PDA

View Full Version : Yankees reach deal with Contreras


Jjav829
12-24-2002, 12:17 PM
Yankees reach deal with Contreras (http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/1224/1482132.html)

jortafan
12-24-2002, 12:33 PM
Now that Orlando Hernandez will definitely be on the trade market this winter, spring, summer and until Steinbrenner manages to unload him, am I alone in fearing that El Duque will wind up with our Sox?

I know, I know. The Sox have said this winter they are not interested in Hernandez. But as time passes and the number of available pitchers diminishes, I fear Orlando will look more attractive to KW and his minnions. They will be swept up by the hype of the big-name pitcher who has come through many times in the clutch.

And I'm not convinced that Hernandez is completely washed up. He probably could be a worthwhile acquisition for a team that is not seriously in the pennant race.

But I don't want El Duque here (two years ago, I would have). I could easily see him dragging the ballclub down to the point where we have to fight just to stay ahead of Cleveland, let alone Minnesota.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-24-2002, 12:39 PM
OK, this is getting out of hand. Now the Yankees have 7 pitchers who could be in the top three of any rotation in MLB, save maybe the Braves and A's (Weaver, Mussina, Wells, Hernandez, Pettitte, Contreras, and the soon to be signed Clemens).

On a side note, I'm sure Kenny tried to call to get in on the deal...

:KW

Oh sure, just like Maddux, I called on the deal. But this time, I got a busy signal and decided not to bother.

Unregistered
12-24-2002, 12:44 PM
Seriously, way to cut down on payroll, George. Obviously Steinbrenner is wasting no time trying to make the Yankees the first team with a 200 million dollar payroll. And New Yorkers wonder why people hate the Yankees...

MetalliSox
12-24-2002, 12:52 PM
When is this WorldWide draft going to kick in?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Seriously, way to cut down on payroll, George. Obviously Steinbrenner is wasting no time trying to make the Yankees the first team with a 200 million dollar payroll. And New Yorkers wonder why people hate the Yankees...

Last summer I met this transplanted New Yorker who recently moved to Bucktown. He was life-long Yankees fan and our conversation turned to baseball.

He honestly tried to convince me the Yankees are GOOD for baseball because they draw crowds wherever they go. It would have been more convincing if baseball did more to share revenue, like the NFL for example.

I have to admit, he had a point. If part of MLB's problem is that George Steinbrenner tries too hard to field a winner, it's equally a problem that other owners aren't trying hard enough.

:reinsy
*whistling nervously*

Unregistered
12-24-2002, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I have to admit, he had a point. If part of MLB's problem is that George Steinbrenner tries too hard to field a winner, it's equally a problem that other owners aren't trying hard enough.
If that was the case, then sure, I'd bite. I'd say Steinbrenner is saving the game. But the way I see it, Taking advantage of the fact that you're in a huge market and that there is no salary cap on your way to spending 200 million dollars a year is not a matter of trying "hard enough". neither is buying up every available big ticket free agent causing you to have a situation like the Yanks currently have (7 starting pitchers, 6-7 outfielders, etc.). You can't fault the Kansas Citys of the baseball world for not "trying hard enough" to field a winner. It comes down to whether or not 150-200 million dollars is within a team's means. I see absolutely NO strategy in what Steinbrenner is doing. He is just throwing money at every top-tier free agent in the game regardless of the actual needs of the team in hopes that all this money brings him a winner.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-24-2002, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
If that was the case, then sure, I'd bite. I'd say Steinbrenner is saving the game. But the way I see it, Taking advantage of the fact that you're in a huge market and that there is no salary cap on your way to spending 200 million dollars a year is not a matter of trying "hard enough". neither is buying up every available big ticket free agent causing you to have a situation like the Yanks currently have (7 starting pitchers, 6-7 outfielders, etc.). You can't fault the Kansas Citys of the baseball world for not "trying hard enough" to field a winner. It comes down to whether or not 150-200 million dollars is within a team's means. I see absolutely NO strategy in what Steinbrenner is doing. He is just throwing money at every top-tier free agent in the game regardless of the actual needs of the team in hopes that all this money brings him a winner.

What you write is essentially the retort I made back to him. That's what I meant when I wrote:

It would have been more convincing if baseball did more to share revenue, like the NFL for example.

