PDA

View Full Version : Yanks Payroll: 165 Million


Lip Man 1
02-03-2003, 02:03 PM
ESPN.com has a story today quoting sources that the Yankees payroll is now almost 165 million dollars. Here are some snippets of the story...

So much for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement forcing the New York Yankees to curtail their spending.

Owner George Steinbrenner stopping at nothing to improve the Yankees, and sources familiar with their books told the New York Daily News last week that the team's current payroll for 2003 is an all-time high of $164 million -- about $24 million more than at this time a year ago.

That's $45 million more than the second highest, the Mets' $119 million, according to figures obtained by the newspaper.

Both New York teams will try to shed some salary before the season begins, according to the Daily News, but if their payroll levels remain where they are, they will be the only two teams in baseball forced to pay a luxury tax.

"Winning and appealing to fans is where the money is," Yankees chief operating officer Lonn Trost told the Daily News. "We also are growing the next generation of fan with our approach."

"What we see with the Yankees is that there has been no change in priorities," a baseball official told the Daily News. "Certainly they talked about cutting payroll and ... there's no disputing they made an effort to. It was probably always their plan."

"But they still believe the best way to make money is to put fans in the seats with a winner on the field," the baseball official said. "There are things in place that would deter most teams from spending, but these guys won't let it compromise their first priority."

"Really, how can you compete when somebody is spending 80 or 90 million more?" Hall of Famer George Brett told the Kansas City Star. "The only thing you can do is catch lightning in a bottle like Oakland or Minnesota. (The Royals) haven't caught lightning in a bottle."

"I can't see myself staying in Kansas City as a player," Brett said. "Not now. It's all changed. I would sign one-year contracts."

Just a few observations...

Fans said on this site last August that the new CBA wouldn't change a damn thing. In my opinion the problem is owners who won't follow the first rule of business "to make money you have to spend money..." Look for the compeditive balance issues to start rearing their ugly head again in about two years time from the owners. Can you say "strike" in 2006?

I can't argue with the Yankees comment that by spending money and fielding winning teams you are grooming the next generation of fans. The Cubs have been able to even do this without winning! (I always said Cub fans were the dumbest fans on the planet!)

I wish Uncle jerry would pay heed to the Yanks philosophy. Even WITH the new additions, the payroll is still around the 50-55 million mark. That's not even close to what a city the size of Chicago deserves. I'm not saying they should spend 100 million, although 70 million would certainly be better.

Hangar18
02-03-2003, 02:25 PM
165 Million ??
Unbelievable

jeremyb1
02-03-2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just a few observations...

Fans said on this site last August that the new CBA wouldn't change a damn thing. In my opinion the problem is owners who won't follow the first rule of business "to make money you have to spend money..." Look for the compeditive balance issues to start rearing their ugly head again in about two years time from the owners. Can you say "strike" in 2006?

I can't argue with the Yankees comment that by spending money and fielding winning teams you are grooming the next generation of fans. The Cubs have been able to even do this without winning! (I always said Cub fans were the dumbest fans on the planet!)

I wish Uncle jerry would pay heed to the Yanks philosophy. Even WITH the new additions, the payroll is still around the 50-55 million mark. That's not even close to what a city the size of Chicago deserves. I'm not saying they should spend 100 million, although 70 million would certainly be better.

thing is, no matter how good the product on the field, a team like the devil rays could never bring in enough revenue to justify a 165 million dollar payroll let alone an 80 million dollar payroll. there are a number of teams that will never be able to afford a payroll that's half of what the yankees' is right there. they just don't play in a large enough market.

Hullett_Fan
02-03-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
thing is, no matter how good the product on the field, a team like the devil rays could never bring in enough revenue to justify a 165 million dollar payroll let alone an 80 million dollar payroll. there are a number of teams that will never be able to afford a payroll that's half of what the yankees' is right there. they just don't play in a large enough market.

Exactly why baseball needs a $60 mil. salary cap (and every team must spend at that level)....if an owner can't meet it...he should get out of the business.

MarkEdward
02-03-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
Exactly why baseball needs a $60 mil. salary cap (and every team must spend at that level)....if an owner can't meet it...he should get out of the business.

No, baseball doesn't need a salary cap. If an owner doesn't want to compete, he should get out of the business.

