PDA

View Full Version : Yankee Arrogance


duke of dorwood
01-01-2003, 11:11 PM
The Yankees will shell out close to $50 million in revenue sharing this upcoming season and about another $10 million in luxury tax as their still-to-be-completed payroll hovers in the $155 million range. The Yankees insist they are paying more than their fair share to help the have-nots and it is up to those teams to get creative and put the money to good use.

Yankee president Randy Levine delivered a pointed message to those teams.

"I want to address some of this discussion that's been going on - terms like gluttony and so forth, the typical whining that's going on," Levine said defiantly. "All of that needs to now stop.

"The days of trying to shed or hide your own problems by blaming the Yankees are over. We're playing by the rules. We play tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing. If those teams choose not to spend on players but to use if for whatever means they decide to, that's their problem. The Yankees are about winning."

WhiteSoxWinner
01-01-2003, 11:36 PM
I doubt any of those teams would get enough in revenue sharing to combine with a reasonable payroll to get close to the Yankees payroll. Face it Randy Levine, if baseball were poker, the Yankees would be playing with a Pinochle deck while the rest of the league has a standard deck.

jeremyb1
01-01-2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
The Yankees will shell out close to $50 million in revenue sharing this upcoming season and about another $10 million in luxury tax as their still-to-be-completed payroll hovers in the $155 million range. The Yankees insist they are paying more than their fair share to help the have-nots and it is up to those teams to get creative and put the money to good use.

Yankee president Randy Levine delivered a pointed message to those teams.

"I want to address some of this discussion that's been going on - terms like gluttony and so forth, the typical whining that's going on," Levine said defiantly. "All of that needs to now stop.

"The days of trying to shed or hide your own problems by blaming the Yankees are over. We're playing by the rules. We play tens of millions of dollars in revenue sharing. If those teams choose not to spend on players but to use if for whatever means they decide to, that's their problem. The Yankees are about winning."

i get so pissed off when i read quotes like that from those in the yankees organization. the reason they're so good is because they know talent better? they were the only ones who thought giambi, mussina, contreras, etc. were good players? the rest of baseball could've afforded those players but decided not to? give me a break. its just sickening. the unfair advantage they have is ridiculous enough. the fact that they won't acknowledge the fact that it exists is just maddening.

cornball
01-02-2003, 12:25 AM
Between the tax and revenue sharing they will spend more then we do on players.

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by cornball
Between the tax and revenue sharing they will spend more then we do on players.

But the man does have one point, and that is that a lot of teams spend nothing of their revenue sharing money on talent, choosing instead to pocket that money as profit. I think that was the gist of the comment, and he's right.

Lip Man 1
01-02-2003, 12:41 AM
Cornball says: Between the tax and revenue sharing they will spend more then we do on players.

And that's the Yankees fault that the Sox are owned by a cheap, egotistical, SOB who blames the fans for his problems?

No the Sox can't match dollar for dollar what the Yankees have, but you can't tell me for a New York second, the Sox can't spend 70-75 million on a payroll! This isn't KC, this is the 3rd largest market in the country.

The Yanks are dead right about one thing and they have been saying it for years...they were against a payroll tax because they KNEW that other owners would take the money and stick it right in their pocket.

Recent published reports out of KC and Cincinnati have confirmed this.

Do not blame the Yanks for having the New York market and the will to win, blame the other owners for not even TRYING to compete. It's an easy excuse from a bunch of inbred morons like Reinsdorf, Mooras, Loria, Glass, Linder and selig.

Lip

kermittheefrog
01-02-2003, 01:55 AM
Why does everything all come back to payroll? There have been a number of good teams to prove that payroll isn't #1 in deciding who wins. I get tired of all the bitching. The Yankees are good because of a lot more than just having the most money.

jeremyb1
01-02-2003, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Cornball says: Between the tax and revenue sharing they will spend more then we do on players.

And that's the Yankees fault that the Sox are owned by a cheap, egotistical, SOB who blames the fans for his problems?