The point is MLB is sharing more and more revenue, yet sad sacks like Kansas City and Tampa Bay are actually CUTTING payroll while pocketing their welfare checks. It's hard to argue the point these teams aren't trying to win at all--especially now.

Of course there is another team that comes to mind, too.

:reinsy
*whistling*

Iwritecode
12-24-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Last summer I met this transplanted New Yorker who recently moved to Bucktown. He was life-long Yankees fan and our conversation turned to baseball.

He honestly tried to convince me the Yankees are GOOD for baseball because they draw crowds wherever they go. It would have been more convincing if baseball did more to share revenue, like the NFL for example.

I have to admit, he had a point. If part of MLB's problem is that George Steinbrenner tries too hard to field a winner, it's equally a problem that other owners aren't trying hard enough.

:reinsy
*whistling nervously*

Of course knowing when trying to acquire a top-tier free agent, that the Yankees are also interested in, that one will have to outrageously overpay for that player (simply because of the fact that you are bidding against the Yankees) kinda puts a damper on how hard one really tries. How many GM’s really went all out to try and get Contreras or “Godzilla”? Even going back a few years, how much effort was put out from teams trying to sign Mussina or Giambi?

If King George says he wants a player, you might as well give up right there, cause it’s very rare that he doesn’t get his man, no matter what the cost.

How is this good for baseball again?

MarkEdward
12-24-2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode

How is this good for baseball again?

So it's George's fault that he's the only owner trying to win? If he wants to keep signing free agents, good for him. I applaud Steinbrenner for his competitiveness.

David Glass owns Wal Mart. You think he doesn't have the money to compete with the Yankees? Carl Pohlad is one of the 30 richest men in America. Think he doesn't have the money to outspend George?

George Steinbrenner bought a crappy team, and turned it into one of the greatest franchises in all of sports. I say kudos to him.

gogosoxgogo
12-24-2002, 03:02 PM
Look for Hillenbrand for Colon very soon.

jeremyb1
12-24-2002, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
OK, this is getting out of hand. Now the Yankees have 7 pitchers who could be in the top three of any rotation in MLB, save maybe the Braves and A's (Weaver, Mussina, Wells, Hernandez, Pettitte, Contreras, and the soon to be signed Clemens).

On a side note, I'm sure Kenny tried to call to get in on the deal...

:KW

Oh sure, just like Maddux, I called on the deal. But this time, I got a busy signal and decided not to bother.

i take this to mean the yanks will be cutting ties with clemens. they said before that if they dealt for colon they would not go after clemens, that it was one or another. i expect this to mean the same thing. they won't want 7 starters, torre is on the record as saying that and steinbrenner isn't going to pay clemens unless he feels he needs him.

edit: scratch that. i just read the bottom of the ap article which said they're close to resigning clemens. that makes me wonder if another starter will be available besides el duque (pettite?).

TraderTim
12-24-2002, 07:35 PM
Mark wrote:
"So it's George's fault that he's the only owner trying to win? If he wants to keep signing free agents, good for him. I applaud Steinbrenner for his competitiveness.

David Glass owns Wal Mart. You think he doesn't have the money to compete with the Yankees? Carl Pohlad is one of the 30 richest men in America. Think he doesn't have the money to outspend George?"

The difference is George's ORGANIZATION has a one-sided advantage: a huge cash flow related to the sport. The yankees can spend $150 million because they have a unique advantage that is theirs alone, whether you like it or not. Their cable rights, etc, give them revenues no other MLB team can compete with.

This is very different than an owner that is worth several billion spending $200 million out of his pocket each year and facing a net shortfall of $150 million in revenues--the gentlemen that earned their fortunes the hard way wouldn't piss their fortunes away in that fashion [and neither would King George].

This is a situation that continues to eat away at the heart of baseball and until it is turned back, there will be problems. I would rather the owners and players had adopted a "hard" salary cap and salary floor than this half-hearted mess they are in for the next handful of years. Small teams may as well pocket some of the money because they sure can't compete if one of the top three or four teams is looking at a player of theirs, let alone a free agent.

Is it George's fault? No, he plays the hand he was dealt with great skill. He'll continue to play it skillfully until the rules are changed to make it a level playing field with each team having a finite and similar payroll figure available.

Merry Christmas, Sox fans.

TT

Lip Man 1
12-24-2002, 09:07 PM
Unregistered says:

You can't fault the Kansas Citys of the baseball world for not "trying hard enough" to field a winner.