Hullett_Fan
02-03-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
No, baseball doesn't need a salary cap. If an owner doesn't want to compete, he should get out of the business.

You like it the way it is :?:

IMO, I'd rather not wait for owners to drop out of the biz. because they won't.

The way I'm looking at it, baseball is currently like looking at McDonald's franchises. The franchise in rural Kansas (ROyals) isn't going to get as much revenue selling burgers as one in mid-town Manhattan (Yankmes) thus no need to spend a ton on raw hamburger (or whatever it is).

That's fine if you're running a 'pure' business.

I prefer the way the NFL thinks about its league. Fans deserve a chance to watch a competitive team whether they live in NY or Green Bay (but still not in Chi...but that's due to incompetence).

NewyorkSoxFan
02-03-2003, 05:57 PM
George's whole focus is on making this team globally recognized. Why do you think they signed Godzilla? They want people in Japan watching Yankees baseball at the breakfast table. He is all about marketing his team to make money, and he is obsessed with winning. He has gone out of his way to screw the Red Sox because they made comments about him being the leader of the "evil empire".

When the Yanks have been winning here George has kept a very low profile and allowed Cashman, Torre, and Michaels run the team. One season removed from a WS appearance and he is sticking his hand in the cookie jar and players and part of management is not happy.

When the Sox are out of it, I root for the Yankees, but it is everyones prediction here that some bad decisions will come back to haunt "high roller George". Which would be good for baseball.

NYSF

Hangar18
02-03-2003, 06:01 PM
Baseball does need a salary cap.
and take these teams out of the picture too.

D-Rays
Marlins
Pirates
Expos
Brewers

TheBigHurt
02-03-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
No, baseball doesn't need a salary cap. If an owner doesn't want to compete, he should get out of the business.

LOL and this is actully coming from a sox fan

kermittheefrog
02-03-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan

I prefer the way the NFL thinks about its league. Fans deserve a chance to watch a competitive team whether they live in NY or Green Bay (but still not in Chi...but that's due to incompetence).

Too bad baseball doesn't have any consistently competitive teams that operate on a very low budget. Oh wait! The Athletics DO exist!

MarkEdward
02-03-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Hullett_Fan
You like it the way it is :?:

Yeah, I hate how teams like the Athletics, Twins, and Angels just can't compete.

IMO, I'd rather not wait for owners to drop out of the biz. because they won't.

So the players should be punished for the owners' sloth?

The way I'm looking at it, baseball is currently like looking at McDonald's franchises. The franchise in rural Kansas (ROyals) isn't going to get as much revenue selling burgers as one in mid-town Manhattan (Yankmes) thus no need to spend a ton on raw hamburger (or whatever it is).

That's what revenue sharing is for.

I prefer the way the NFL thinks about its league. Fans deserve a chance to watch a competitive team whether they live in NY or Green Bay (but still not in Chi...but that's due to incompetence).

So if a team can't compete in a salary cap sport, it's because they're incompetent. If a team can't compete in MLB, it's because of finances. I see.

And the salary cap sure has helped the Bengals and Cardinals compete.

kermittheefrog
02-03-2003, 07:56 PM
Mark Edward sure said it.

jeremyb1
02-03-2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Too bad baseball doesn't have any consistently competitive teams that operate on a very low budget. Oh wait! The Athletics DO exist!

i don't agree that just because the a's have been smart enough to succeed despite a small payroll, the entire sport should be punished. what's going to happen with tejada? what if the a's still had giambi last season instead of the yanks? what happens when the big three reach free agency?

as for the angels, they had a payroll bigger than we did last season. i wouldn't call a 60 million dollar payroll succeeding on a low budget. the twins made the playoffs for one season again, a testament to superior player developement. nohow is clearly more important than funds but have a 165 million dollar payroll certainly makes it much much easier to win than if you're payroll is below 40 million even if like beane, you are the best gm in baseball.

gogosoxgogo
02-03-2003, 08:39 PM
I can't believe there's an argument here. What does the NFL (who has a salary cap) have that the MLB doesn't? Change! The best thing about the NFL is that you never know who is going to win the Super Bowl the following year. It is always a surprise. Why is that? The salary cap. In the NFL, you don't see 10 year 250 million dollar contracts or whatever the hell MLB is paying its' players. Meanwhile, in the MLB, you know that the Yankees and Braves are going to go to the postseason every year. It's just guarenteed. You can point to the expeptions of the A's and Angels all you want, but the fact is that in a few years, those teams aren't going to be able to pay all of their players and will collapse back to the bottom of the standings. Those teams are a fluke who had already signed their star players to long term deals in the past which are a lot cheaper than they would be earning if they were signed today.