No the Sox can't match dollar for dollar what the Yankees have, but you can't tell me for a New York second, the Sox can't spend 70-75 million on a payroll! This isn't KC, this is the 3rd largest market in the country.

The Yanks are dead right about one thing and they have been saying it for years...they were against a payroll tax because they KNEW that other owners would take the money and stick it right in their pocket.

Recent published reports out of KC and Cincinnati have confirmed this.

Do not blame the Yanks for having the New York market and the will to win, blame the other owners for not even TRYING to compete. It's an easy excuse from a bunch of inbred morons like Reinsdorf, Mooras, Loria, Glass, Linder and selig.


you're assuming facts not in evidence though. we know next to nothing about the yankees' finances. its entirely possible that the yankees have a 150 million dollar payroll and 400 million in revenue while the royals have a 40 million dollar payroll and a 70 million dollars in revenue. the royals get 10 million from revenue sharing so that they're total revenue is now 80 million and they pocket it. you could easily blast the royals and praise the yankees for their desire to win since their payroll is over 3x as large but the reality is that in this hypothetical situation the royals are still putting a larger percentage of their revenue back into the team.

in this situation i would agree you can blast the royals for not spending more on their team but at the same time you can't praise the yankees for their will to win. they're making more money than everyone.

now this situation may be far from the truth but we don't really know, do we? i don't think most people have that much knowledge of the yankees reported revenue vs. their payroll. even if someone does have knowledge of those figures, there is no way the reported figures are anywhere close to accurate. the sport of baseball is notorious for doctoring its books.

i have no problem blasting the owners in general because despite what baseball claims i doubt hardly any teams come close to losing money. however, when you blast some owners while praising others while only guessing as to what certain teams' revenue is that's ridiculous.

jeremyb1
01-02-2003, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Why does everything all come back to payroll? There have been a number of good teams to prove that payroll isn't #1 in deciding who wins. I get tired of all the bitching. The Yankees are good because of a lot more than just having the most money.

i think that was much easier to say in the past. when the yankees key players were jeter, williams, pettitte, et al they deserved a lot of credit for developing good players. the finances still aided them a great deal because they were able to pay these players whatever it took to keep them while kc has to trade away players like dye, damon, and probably sweeney in the near future since they can't afford them. so before the yankees acquired good players despite good payroll but they were able to keep them when most other teams couldn't based on their money.

now, they receive even less credit on the baseball side of things if you ask me. the yankees no longer only spend incredible amounts of money to retain their own players but they also use their money to sign the top free agents every off season. you could easily argue that their best pitcher (mussina) and two best hitters (giambi and soriano) went to the yankees because the yankees offered the most money. the signings of contreras and matsui also make a strong argument in favor of this.

additionally, the yankees have used their financial status to take any and every player who may help them and taken on bad contracts in the process. this is the type of bad baseaball move the yankees didn't make in the past. the yanks acquired players such as hitchcock and mondesi seemingly just because they could. now they're stuck with contracts such as this. you used to be able to argue that the yankees money was well spent and much of it is but tying up large sums of money to have 8 starting pitchers, paying 17 or 19 million a year to jeter who isn't worth that kind of money, and paying millions to part timers like mondesi and hitchcock its hard to suggest the yanks are doing little more than throwing their money around at this point.

additionally, aside from soriano the yanks have done little as far as developing young players lately. they block the progress of some of the top prospects in baseball such as johnson and rivera because they would rather buy more established players. they trade other prospects like ford-griffin and arnold because they can. the yankees choose not to risk it on young talent because they don't have the driving factor everyone else has: money. other teams have to have young players because otherwise good talent simply costs to much but the yankees can afford to take on contracts like weaver's and colon's without blinking and they can sign the best players in baseball to fill the roles their young players would otherwise fill so they no longer utilize their farm system for much other than trades except when they can buy truly can't miss players such as soriano.

Iwritecode
01-02-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
No the Sox can't match dollar for dollar what the Yankees have, but you can't tell me for a New York second, the Sox can't spend 70-75 million on a payroll! This isn't KC, this is the 3rd largest market in the country.