Six months ago David Glass "promised" that he would use his revenue sharing money towards improving the Royals. Since then he has had the gall to tell his organization to cut payroll despite published reports in The Sporting News that he will be getting 20 million in "welfare checks."

Ken Rosenthal in TSN had a feature story on the Reds who have publicly said to the Cincinnati newspapers that even though the new Great American Ballpark is going to generate an additional 25 million in revenue, they are going to have to hold or cut payroll because "that increase in revenue means they no longer qualify for revenue sharing money."

Excuse me?

I do not fault George Steinbrenner at all for trying to win. With respect I also do not buy the retort that individuals like Glass, Pohland, Reinsdorf, Moores etc have all their money tied up in company funds and company debts. BS. Those guys OWN those companies they can do what they damn well please with any or all parts of them.

If Glass feels he can't compete with Steinbrenner let him take fifty million out of his personal fortune, sell off a hundred Wal Mart stores and take all that cash and invest it in the Royals.

The fact is he doesn't WANT to. He like so many others want something handed to him.

I said five years ago and I stand by it, that until baseball orders these owners to start spending money equal to their market size or risk losing their franchises to people like Mark Cuban, Bill gates and Paul Allen, nothing is going to change.

Instead of "dumbing down" baseball by forcing Steinbrenner, Turner, Murdoch etc to stop spending, they should be forcing the dead beat owners to start taking those guys on and raising the compitition.

If not...get out by selling or have MLB force them to get out.

Just my opinion.

Lip

MarkEdward
12-24-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim

The difference is George's ORGANIZATION has a one-sided advantage: a huge cash flow related to the sport. The yankees can spend $150 million because they have a unique advantage that is theirs alone, whether you like it or not. Their cable rights, etc, give them revenues no other MLB team can compete with.

Teams like the Royals can set up their TV rights anyway they want. If they choose to take a poor deal, I blame only that team.

This is very different than an owner that is worth several billion spending $200 million out of his pocket each year and facing a net shortfall of $150 million in revenues--the gentlemen that earned their fortunes the hard way wouldn't piss their fortunes away in that fashion [and neither would King George].

Then those gentlemen should think about getting out of the business of owning sports franchises.

This is a situation that continues to eat away at the heart of baseball and until it is turned back, there will be problems. I would rather the owners and players had adopted a "hard" salary cap and salary floor than this half-hearted mess they are in for the next handful of years. Small teams may as well pocket some of the money because they sure can't compete if one of the top three or four teams is looking at a player of theirs, let alone a free agent.

Ah, that's it. Bad owners? Gotta punish the players.

Is it George's fault? No, he plays the hand he was dealt with great skill. He'll continue to play it skillfully until the rules are changed to make it a level playing field with each team having a finite and similar payroll figure available.

But there already is a level playing field. Angels and Diamondbacks say hi.

Merry Christmas, Sox fans.

TT

kermittheefrog
12-24-2002, 10:44 PM
I guess they are right when they talk about the playoff ratings being down. Seems like not so many people saw the Yankees lose in the first round of the playoffs last year.

voodoochile
12-24-2002, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
The difference is George's ORGANIZATION has a one-sided advantage: a huge cash flow related to the sport. The yankees can spend $150 million because they have a unique advantage that is theirs alone, whether you like it or not. Their cable rights, etc, give them revenues no other MLB team can compete with.

This is very different than an owner that is worth several billion spending $200 million out of his pocket each year and facing a net shortfall of $150 million in revenues--the gentlemen that earned their fortunes the hard way wouldn't piss their fortunes away in that fashion [and neither would King George].

This is a situation that continues to eat away at the heart of baseball and until it is turned back, there will be problems. I would rather the owners and players had adopted a "hard" salary cap and salary floor than this half-hearted mess they are in for the next handful of years. Small teams may as well pocket some of the money because they sure can't compete if one of the top three or four teams is looking at a player of theirs, let alone a free agent.

Is it George's fault? No, he plays the hand he was dealt with great skill. He'll continue to play it skillfully until the rules are changed to make it a level playing field with each team having a finite and similar payroll figure available.

Merry Christmas, Sox fans.