By implementing a salary cap, you will see teams like the Devil Rays, Royals, Brewers, etc. get much more of a chance than they do currently. Why? These huge contracts will be extinct. With the Yankees unable (not simply discouraged as the current labor agreement does) to sign Matsui, Giambi, Clemens, Mussina, Contrers, and so on, to the deals that they have, those players then become available for other teams, and unless they want to play, they are going to be forced to cut their salaries.

Don't start with the complaint of players being punished due to the owners. Anyone who can't live on $300,000 a year (the minimum salary) is a true waste of oxygen. They don't need all of these $75 million dollar contracts. They will be fine with less. NFL players seem to get by without enormous contracts.

34rancher
02-03-2003, 08:47 PM
Just remember....U.S. Cellular Field only cost $167 million.

MarkEdward
02-04-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I can't believe there's an argument here. What does the NFL (who has a salary cap) have that the MLB doesn't? Change! The best thing about the NFL is that you never know who is going to win the Super Bowl the following year. It is always a surprise.

And after you win that Super Bowl, you have to tear your championship team down because of salary cap restrictions. I don't know about you, but I want my Sox building for a dynasty.

This brings up an interesting question: Would you rather want the chance to build for a dynasty, or take one World Championship every 30 years?

Why is that? The salary cap.

One can argue that the NFL season is mostly based on luck, with only 16 games played in the regular season.

In the NFL, you don't see 10 year 250 million dollar contracts or whatever the hell MLB is paying its' players.

And who gave that contract to him? *Owner* Tom Hicks. If he has no problem paying that amount, why should you or I care about how much Arod gets paid?

You can point to the expeptions of the A's and Angels all you want, but the fact is that in a few years, those teams aren't going to be able to pay all of their players and will collapse back to the bottom of the standings.

People have been singing the A's swan song since 1999. They said that they'd fall once Giambi left. Guess what? They've gotten *better* since Giambi left.

Those teams are a fluke who had already signed their star players to long term deals in the past which are a lot cheaper than they would be earning if they were signed today.

Well, I think these teams remain competitive because they have great farm systems, which in turn produce terrific young players.

By implementing a salary cap, you will see teams like the Devil Rays, Royals, Brewers, etc. get much more of a chance than they do currently.

Bull. These teams suck because their management sucks, not because they're financially strapped. Let's look at some of the more "enlightened" moves these teams have made:

Devil Rays: Placed Herbert Perry on waivers, later to be claimed by the Sox. Traded Tony Graffanino for Tanyon Sturtze. Traded Bobby Abreu for Kevin Stocker. Signed Wilson Alvarez for way too much. Paid Juan Guzman 6 million to pitch zero innings in 2001. Acquired Rey Ordonez. Continue to draft toolsy outfield prospects.

Royals: (Where do we start?) Acquired Roberto Hernandez, AJ Hich, and Angel Berroa for Johny Damon and Mark Ellis. Traded Jermaine Dye for Neifi Perez. Signed Chuck Knoblauch, Michael Tucker, and Brent Mayne for way too much (Mayne made 2.5 million last year!) Continue to draft high school pitchers. Re-signed Jeff Suppan for way too much.

Brewers: Paid Jeffrey Hammonds 7.5 million for a .729 OPS last year. No farm system to speak of, although Doug Melvin seems like he wants to change that.

Why? These huge contracts will be extinct. With the Yankees unable (not simply discouraged as the current labor agreement does) to sign Matsui, Giambi, Clemens, Mussina, Contrers, and so on, to the deals that they have, those players then become available for other teams, and unless they want to play, they are going to be forced to cut their salaries.

So let's say a cap is put in place at about 60 million. Last year, the Devil Rays had a payroll of 34 million. You're telling me that Vince Naimoli will allow a 26 million dollar increase, just because there's a salary cap now in place?

