 asks: "So should owners operate at a loss in order to compete with the big men on campus?"

In my opinion the answer is yes. Sports franchises are public trusts, they are not your "normal" business ESPECIALLY when taxpayers in many cases build new stadiums for said owners.

They have a responsibility to the paying sports fans in their area, in my opinion...not to the bottom line in a ledger book.

As noted many small market franchises are making an absolute killing financially due to their share of revenue sharing money and merchandising while still putting crap teams on the field. Is that fair?

If they aren't willing or able to play the game with the folks who try to spend money to win, let them sell to someone who can. There are plenty of multi-multi billion dollar companies and individuals out there even with this financial situation.

Lip

DSpivack
11-16-2009, 04:41 PM
Sox 1986 asks: "So should owners operate at a loss in order to compete with the big men on campus?"

In my opinion the answer is yes. Sports franchises are public trusts, they are not your "normal" business ESPECIALLY when taxpayers in many cases build new stadiums for said owners.

They have a responsibility to the paying sports fans in their area, in my opinion...not to the bottom line in a ledger book.

As noted many small market franchises are making an absolute killing financially due to their share of revenue sharing money and merchandising while still putting crap teams on the field. Is that fair?

If they aren't willing or able to play the game with the folks who try to spend money to win, let them sell to someone who can. There are plenty of multi-multi billion dollar companies and individuals out there even with this financial situation.

Lip

But operating at a loss isn't sustainable in the long-term. Billionaire owners or not, sports franchises have to still be economically viable entities. Look at what happened with the Phoenix Coyotes, for example. Or an even better example is seen in English soccer with Leeds United.

Trav
11-16-2009, 07:24 PM
If anyone thinks the Yankees being able to outspend for FAs is an issue, just wait until the draft picks start demanding more and more money and the teams who refuse to spend have to keep letting the first pick get away. The Yankees will be able to spend millions and millions on 'can't miss' busts while the 'can't miss' studs rise to the top.

Noneck
11-16-2009, 09:26 PM
If they aren't willing or able to play the game with the folks who try to spend money to win, let them sell to someone who can. There are plenty of multi-multi billion dollar companies and individuals out there even with this financial situation.



Lip,

I think that may be the main problem. The"good old boys" wont approve the buyers you suggest. So they keep things as business as usual. And that must mean business as usual is very good to them, no matter how some poor mouth to the public. I doubt any ownership group has lost money lately in baseball. Different teams have different strategies and some make more than others. I haven't seen any baseball team ownerships sell because they aren't making money lately.

The type of ownership you suggest might rock the boat and change things (maybe for the better, fan wise), which is the last thing current ownerships want as long as the gravy train continues to flow.