TT

George built that revenue and that cable network because he built a team that earned the payments. The Yankees weren't making any more than the other big market teams in the early 90's. In some cases they probably made less because they were not successful. Then they built an organization and a team that allowed them to be competittive and signed enough good FA's to start winning championships. Then they took advantage of the changes in market conditions to increase their income and ended up with the ability to outspend the rest of the teams in MLB, but it wasn't always that way - they built their own dynasty.

PHG likes to use the example of Seattle and it is a good one. In the early 90's they were a nothing team. Constantly finishing in the bottom half of their division and going nowhere slowly. They made an effort to create a better product and earned the fan's loyalty, built a better stadium and sold to a corporation. Now they not only have the financial backing because they are owned by Nintendo, but because they have a first class organization that has constantly been one of the better teams these past 8 years or so.

Spending money to make money = building a winner so the fans want to pay money to see it. Unless you have a tourist trap for a ballpark and/or are owned by a major media outlet (*cough*flubbies*cough) you have to make an effort to prove to the fans you want to win every year. If you do that, then you reap the rewards, plain and simple. This is doubly true in a local revenue sport like MLB where such a high percentage of your money comes from attendance and local TV. Can't blame the Yankees for making their team so successful that the fans pay more to watch them at the park and on TV than any other team. Yes, they have a larger market to draw from, but if they sucked year in and year out, that wouldn't mean squat. They make the effort and it shows both on the field and on the bottom line. That's just good business...

dougs78
12-24-2002, 11:26 PM
I think one thing that some you (me included at times) incorrectly assume is that these owners run their ballclubs the same way you run your fantasy teams. You think they would do everything in their power, spending money, to ensure their team wins. That is not their job. they run a business.
I know that we all wish our team could be owned by Mark Cuban, but those guys are few and far between. I mean I wish it was that way that everyone put their heart and soul (and money :) into winning....but as for the current situation, I can't always argue with putting more than the revenue back into a business.

voodoochile
12-24-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
I think one thing that some you (me included at times) incorrectly assume is that these owners run their ballclubs the same way you run your fantasy teams. You think they would do everything in their power, spending money, to ensure their team wins. That is not their job. they run a business.
I know that we all wish our team could be owned by Mark Cuban, but those guys are few and far between. I mean I wish it was that way that everyone put their heart and soul (and money :) into winning....but as for the current situation, I can't always argue with putting more than the revenue back into a business.

Yeah, but if you take a few years of low profits or no profits to build a winning tradition, then the amount you can spend in the future goes up. As the Yankees proved it can go way, way up then you can do both.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-25-2002, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If Glass feels he can't compete with Steinbrenner let him take fifty million out of his personal fortune, sell off a hundred Wal Mart stores and take all that cash and invest it in the Royals.

Ordinarily Lip, I agree with your posts, but in this case, I have to disagree. Wal-Mart is a publicly owned company. By simply selling a few store, Glass does not get to pocket the money; it goes to the company. The only way he gets money from the company, besides his salary and bonuses, is through stock dividends, and those have to be paid to ALL stockholders. Glass would have to sell shares of the company in order to turn his holdings into cash.

Now, the most recent data I was able to find is as of 2/13/02, and it stated that Mr Glass owned 2,059,151 shares of Wal-Mart. (http://biz.yahoo.com/t/in/w/wmt.html) At the close price on 12/24/02 ($49.70) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=wmt&d=t). these shares are worth approximately $102.4 million. Even if he sold all his holdings, he could only go for broke for one year, maybe two, and match the Yankees. The Yankees spend over $100 million every year.

I know that this is a little oversimplified, as it does not include his salary, bonuses, or any other financial holdings Mr. Glass might have, but I do think that it is a good illustration of what Glass would have to give up (all his Wal-Mart holdings) in order to hang with the Yanks for only a couple years.

The bottom line is that the Yankees have a great broadcast revenue deal and that allows them to spend all the time. Many other owners cannot hope to match them year in, year out and that is bad for baseball.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-25-2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Teams like the Royals can set up their TV rights anyway they want. If they choose to take a poor deal, I blame only that team.

Come on!!! You can't tell me that the Royals can broker the same broadcast revenue deal as the Yankees. According to Neilson Media Research, for the 2002-2003 TV season, New York is the number 1 market with approximately 7.3 million TV households. Where does KC rank? Try 33rd with 852,510 TV households. NY has 8.5 times as many TV households!!! Even if KC somehow managed to win the next 5 World Series, they could never get the kind of broadcast deal the Yankees can. Even compared to other big markets, NY is almost 1.5 times as large as LA and more than twice as big as Chicago. The Yankees have a built in advantage over every other team in the league based on the market they play in. The only way to fix this will be to negotiate a national revenue sharing deal similar to the NFL.