Don't start with the complaint of players being punished due to the owners. Anyone who can't live on $300,000 a year (the minimum salary) is a true waste of oxygen.

Who are you to decide what people should and shouldn't get paid?

They don't need all of these $75 million dollar contracts. They will be fine with less. NFL players seem to get by without enormous contracts.

Well, NFL teams have 52 players on the roster, so of course the average salary will be lower. Plus, most NFL players are replaceable. There's a huge difference between ARod and a replacement-level shortstop, however.

WhiteSoxWinner
02-04-2003, 12:11 AM
Didn't we have this arguement on this board back when the Yankees Signed Clemens?

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16288&perpage=15&display=show&pagenumber=3

voodoochile
02-04-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
And after you win that Super Bowl, you have to tear your championship team down because of salary cap restrictions. I don't know about you, but I want my Sox building for a dynasty.

This brings up an interesting question: Would you rather want the chance to build for a dynasty, or take one World Championship every 30 years?

Building for a dynasty means building through the minor league system. That means developing great young talent and then holding on to it when the time comes.

This has been the Sox plan under JR and Veeck and Comiskey dating back over 80 years. Well, sort of - Sox managment seems fairly decent at finding and developing talent (though not spectacular by MLB standards), but for the most part they refuse to hold on to it - especially pitching.

Let's win the first one (whatever it takes) and worry about the dynasty later. No way to climb that mountain until we first get past this little mole hill called an 80 years slump...

Bmr31
02-04-2003, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Building for a dynasty means building through the minor league system. That means developing great young talent and then holding on to it when the time comes.

This has been the Sox plan under JR and Veeck and Comiskey dating back over 80 years. Well, sort of - Sox managment seems fairly decent at finding and developing talent (though not spectacular by MLB standards), but for the most part they refuse to hold on to it - especially pitching.

Let's win the first one (whatever it takes) and worry about the dynasty later. No way to climb that mountain until we first get past this little mole hill called an 80 years slump...

Besides, dynasties are rare. If any team in the history of sports was more talented than that bears team of the 80's, i would be surprised. How many did they win? Take one and worry about more after that.

kermittheefrog
02-04-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Besides, dynasties are rare. If any team in the history of sports was more talented than that bears team of the 80's, i would be surprised. How many did they win? Take one and worry about more after that.

I think more realistic than building for a dynasty is building to be competitive over a stretch of 4 or 5 years. No matter how much you stack your team, you'll need a little luck to make it through the playoffs. If you build a team to win one year, you're being foolish. No matter how much you stack your team you can't gaurentee a championship. If you field a competitive 90 win team consistently for 5 years you have a good shot at winning a title during that stretch. I think thats the best you can do as a team.

maurice
02-04-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Don't start with the complaint of players being punished due to the owners. Anyone who can't live on $300,000 a year (the minimum salary) is a true waste of oxygen. They don't need all of these $75 million dollar contracts. They will be fine with less. NFL players seem to get by without enormous contracts.

Suppose the union fell asleep at the switch one day and agreed that every player should receive exactly $300,000/year. Where do you suppose all the extra money would go?

No, wait . . . don't tell me. The owners would reduce ticket/beer/parking prices to $2 each, since they don't need to make more than $300,000/year in profits.

Why is it fine for the owner to make millions, but the players must be subject to a salary cap? Who buys a ticket to watch JR sit in his skybox?

kermittheefrog
02-04-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Why is it fine for the owner to make millions, but the players must be subject to a salary cap? Who buys a ticket to watch JR sit in his skybox?

Exactly, no one seems to care how much the owners make. The idea is just take money out of the players hands. The thing is it'll never happen but even if it did happen how is it justified? I guess everyone making these proposals feels like they are important enough within the scheme of things that they can decide what salary each and every baseball player derserves to earn.