The Yanks are dead right about one thing and they have been saying it for years...they were against a payroll tax because they KNEW that other owners would take the money and stick it right in their pocket.

Recent published reports out of KC and Cincinnati have confirmed this.

Do not blame the Yanks for having the New York market and the will to win, blame the other owners for not even TRYING to compete. It's an easy excuse from a bunch of inbred morons like Reinsdorf, Mooras, Loria, Glass, Linder and selig.

Lip

Are there really any players left out there that would make it worthwhile for the Sox to have a payroll that high anymore? By the time the Yanks are done picking up players the only thing left are overpaid mediocre players. I'm sure I could get the Sox payroll up around 80 million but I'm not sure the team would be all that much better. Or still even able to beat the Yankees...

hold2dibber
01-02-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Are there really any players left out there that would make it worthwhile for the Sox to have a payroll that high anymore? By the time the Yanks are done picking up players the only thing left are overpaid mediocre players. I'm sure I could get the Sox payroll up around 80 million but I'm not sure the team would be all that much better. Or still even able to beat the Yankees...

Well, there were some players that were available a few months ago that would have been worth the money. Now, there are not free agents left on the market that merit top dollar, but the Sox could make trades that would increase the payroll to that level and drastically improve the team.

pudge
01-02-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
you're assuming facts not in evidence though. we know next to nothing about the yankees' finances. its entirely possible that the yankees have a 150 million dollar payroll and 400 million in revenue while the royals have a 40 million dollar payroll and a 70 million dollars in revenue. the royals get 10 million from revenue sharing so that they're total revenue is now 80 million and they pocket it. you could easily blast the royals and praise the yankees for their desire to win since their payroll is over 3x as large but the reality is that in this hypothetical situation the royals are still putting a larger percentage of their revenue back into the team.

in this situation i would agree you can blast the royals for not spending more on their team but at the same time you can't praise the yankees for their will to win. they're making more money than everyone.

now this situation may be far from the truth but we don't really know, do we? i don't think most people have that much knowledge of the yankees reported revenue vs. their payroll. even if someone does have knowledge of those figures, there is no way the reported figures are anywhere close to accurate. the sport of baseball is notorious for doctoring its books.

i have no problem blasting the owners in general because despite what baseball claims i doubt hardly any teams come close to losing money. however, when you blast some owners while praising others while only guessing as to what certain teams' revenue is that's ridiculous.

Nice job jeremy... you are right in the sense that Steinbrenner has his own freakin' TV station. His revenue is and always will be higher. Does anybody think the Yankees aren't about turning a profit? Does anybody think Steinbrenner DOESN'T pocket cash like all the other owners?? Come on people. So KC pockets their pittly revenue sharing money, while Steinbrenner pockets millions from his local TV revenue. I'm not saying the Sox couldn't shell out $8 million for Millwood, but would doing so even matter, considering the Yankees now have an All-Star international roster worth $150 million?

jeremyb1
01-02-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Nice job jeremy... you are right in the sense that Steinbrenner has his own freakin' TV station. His revenue is and always will be higher. Does anybody think the Yankees aren't about turning a profit? Does anybody think Steinbrenner DOESN'T pocket cash like all the other owners?? Come on people. So KC pockets their pittly revenue sharing money, while Steinbrenner pockets millions from his local TV revenue. I'm not saying the Sox couldn't shell out $8 million for Millwood, but would doing so even matter, considering the Yankees now have an All-Star international roster worth $150 million?

thanks. like i said, no one is going to have an easy time convincing me that there are many owners losing money. i don't think reinsdorf does a great deal to try to win but i'm not sure that when taking their revenue into account steinbrenner or the tribune company do either. thank about that. if we're in the third largest market and our 45-50 million payroll this year is unacceptable as was our 60 million payroll last year then how great is the cubs 80 million dollar payroll when they have nearly twice as much attendance and even more tv revenue? its not all that impressive.