Stats provided here: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

kermittheefrog
12-25-2002, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
The only way to fix this will be to negotiate a national revenue sharing deal similar to the NFL.


First of all you're correct about the Yankees built in advantage but the answer is not national revenue sharing. National revenue sharing works in the NFL because the NFL has a ridiculously huge national TV contract. There's no such thing as a local TV contract in the NFL. The NFL and MLB are too different for you to just be able to say apply the NFL system to the MLB and MLB will be "fixed".

Changes like national revenue sharing aren't necessary. The Yankees have an advantage but Steinbrenner paid to be in that market just like David Glass paid to be in KC. If Glass doesn't feel like he wants to do what it takes to compete in KC he should get out of the baseball business. This idea that lower revenue teams cannot compete because they don't spend as much as the Yankees is BS, look at the A's. The idea that cash is extremely tight is also BS. The owners call for more and more revenue sharing but much of this money is getting pocketed.

I think everyone who claims there is a competitive balance problem tends to argue it got really bad after the 94 agreement. Well the 94 agreement was the first agreement to include any sort of revenue sharing. So how does more revenue sharing fix the problem? Honestly I don't believe there is a competitive balance problem. It's been a long time since we saw a truly terrible team like the 1950's Pirates or the 1910's Athletics. The worst teams of recent memory were the Marlins who intentionally demolished a World Series team and the Devil Rays who have spent a reasonable amount of money just all in the wrong places.

No team in baseball suffers from such a lack of revenue that they cannot compete. In addition, when teams win more fans show up and revenue increases. Even Montreal a so-called dead market showed an increase in attendence last season when the team looked competitive. However so MLB and Selig could not look bad the team dumped Cliff Floyd killing their chance at contention and fan interest all at once. Not that anyone should be surprised, Montreal winning and putting fans in the seats would be the pin to Selig's balloon.

So what's the real problem? Owners unwilling to take a risk to improve their ballclub. If you take a risk to improve the team and it pays off you get more wins, more fans and more money. Owners are unwilling do that because they don't have to do that to make a profit due to revenue sharing. Of course a risk comes with the possibility of losing money. But no business is a no risk investment. The idea of increasing revenue sharing is all about the owners taking the risk out of running a baseball team, not about evening the playing field. I think this offseason has shown revenue sharing isn't doing jack for baseball.

To sum this all up:

-National revenue sharing doesn't mesh with the MLB.
-Despite the Yankees advantage there isn't a significant competetive balance problem.
-Low revenue teams can win.
-Revenue sharing doesn't help make bad franchises win games.
-Winning increases revenue.
-Owners suck and dont invest in their own products.

And if you still really want to take a chunk out of Steinbrenner's cashflow, stick another team or two in New York! Or one in New York and one in Jersey. It's not like the population can't support it.

RedPinStripes
12-25-2002, 09:47 AM
Speaking of George's Cable tv co.........

I wonder what happened to Eddie and Jerry's great idea with "OnTv" in the early 80's? If it werent for people like my father who had season tickets and paid to watch the sox on tv, i might not have followed the sox as much.

20 years later the sox are still paying for that mistake.

And my belif is every owner in baseball can offord a decent payroll. Mybe not as comfortably as King George, or time\warner, but teams like THE SOX , KC, indians, and tigers are full of **** if you ask me. If it was not profitable for them at all, they would sell. The must be a reason why the same cheap *******s who cry broke all teh time are the same ****heads that own these teams for 10-20 years at a time then hand it to family members.

The only team i really belive is broke is Montreal.

And it's real funny that since the owners didnt get what they wanted in the last contract, everyone is broke now and cant sign free agents accept the one who is pissed off and wants to throw it back in the owners face and that would be King George.

:reinsy
I'm so broke! suckers!!!!!!!

WhiteSoxWinner
12-25-2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

-Revenue sharing doesn't help make bad franchises win games.


You are correct. What I needed to say that national revenue sharing combined with a salary cap and floor will make team more competitive. You have to have both.