Blueprint1
02-04-2003, 01:24 PM
No i could care less if the owners made more money if it made the game of baseball more fun to watch for EVERY fan. If I lived in KC it would suck to know that every year we had no chance of winning the world series. It would even suck worse to know that the players on your team would leave for another team as soon as they became good. This leads to a loss of fans. You can only watch so many players develop and leave before you say forget it im done with this team. The NFL is the best because everyone feels they can win some time soon. The NBA has the best system the Larry Bird rule. This allows you to pay your best players more who came from your team. This gives players a reason to stay with the team that drafted them. Lets take a pitcher on say the White sox that they have developed that might leave for oh i dont know St. Louis. If they had this rule only the White Sox could offer him the most amount of money. its up to the player to make the choice of more money or the team i want. Its a good system a cap with acceptions.

voodoochile
02-04-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Blueprint1
No i could care less if the owners made more money if it made the game of baseball more fun to watch for EVERY fan. If I lived in KC it would suck to know that every year we had no chance of winning the world series. It would even suck worse to know that the players on your team would leave for another team as soon as they became good. This leads to a loss of fans. You can only watch so many players develop and leave before you say forget it im done with this team. The NFL is the best because everyone feels they can win some time soon. The NBA has the best system the Larry Bird rule. This allows you to pay your best players more who came from your team. This gives players a reason to stay with the team that drafted them. Lets take a pitcher on say the White sox that they have developed that might leave for oh i dont know St. Louis. If they had this rule only the White Sox could offer him the most amount of money. its up to the player to make the choice of more money or the team i want. Its a good system a cap with acceptions.

Why are the Royals automatically eliminated before the season starts? Are you saying that you don't think the Royals can afford a $60M payroll like the Angels won with last year? Don't you think that if they spent $60M and then won the WS that they would see benefits from it in terms of increased attendance and revenue? If every team in the majors sold out every game, they could all easily afford at least $60M in payroll. How do you guarantee sellouts? Put a better product on the field. That means higher payroll and better management, including ownership...

Don't want to make your team competitive? Sell it and take the profit...

Lip Man 1
02-04-2003, 02:16 PM
As for me I'd take the World Championship option and then thirty years of garbage on the field in a HEARTBEAT

As much as everyone laughs at the Marlins, they still have that damn trophy from 97 don't they?

Keep waiting for "tomorrow" and eventually you discover that your life has flashed by you. Like Jack McDowell penned in one of his songs, "you've got to live for today." (also for those of you old enough to remember the Grass Roots!)

Lip

Paulwny
02-04-2003, 02:25 PM
It's easy to have a payroll of $160 mil when your projected revenues are going to be ~ $240. Much of this additional revenue is coming from the YES Network. Yankmee fans are more then happy to pay the additional cable charges to see their team. Meanwhile, when JR placed the sox games on a separate pay for cable channel he was roundly criticized by the sox faithful who refused to purchase the games.

Lip Man 1
02-04-2003, 02:36 PM
Maybe that had something to do with the fact that the Yankees had won four World Series titles in the previous six or seven years as opposed to the Sox who hadn't even been in the post season since 1959 when Eddie Einhorn started his folly.

He the Sox actually done something from 1960 through 1981 the response would have been different.

Also the historical forces of baseball and television in Chicago had a LOT to do with that response. Please see my SportsVision-The Legacy story.

Lip

Paulwny
02-04-2003, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Please see my SportsVision-The Legacy story.

Lip

From the article:
By the time Einhorn came up with his idea of moving the Sox off of "free" TV in 1982, Chicagoans were conditioned like no other city, to getting virtually the entire baseball season for nothing. The bottom line was that when the Sox announced what they intended to do, they were met with a bunch of angry fans who rightly or wrongly expected, that they had the right to get virtually an unlimited number of games for free.


I don't see much of a difference. The yankmee fans were also able to see the games free on WPIX prior to going to a separate cable channel.

Iwritecode
02-04-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
From the article:
By the time Einhorn came up with his idea of moving the Sox off of "free" TV in 1982, Chicagoans were conditioned like no other city, to getting virtually the entire baseball season for nothing. The bottom line was that when the Sox announced what they intended to do, they were met with a bunch of angry fans who rightly or wrongly expected, that they had the right to get virtually an unlimited number of games for free.


I don't see much of a difference. The yankmee fans were also able to see the games free on WPIX prior to going to a separate cable channel.

I think this quote answers that:

"Einhornís idea was brilliant, but like most things done by the current ownership group, the TIMING was wrong."