Iwritecode
01-02-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Well, there were some players that were available a few months ago that would have been worth the money. Now, there are not free agents left on the market that merit top dollar, but the Sox could make trades that would increase the payroll to that level and drastically improve the team.

True, but who would we have to give up to get those top dollar players? We may have gotten Millwood for Josh Paul and that might increase the payroll by 10 million but would make the team extremely thin at the catching position. Then we could sign I-Rod and raise the payroll up another 6 million or so. Would that team be comparable to the Yanks?

One guy I see that could make a big impact on the team and raise the payroll would be Colon. But how much would we have to give up to get him? Even then, would he instantly make us WS contenders?

voodoochile
01-02-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
thanks. like i said, no one is going to have an easy time convincing me that there are many owners losing money. i don't think reinsdorf does a great deal to try to win but i'm not sure that when taking their revenue into account steinbrenner or the tribune company do either. thank about that. if we're in the third largest market and our 45-50 million payroll this year is unacceptable as was our 60 million payroll last year then how great is the cubs 80 million dollar payroll when they have nearly twice as much attendance and even more tv revenue? its not all that impressive.

How does an owner expect to gain more TV revenue and/or attendance if they refuse to spend money to improve the product on the field?

Yes, the current difference between NY and the Sox in terms of revenue taken in is large, but the Yankees are at the top of the game - THEY SHOULD BE TAKING IN MORE MONEY - they have the best product in baseball. No reason to think other owners can't easily afford larger payrolls if they would only do more to bring in fans. Yes, that might mean taking a loss for a year or two to prove you really want to win and start the gravy train rolling, but that is part of the nature of the beast. Build a better product and they will come out to see it. Sit and whine about how you can't compete against the Yankees and other "Big Revenue Clubs" and blame the lack of fan attendance for your woes and you will stay exactly where you are - bottom of the revenue pack and perfectly content making the money you are making while watching your fan base dwindle. Teams that do that in cities with more than one team die.

:reinsy
"So if I successfully kill the Sox in Chicago while making millions, I can move them to wherever I want to? BONUS!!!"

voodoochile
01-02-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
True, but who would we have to give up to get those top dollar players? We may have gotten Millwood for Josh Paul and that might increase the payroll by 10 million but would make the team extremely thin at the catching position. Then we could sign I-Rod and raise the payroll up another 6 million or so. Would that team be comparable to the Yanks?

One guy I see that could make a big impact on the team and raise the payroll would be Colon. But how much would we have to give up to get him? Even then, would he instantly make us WS contenders?

Make all 3 acquisitions and lets find out. Aren't you tired of assuming the Sox will lose out no matter what? Obviously Millwood isn't still available, but the other two are and there are other #3 pitchers available if the Sox are serious about making a run.

2 legitimate starters (including Colon) and IRod added to the Sox without giving up Buehrle? Why wouldn't that team be pennant contenders?

Iwritecode
01-02-2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
:reinsy
"So if I successfully kill the Sox in Chicago while making millions, I can move them to wherever I want to? BONUS!!!"

Voodoo,

sadly, I think you just figured out the method to JR's madness...

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Nice job jeremy... you are right in the sense that Steinbrenner has his own freakin' TV station. His revenue is and always will be higher. Does anybody think the Yankees aren't about turning a profit? Does anybody think Steinbrenner DOESN'T pocket cash like all the other owners?? Come on people. So KC pockets their pittly revenue sharing money, while Steinbrenner pockets millions from his local TV revenue. I'm not saying the Sox couldn't shell out $8 million for Millwood, but would doing so even matter, considering the Yankees now have an All-Star international roster worth $150 million?

The difference between the Yankees taking their PROFITS from their cable deals, etc. and the other clubs taking the REVENUE SHARING and pocketing it is that the stated goal when the owners and players agreed to revenue sharing, the stated purpose was to improve the clubs in the small markets who otherwise would not be able to compete. Well, they're not doing that. They're taking it as additional profit. And for that shortsightedness, you can bet they'll hear about it bigtime when the current CBA runs out.

voodoochile
01-02-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
Voodoo,

sadly, I think you just figured out the method to JR's madness...