Originally posted by kermittheefrog
So what's the real problem? Owners unwilling to take a risk to improve their ballclub. If you take a risk to improve the team and it pays off you get more wins, more fans and more money. Owners are unwilling do that because they don't have to do that to make a profit due to revenue sharing. Of course a risk comes with the possibility of losing money. But no business is a no risk investment. The idea of increasing revenue sharing is all about the owners taking the risk out of running a baseball team, not about evening the playing field. I think this offseason has shown revenue sharing isn't doing jack for baseball.

Explain this to me again in the context of the Yankees outbidding the Red Sox for Contreras? Or the Yankees outbidding the A's for Giambi? Or the Yankees plucking the soon-to-be free agents off other rosters, and other teams going for it because they know the Yankees will outbid them anyway?

Lip Man 1
12-25-2002, 02:13 PM
Red Pin Stripes asks about the ill fated Sox pay TV attempt 20 years ago...

Funny you should ask about that, I send a historical article on SportsVision- The Legacy to Pale Hose George last month. I'm sure he'll run it at the appropriate time, you might want to ask him what the schedule is for it and then check back to make sure you don't miss it.

Also ESPN.com had a story on the yankees payroll now up to 140 million dollars. These two quotes are interesting...

The Yankees payroll is going through the roof," a high-ranking MLB official told the Daily News. "For them to get under the luxury tax, they're going to have to move a whole lot of contracts. Good luck. It's been rather apparent that no one is taking on big-money contracts this winter."

"George is just unbelievable," an agent told the newspaper, referring to Yankees' owner George Steinbrenner. "He just doesn't give a ---. God bless him. He's obviously gonna spend whatever he feels like to win. He's unbelievable. "

Amen brother..God Bless You George...keep putting the hammer to the dead beats like Reinsdorf, Pohland, Selig etc and force them out of baseball!

Lip

Paulwny
12-25-2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner

The bottom line is that the Yankees have a great broadcast revenue deal and that allows them to spend all the time. Many other owners cannot hope to match them year in, year out and that is bad for baseball.


It will get bigger, wait till his YES network starts broadcasting yankmee games in Japan.

kermittheefrog
12-25-2002, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner

Explain this to me again in the context of the Yankees outbidding the Red Sox for Contreras? Or the Yankees outbidding the A's for Giambi? Or the Yankees plucking the soon-to-be free agents off other rosters, and other teams going for it because they know the Yankees will outbid them anyway?

Are the A's and the Red Sox really the problem? They lost Giambi and still won 100 games. I think the objective is to stop teams like the Royals from being non-competitive. And the fact is they aren't trying. I don't think we need to change the economics of baseball so that the A's and Red Sox win more games. The idea is teams like the Royals aren't trying. The A's and the Red Sox are both very successful franchises with or without Contreras and Giambi.

Paulwny
12-25-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

He honestly tried to convince me the Yankees are GOOD for baseball because they draw crowds wherever they go.


I hear this argument all the time.
So a team draws well when the yankmees come to town,maybe all the teams in the AL East would draw well for all their games if there was a legitimate div race in the east.
Up until this year the yankmees have continually sold out Sky Dome. Things have gotten so bad that if you purchase a Jay 4 pack, deal expired Dec. 13, they'll give you a FREE ticket to opening day. Guess who they play?

Paulwny
12-25-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
Come on!!! You can't tell me that the Royals can broker the same broadcast revenue deal as the Yankees. According to Neilson Media Research, for the 2002-2003 TV season, New York is the number 1 market with approximately 7.3 million TV households. Where does KC rank? Try 33rd with 852,510 TV households. NY has 8.5 times as many TV households!!! Even if KC somehow managed to win the next 5 World Series, they could never get the kind of broadcast deal the Yankees can. Even compared to other big markets, NY is almost 1.5 times as large as LA and more than twice as big as Chicago. The Yankees have a built in advantage over every other team in the league based on the market they play in. The only way to fix this will be to negotiate a national revenue sharing deal similar to the NFL.

Stats provided here: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

Agree, the Nielsen stats are only for NYC and immediate area. They do not include George's cable deals. George's YES network broadcasts throughout NY State, some of the New England States, all of NJ, parts of Penn and parts of Fl.
I believe only the Braves are broadcast to a larger audience.
Also, the cable subscribers had no choice, George demanded that the YES network had to be part of each cable companies basic service and each subscriber would be charged $1-$1.50/month for the station.