PPV and pay channels are as common as cell phones these days. 20 years ago the idea of paying extra for something when it used to be free was outrageous...

soxruleEP
02-04-2003, 06:00 PM
We can talk all we want about the A's and The Twins and anyone else who competes without a big payroll, but the real issue is building and maintaining a fan base.

It is very difficult to maintain a fan base when your stars leave. Kansas City had the nucleus of a solid team--all of them are now gone. Shouldn't the fans in Oakland have been able to expect that they would see Giambi through his career?

Yankee fans are very fond of telling us that their team is not all free agents, that Jeter and Williams and Posada all came up through their farm system. of course, what they don't say is that the Yankees get their keep their stars and the rest of the league loses them.

Every season, Steinbrenner goes out and buys the best player available. Boy, people say, isn't he a great owner, doesn't he want to win. And when you point out that he has more money than anyone else, we hear about how not everyone can own a team in NYC.

That's true--but who are the Yankees going to play?

The teams in the smaller markets have to be able to compete--and not just once every thirty years. As things stand now, the Yankees will always be near the top and every few years a team like the Twins or the A's will put together a good group and make a run before they disband because the players cost too much.

And players do not cost too much because of free agency--players cost too much because of the dim-witted arbitration system the owners have installed. it is guaranteed to drive up a player's salary as soon as they establish themsleves. That increases player movement more than free agency. Teams are forced to "get what they can."

why do you think JR is screwing Beurhle right now? And why is Beurhle refusing the multi-year contract? Beuhrle would be nuts to sign a multi-year now when he can go to arbitration and hit the jack-pot. After three years of arbitration, he can then go free agent with a salary of seven or eight million already and really hit the big casino.

The owners have brought this on themselves. And as long as they let Steinbrenner go on, it will be like this.

I don't believe for a minute that all these teams are losing money like they want us to believe.

voodoochile
02-04-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by soxruleEP
The owners have brought this on themselves. And as long as they let Steinbrenner go on, it will be like this.

I don't believe for a minute that all these teams are losing money like they want us to believe.

So, according to you, the owners are making money, but they refuse to spend that money on their own stars or other FA's in an attempt to field a stronger team and build a larger fan base to generate even more revenue, but its Steinbrenner's fault that they can't compete?

Gee, if I'm King George, I'm just itching to give them even MORE of my money...

You're argument doesn't hold water...

Lip Man 1
02-04-2003, 09:58 PM
Paulwny says:

I don't see much of a difference. The yankmee fans were also able to see the games free on WPIX prior to going to a separate cable channel.

Paul here are the differences:

1. Yes the Yankees had games on TV since the early 50's HOWEVER they were basically road games, only a limited number of home games were shown (unlike in Chicago)

2. Yankee fans actually saw that they were getting something when the team switched to Cablevision in the early 80's and then Madison Square Garden after 1987. Steinbrenner showed he was trying to win. He was spending that money on the team. In fact Steinbrenner ploughs back EVERY dollar the Yankees make back into the franchise. Could Sox fans say the same thing in 1987? Can they say it TODAY? I know if I could make that claim about the Sox and saw a few pennants and World Series titles I'd be more willing to spend money on pay TV.

3. As I pointed out in my article when the Sox introduced this concept a recession was going on, Chicago was particularly hard hit.

Lip

jeremyb1
02-04-2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
So, according to you, the owners are making money, but they refuse to spend that money on their own stars or other FA's in an attempt to field a stronger team and build a larger fan base to generate even more revenue, but its Steinbrenner's fault that they can't compete?

Gee, if I'm King George, I'm just itching to give them even MORE of my money...

You're argument doesn't hold water...

i've never seen any reliable numbers when it comes to how much revenue team's have so i don't understand how you're in a position to make those assumptions. if the yanks average revenue is 500 million and steinbrenner spends 165 while the drays spend 40 million of their 60 million annual revenue, you're going to tell me that steinbrenner is the hero and the drays need to be blasted for faililng to spend on their team?

baseball is still a business for the owners like it or not. i think its somewhat unfair that largely just because he operates in one of the largest markets in all of sports, steinbrenner can have 165 million dollar payroll, still pull in more revenue than any other team in the sport, and then on top of that be praised for "wanting to win". that's ridiculous.