You know I'd suggest that he is going to move them to Brooklyn to undo his childhood pain, but there is just no way...

:reinsy
"What's wrong with you dumbass Brooklyn Baseball fans? Why won't you come out to see my .500 ball club. I built you a brand new stadium - actually you did. So what if the Yankees are winning another WS title this year? I've got Flying Elvis Dog night and a bunch of young pitchers. Besides how do you expect me to compete with the Yankees if you won't come out to scenic Reinsdorf field with it's 4 layers of empty corporate skyboxes. I can't afford to spend a dollar if you only give me 50-cents to work with. Until you start showing up in large numbers to see the team, I won't spend more than 50 million (after all it IS 2013). Hello, is anyone listening? Find me a Post reporter, they are always looking for a quote..."

(crickets chirping)

Paulwny
01-02-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The difference between the Yankees taking their PROFITS from their cable deals, etc. and the other clubs taking the REVENUE SHARING and pocketing it is that the stated goal when the owners and players agreed to revenue sharing, the stated purpose was to improve the clubs in the small markets who otherwise would not be able to compete. Well, they're not doing that. They're taking it as additional profit. And for that shortsightedness, you can bet they'll hear about it bigtime when the current CBA runs out.

You're making it sound as if George puts all the money back into the team. Like all owners, he pays himself first. He charged the YES network a $25 mil consulting fee for negotiating his own cable contract.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0233/demause.php

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
You're making it sound as if George puts all the money back into the team. Like all owners, he pays himself first. He charged the YES network a $25 mil consulting fee for negotiating his own cable contract.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0233/demause.php

The word I used was "PROFITS." Profits are just that. Revenue sharing is not supposed to be used to increased profits, as I pointed out. It was supposed to be used to make the smaller market teams better able to compete. To do that you actuallyl have to spend the money, not take it as PROFIT. I hope I made myself as clear this time as I thought I did before.

pudge
01-02-2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The word I used was "PROFITS." Profits are just that. Revenue sharing is not supposed to be used to increased profits, as I pointed out. It was supposed to be used to make the smaller market teams better able to compete. To do that you actuallyl have to spend the money, not take it as PROFIT. I hope I made myself as clear this time as I thought I did before.

It was not meant to make the smaller market teams spend more, it was meant to make the Yankees spend less. Oops, looks like that didn't work out too well.

Stop and think about what you're saying... In order for the the lower market teams to get money from revenue sharing, teams like the Yankees need to exceed the cap. When teams like the Yankees exceed the cap, they stock their team with great players, leaving no impact players left on the market for other teams to compete with. It's a catch 22. Owners see the Yankees way out ahead, so they decide it's not worth trying to catch them, and they pocket the revenue sharing cash.

I don't disagree with you that the system is dumb, I always though it was.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-02-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by pudge
It was not meant to make the smaller market teams spend more, it was meant to make the Yankees spend less. Oops, looks like that didn't work out too well.

Stop and think about what you're saying... In order for the the lower market teams to get money from revenue sharing, teams like the Yankees need to exceed the cap. When teams like the Yankees exceed the cap, they stock their team with great players, leaving no impact players left on the market for other teams to compete with. It's a catch 22. Owners see the Yankees way out ahead, so they decide it's not worth trying to catch them, and they pocket the revenue sharing cash.

I don't disagree with you that the system is dumb, I always though it was.

There is nothing "catch 22" about it, pudge. However I agree the system is dumb. Plenty of others besides myself were calling it dumb two years ago when MLB first proposed it.

Mind you, this system is EXACTLY what the owners negotiated with the players. The players DID NOT want to give them this system, and opposed a more watered-down version that was instituted in the previous CBA back in 1996, too. The MLBPA didn't believe luxury taxes and revenue-sharing would increase competitive balance back then, and the union STILL doesn't believe it. They agreed to it simply so they could sign a new CBA with the owners and get on with the business of making money--for both sides.