Paulwny
12-25-2002, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
George built that revenue and that cable network because he built a team that earned the payments. The Yankees weren't making any more than the other big market teams in the early 90's. In some cases they probably made less because they were not successful. Then they built an organization and a team that allowed them to be competittive and signed enough good FA's to start winning championships. Then they took advantage of the changes in market conditions to increase their income and ended up with the ability to outspend the rest of the teams in MLB, but it wasn't always that way - they built their own dynasty. .



Even in the early 90's the yankmees held the broadcast revenue crown. The MSG network continually paid them ~$40 mil/ yr for broadcast rights, maxing out at ~$60 mil a few years ago.
Atlanta should have had a higher tv revenue but, since Turner owned the station and the braves, he low balled the braves so he could show a loss on his baseball revenue.
I read an article last year, the yankmees receive more in RADIO revenue then KC does in tv revenue.

Lip Man 1
12-25-2002, 11:00 PM
I was just ruminating about the Yankees "problem" (i.e. having too many quality starting pitchers). if as expected Clemens signs in the next day or two that will give New York seven or eight starters.

Obviously they can't use that many and the initial response would be to trade a few. But would they?

Think about it...last year the Yankees had problems with pitchers breaking down. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Yankees sent Hernandez, Hitchcock, Weaver to triple AAA Columbus as insurance in case anybody got hurt.

If they didn't those guys would be getting regular work in and could then be traded in July if New York needed to fill holes elsewhere.

Talk about dealing for strenght! Man the Columbus rotation would be better then half the teams in MLB!!

Amazing.

Lip

voodoochile
12-26-2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Even in the early 90's the yankmees held the broadcast revenue crown. The MSG network continually paid them ~$40 mil/ yr for broadcast rights, maxing out at ~$60 mil a few years ago.
Atlanta should have had a higher tv revenue but, since Turner owned the station and the braves, he low balled the braves so he could show a loss on his baseball revenue.
I read an article last year, the yankmees receive more in RADIO revenue then KC does in tv revenue.

That doesn't majorly surprise me, but I doubt the discrepency back then was as much as it is today and that change is fueled by the Yankees recent run of success. In addition, the Yankees have jumped up the local revenue by increasing attendance - like it or not that is still a major source of income to every MLB team (81 sellouts is worth about $100+M in revenue for any team in the league). Other teams might not be able to compete on a TV/radio revenue basis, but putting a better product on the field WOULD bring in more fans to the games and that would more than offset any extra money spent. The lack of effort by guys like our beloved JR makes it hard to accept their statements that they are the poor players in a rich mans game. No reason to think that every team in the league couldn't afford a $70M payroll if they would just manage to fill their parks on a regular basis. Then if they were successful, their TV and radio revenue would increase also.

And again, all of that is BEFORE we mention the increase in capital that EVERY SINGLE OWNER is sitting on. I think it was Procul Harum who calculated that JR's capital increase basically matches the increase in the DJIA since he bought the team. Of course that isn't really profit and should in no way be used to improve the team.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. No one has a right to own a major league franchise. If you cannot run one in a profitable manner while regularly fielding winning teams and making at least 2 runs a decade at a pennant, you should sell the team and take the f'n profit...

:reinsy
"No, no no... it's all the fans fault because they WON"T come out to the park."

:ohno
"Marketing like that and bad management to boot. Is it any wonder we stay away..."

voodoochile
12-26-2002, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I was just ruminating about the Yankees "problem" (i.e. having too many quality starting pitchers). if as expected Clemens signs in the next day or two that will give New York seven or eight starters.

Obviously they can't use that many and the initial response would be to trade a few. But would they?

Think about it...last year the Yankees had problems with pitchers breaking down. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Yankees sent Hernandez, Hitchcock, Weaver to triple AAA Columbus as insurance in case anybody got hurt.

If they didn't those guys would be getting regular work in and could then be traded in July if New York needed to fill holes elsewhere.

Talk about dealing for strenght! Man the Columbus rotation would be better then half the teams in MLB!!

Amazing.

Lip

Can they actually do that? I thought once a player reaches a certain level of years they have to clear waivers to be sent down. No way do those guys make it through, IMO. I would be surprised if they kept more than 1 of them anyway as the odds of them losing 3 starters for a whole season - or 3 at the same time for an extended period of time - seem small and George isn't so keen on outspending every other team in the league that he will gladly shell out several million dollars to the league for exceeding the cap if he can avoid at least part of it...

kermittheefrog
12-26-2002, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I was just ruminating about the Yankees "problem" (i.e. having too many quality starting pitchers). if as expected Clemens signs in the next day or two that will give New York seven or eight starters.