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i've never seen any reliable numbers when it comes to how much revenue team's have so i don't understand how you're in a position to make those assumptions. if the yanks average revenue is 500 million and steinbrenner spends 165 while the drays spend 40 million of their 60 million annual revenue, you're going to tell me that steinbrenner is the hero and the drays need to be blasted for faililng to spend on their team?

baseball is still a business for the owners like it or not. i think its somewhat unfair that largely just because he operates in one of the largest markets in all of sports, steinbrenner can have 165 million dollar payroll, still pull in more revenue than any other team in the sport, and then on top of that be praised for "wanting to win". that's ridiculous.

For how long has NY's discrepency been this large? Since he built his own broadcasting network? Since he built a winning team and won 4 championships in 5 years and lost the 5th? He didn't always have this big of a gap to play with - he created it by not compromising his desire to win and spending money on the players to make that happen. Yes, they have a built in advantage, but every single team out there can do things to improve their market capture.

The same thing happened in Seattle and the fact remains if you put a winning team on the field year after year after year, your revenue goes up, because you get better TV contracts and more fans attending the games (for example the difference between 25K/game and 35K/game in attendance is roughly $25M a year in ADDITIONAL revenue with very little increased costs).

It's a fact of life in every sport, not just baseball - people follow a winner and they spend there money on it too. KC is in line for how much extra revenue sharing money this year? Did they put that into the team? What about Minnesota? Remember when Pohlad took the revenue sharing money a few years ago (which I believe was more than his whole opening day roster was making) and split some of it up between his office staff and pocketed the rest?

Besides, like I keep saying. Why should Steinbrenner go out of his way to build a winner and reap the benefits thereof just to make other wealthy men richer? No one is obligated nor entitled to own a professional sports franchise. Can't make it work within the system? Sell it and take the profit that you are sitting on - because every single franchise is worth more than the current owner paid for it, period. Maybe the next guy will bite the bullet a bit harder, market the team a bit better, find some management who will acquire and develop GOOD players and then the franchise will be able to afford to buy more FA's and keep more of their own - then (here's a reach, I know) the fans will start backing the team and putting more money into the coffers and profits will go up to an even higher level than they were at before. Amazing how a free market economy can have that effect...

Or, they can sit on their hands and whine about how they cannot compete with NY and (GASP!) the fans will believe them and not come out to see their team play...

WhiteSoxWinner
02-05-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, they have a built in advantage, but every single team out there can do things to improve their market capture.


I cannot agree with this point. As I mentioned a while back, New York's built in advantage is HUGE compared to other markets. To quote myself, "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. "

Stats from:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

No other team in the league can hope to match the Yankees. Any advertiser will know that they cannot hope to get as many viewers as they can in New York. So, why would any company, no matter how successful a team is, want to pay as much to a team in any other market, as they would the Yankees?

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
I cannot agree with this point. As I mentioned a while back, New York's built in advantage is HUGE compared to other markets. To quote myself, "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. "

Stats from:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

No other team in the league can hope to match the Yankees. Any advertiser will know that they cannot hope to get as many viewers as they can in New York. So, why would any company, no matter how successful a team is, want to pay as much to a team in any other market, as they would the Yankees?

Okay, but that doesn't mean that you give up trying or don't try to maximize the revenue available in the market you are in. Can you honestly say that KC is doing everything possible to do that? Minnesota? Pohlad would have prefered to cash in the team than actually try to compete year after year.

I'm not against revenue sharing, but there are things that every single team can do to improve their attendance (which is still a major source of revenue in baseball - in fact I'm pretty sure that most teams make more off their attendance than off their local TV contract). Like I said, the Yankees have an advantage, but if the other owners aren't even trying then I have little sympathy for them. (Are the Royals or Twins actually trying to win? What about the Marlins?) Have the owners fired their GM for not fielding a winner? Have they hired new scouts or increased the scouting budget? Are they marketing effectively locally? Just to be clear, crying to the press that the Yankees have too much money and my team can't hope to compete is NOT effective marketing.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, so I am going to stop now, but honestly until the other owners do everything in their power to field a winner, they have nothing to cry about.