It was THE OWNERS who wanted to dial up the costs paid by big spenders like the Yankees and simultaneously hand over more money to sad sack franchises like the Royals. The new deal negotiated last August does precisely this.

SURPRISE!!! The system meant to get the small owners to spend more by getting George Steinbrenner to spend less has failed at both objectives!

Of course you have to be dumb enough to believe the owners' true objective was either of these things. Anybody with a half a brain in their head knows the REAL REASON the owners wanted this system was to put a greater drag on salary inflation. Every dollar they don't spend on salaries is one more dollar they can drop to their bottom line. SURPRISE!!! It's all about making more money for the owners and less for the players.

Competitive balance was strictly the cover story for the real concessions the owners sought. If the owners TRULY WANTED competitive balance, they wouldn't focus on money but on even distribution of talent. Given a choice, they'll take the money and screw the game we fans love. Lots of people ignorant to the science of economics (including most sportswriters) still don't get it. I'm not too surprised by that, are you? One of them has repeatedly asserted Commissioner Selig is going to crack down on the Sad Sacks who pocket their welfare checks. LOL! He probably believes in the Easter Bunny, too.

I fully expect the MLBPA to go back on the offensive and demand this "dumb" system be scrapped in the negotiations for the next CBA. As you already note, the owners will have given them plenty of ammunition to prove the folly of the entire system. Increasing the amount of taxation and revenue sharing actually did less to stem Steinbrenner's payroll and the Sad Sacks' cashing of welfare checks. The results of the last two CBA agreements prove the point.

TornLabrum
01-02-2003, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by pudge
It was not meant to make the smaller market teams spend more, it was meant to make the Yankees spend less. Oops, looks like that didn't work out too well.

Stop and think about what you're saying... In order for the the lower market teams to get money from revenue sharing, teams like the Yankees need to exceed the cap. When teams like the Yankees exceed the cap, they stock their team with great players, leaving no impact players left on the market for other teams to compete with. It's a catch 22. Owners see the Yankees way out ahead, so they decide it's not worth trying to catch them, and they pocket the revenue sharing cash.

I don't disagree with you that the system is dumb, I always though it was.

Actually, the salary cap that the owners proposed and the Players Association dismissed out of hand was what was supposed to make the Yankees spend less. What got through was the system in place now which "taxes" teams who spend "too much" but does allow for a very rudimentary form of revenue sharing to somewhat "even the playing field."

Anyone with half a brain knew it wouldn't work because owners are tempted to simply treat this money as additional profits. What we're getting is the result of the Players Association simply not wanting the ride on the gravy train to end...and who can blame them?

I can see the negotiations in a few years when the CBA is about to expire. The players, loving the high salaries King George is willing to pay again refuse a cap, but demand that the owners spend the money to sign players. The owners refuse, and barring a bad economy or a state of war, we have the strike we lucked out of last year.

Daver
01-02-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


Anyone with half a brain knew it wouldn't work because owners are tempted to simply treat this money as additional profits. What we're getting is the result of the Players Association simply not wanting the ride on the gravy train to end...and who can blame them?



The players Assocition stance on this issue has always been why should we allow slashing our salary structure to benefit the owners bottom line,and I agree with that.The owners dug the hole they are in all by themselves,with no help from anybody else.

The so-called "luxury tax" is nothing more than a scam to take money from the franchises that run their business well,and deliver it into the hands of those that do not,like Jeff Loria and David Glass,it has no interest in improving competetive balance.If it was meant to improve competetive balaance it would have been written into the CBA what the money could and could not be used for,this was not done,and I think the reason why is obvious.

Baseball could benefit from revenue sharing,but there is no need to tie it to salary,nor does it need to have any type of salary cap.Revenue sharing could easily done by basing it on market size and franchise value,Doug Pappas had a detailed plan in an article on Baseball Propectus that would work.

What they have now is a mess that is doomed to cause nothing but more problems four years down the line.