Obviously they can't use that many and the initial response would be to trade a few. But would they?

Think about it...last year the Yankees had problems with pitchers breaking down. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Yankees sent Hernandez, Hitchcock, Weaver to triple AAA Columbus as insurance in case anybody got hurt.

If they didn't those guys would be getting regular work in and could then be traded in July if New York needed to fill holes elsewhere.

Talk about dealing for strenght! Man the Columbus rotation would be better then half the teams in MLB!!

Amazing.

Lip

They can't do that. All of those guys have enough service time that they'd have to both clear waivers and accept a minor league assignment. There is a decent chance Hernandez and Hitchcock would clear waivers but I doubt either one would accept being sent down. They would refuse the assignment and become free agents. There is no way Weaver wouldn't be claimed. In fact the Yankees would be foolish to not put him in the rotation. Weaver could be the ace of the staff if they give him opportunity and Mussina doesn't recover from last year. Weaver, Mussina and Contreras is a mighty front three and thats before you even face Pettitte, Clemens (assuming he resigns) or Hernandez.

FanOf14
12-26-2002, 12:48 PM
What I want to know is why a guy who has never set foot on a major league baseball diamond is getting that kind of cash - why not start him low and let him earn it. Sorry, I think it is ridiculous to give guys money like that before they can prove their talents on the field.

Lip Man 1
12-26-2002, 07:08 PM
I guess it all depends on how good you think the Cuban leagues are and Contrares results in international competition.

All of the scouting reports that I've seen say this guy can be a #1 starter (just ask the Orioles!)

Lip

Daver
12-26-2002, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I guess it all depends on how good you think the Cuban leagues are and Contrares results in international competition.

All of the scouting reports that I've seen say this guy can be a #1 starter (just ask the Orioles!)

Lip

I'll be surprised if he makes it for two seasons before having an arm injury.

kermittheefrog
12-26-2002, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
What I want to know is why a guy who has never set foot on a major league baseball diamond is getting that kind of cash - why not start him low and let him earn it. Sorry, I think it is ridiculous to give guys money like that before they can prove their talents on the field.

I think it's pretty silly to say the guy hasn't proven his talents on the field. He's pitched in the Cuban leagues, he's been scouted. Both Hernandezes and Rolando Arrojo, recent Cuban defecting pitchers, have been effective to excellent. Contreras is supposed to be better than the three of them. I think he's most likely worth the money.

FanOf14
12-27-2002, 07:54 AM
I also think it's pretty silly for the any team to lay cash like that down on a player that hasn't been in MLB yet. Let him earn it first - I am not saying start him out at the minimum but that kind of cash is ridiculous. That's just my opinion and I am entitled to it.

ma-gaga
12-27-2002, 11:03 AM
Be glad it isn't Reinsy that's shelling out $7MM a year for Conteras. He'd blame the fans...

I'm skeptical on Conteras's abilities too. I'm also biased against him, so that is clouding my judgement. I truly hope this guy hurts the Yankees more than he helps them.

The 'small' market teams have to look at where they are on the competitive cycle. Look at where the minor league talents are and plan for a big push over 3-4 years. Then fall back into 'rebuilding' mode. David Glass and the Royals don't seem to follow this concept. They've developed some good players, but not at the same time. If you look at whom they could have on their roster, they could be a very good team. Call this what you want, bad luck, bad planning, but they've done a bad job of management more than the financial constraints.

Actually, all teams have to do this, it just is a lot easier to fill holes when the money is pouring in. The Sox are currently in this competetive zone. They have 4-5 position players in their prime, and a young pitching staff.

The Twins are in the same state, but their position players are a little younger. But that's offset with an older/better/deeper pitching staff. That staff will be really really questionable in 2 years when they start getting 'old' and 'expensive'. Even this year, they missed a lot of time due to injuries... But their continued success is going to depend on their minor league pitching.

Spending money isn't everything. But it helps. Pohlad is a lot closer to getting a stadium bill passed now than ever before, and the state of Minnesota has a $4.5 Billion deficit. ...

:)