One final point in the form of an example: If I own a North Side McDonalds and I do a lousy job of running it and the people decide to go to the McDonald's downtown because they think the food is better and the place is cleaner, then should I get a chunk of their revenue because they have a natural advantage with the downtown market? If I tell all my employees and customers that I would love to be able to feed them better food and clean the place up, because I just can't afford to do it because the other McD's is eating up all my revenue than what happens? I go broke and end up selling - unless that McD's is a baseball team and then I get a chunk of the popular McD's revenue and laugh all the way to the bank with my dirty restaurant with bad food and who cares if the customers come back. I got mine...

Paulwny
02-05-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Paulwny says:

I don't see much of a difference. The yankmee fans were also able to see the games free on WPIX prior to going to a separate cable channel.

Paul here are the differences:

1. Yes the Yankees had games on TV since the early 50's HOWEVER they were basically road games, only a limited number of home games were shown (unlike in Chicago)

2. Yankee fans actually saw that they were getting something when the team switched to Cablevision in the early 80's and then Madison Square Garden after 1987. Steinbrenner showed he was trying to win. He was spending that money on the team. In fact Steinbrenner ploughs back EVERY dollar the Yankees make back into the franchise. Could Sox fans say the same thing in 1987? Can they say it TODAY? I know if I could make that claim about the Sox and saw a few pennants and World Series titles I'd be more willing to spend money on pay TV.

3. As I pointed out in my article when the Sox introduced this concept a recession was going on, Chicago was particularly hard hit.

Lip

I guess we'll disagree forever on this issue.

1) " King George ploughs back EVERY dollar the yankees make back into the franchise."
This is only after King George pays himself. He paid himself $20mil for sitting in on the YES Network negotiations. Last year King George received $20 mil for consulting fees, he sat in on players' contract negotiations. All this on top of his normal salary from the yankmees.

2) "Yankee fansactually saw that they were getting something when the team switched to Cablevision...."
The YES Network demands that its station be part of each cable companies basic service at an additional cost of $1.25-$2 depending on the area. Cable Vision has refused, wanting the station to be a separate pay for channel for those willing to pay for it. So much for George's love of yankmee fans, part of NYC doesn't get the games.

3) The YES network is part of my basic cable package at the cost of an additional $1.25/ month. I cannot refuse to have this channel. I assume that I along with all the other cable subscribers ( NY State, NJ, Parts of the NE States and parts of Penn. ) are all contributing to King George's Evil Empire. Pay the price or lose your cable service or buy a dish.

4) How would you or any sox fan feel if the cubs were part of your basic cable package, at an additional cost, knowing that part of that cost were going to the cubs?

Paulwny
02-05-2003, 11:46 AM
The YES Netwok and Cablevision

Today's Newsday:
"The sides remain miles apart. The latest YES offer (made in January) began at 55 cents per subscriber per month for the first nine months of this year, rising to $2.29 by April 1, 2004, and escalating annually to $4.55 per subscriber per month in 2012."

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/ny-yes053117561feb05,0,7045784.story?coll=ny%2Dbaseba ll%2Dheadlines

Lip Man 1
02-05-2003, 01:37 PM
Just wondering...

How come fans...
the media...
and ESPECIALLY other owners...

weren't complaining, wringing their hands, tearing out their hair etc (you get the idea) about the Yankees "built in advantages" between 1980 and say 1995, when New York FAILED to make the playoffs?

Am I to assume that this built in advantage is a recent development?

New York certainly has some advantages but Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas and San Francisco aren't exactly Pocatello, Idaho are they in terms of population size, and media impact are they?

Bottom line...Steinbrenner makes the best use of his built in advantages and part of the is because he hires the best baseball minds who then get the best baseball players.

Lip

soxruleEP
02-05-2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just wondering...

Bottom line...Steinbrenner makes the best use of his built in advantages and part of the is because he hires the best baseball minds who then get the best baseball players.

Lip

There is no problem getting the best baseball players when you don't have any budget limitation.

For the record--I have been complaining about the Yankees my entire life, including my first seventeen years when I lived in Syracuse NY and they continually screwed my home town Chiefs by bringing up our best players just as we entered the International League playoffs.

Still, the point is not that he's smarter or that Chicago is almost as big as New York (it really isn't). Yes, Steinbrenner makes the best use of his "built in advantages" but since MLB is not a collection of competing businesses in the truest capitalistic sense, the system has to allow for a certain level of competetive balance that does not exist.