[kerelybonto]

That's not smart. That's lucky. Take a look at the next All-Star game and you'll see half the Royals lineup from the last five years ... all wearing someone else's jersey. Is it the Royals' fault they don't have any money because when they get broadcast on YES Network the Yankees get all the green?

This new economic agreement isn't going to help things much, either. Oh, sure, the payroll disparity'll narrow to the extent that the Yankees only get to spend 130% more than everyone else. Know why the NFL's so great? Because on in any given year, any team has a legitimate shot at making the playoffs. All the teams spend the same amount of money, and damn it, it's fun.

But whatever. I'm looking forward to a Yankees-less World Series for the first time in ... God only knows how long. An AL West team's going to get stomped by whoever comes out of the NL (read: Braves or D'Backs).

And Steinbrenner went to Williams? Good thing I decided not to go there -- at least throw something at him or something.

kerelybonto

 

[williamgoody]

Someone need to wake up the other owners and tell them they need to spend their millions as well. All those guys crying poor does not wash. Open the books!

Hasn't changed in a hundred years, won't change now. You have to spend money to make money.

The other owners need to understand this as well.

 

[kerelybonto]

Yeah, that's going to work. Too bad Steinbrenner makes money on the Yankees. David Glass, the Royals owner, lost money this and last year, even with the tiny payroll. Think perhaps there's a correlation with market size and the ability to make money? Think perhaps there's a difference in the size of the television contract the Royals would get with an audience of 1.2M versus the Yankees with over 10M? Nah.

kerelybonto

 

[bootman]

Quote:

Think perhaps there's a correlation with market size and the ability to make money? Think perhaps there's a difference in the size of the television contract the Royals would get with an audience of 1.2M versus the Yankees with over 10M?

It is this reason why contraction is needed to save this game.
Why even have a team if the locals will not support it?
(the Royals may not be the ideal case study, but Florida has two perfect teams!)

 

[kerelybonto]

I don't disagree with contraction -- obviously there are some towns that simply don't want baseball teams -- but I disagree with it in principle: Selig says we need more competition, and the way to do that is to get rid of some teams. Um, non sequitur ... reduce the number of teams to increase competition? The only way that would even approach working is if you wack the teams with the largest disparities in payroll. So that would be the Yankees, Rangers, and Dodgers. (The rich teams pay proportionally much more than average than the poor ones pay less than average.)

A much better way to fix things would be to go to the system used by every other successful, competetive professional sports league: a salary cap and profit sharing. I really kind of wish the players had gone on strike -- it'd be much more likely that we would have ended up with an effective economic system for baseball. As it is, instead of not being able to sign Kevin Appier, Johnny Damon, Jermaine Dye, Rey Sanchez, etc (in pretty much successive years), maybe the Royals will be able to hold onto a Rey Sanchez for an extra year or so. Woo hoo.

kerelybonto

 

[williamgoody]

I agree, this deal doesn't do anything.

Kerely, Did the royals owner do all of his research before he bought the team? Do you think he or any other owner just buys the teams they do because it's fun? If he thought he couldn't make money, he would not have bought the team. Is this more mismanagement than anything? Maybe.
What about the A's. They seem pretty competitive for who they are and their salary.

I remember when the Yankees absolutely sucked and George spent more of his money than everyone else, and no one complained about the disparity, and it was definitely there. I remember when the Yankees had significantly less TV money. George finally got his management people in gear, started to listen to them, continues to spend his money, and built the Yankees as they are today. He built this, no one gave it to him. I understand the local resources are different for him, But the Yankees are his number one priority, bar none. Not too many other owners can say this. If this was the case maybe they would understand no matter what business you're in, to make money, you have to spend you money.

I'll never believe that no one is making any money until they open the books.

You know what's going to happen with this system? All of these so called small market owners will load up on salary for one year to take a shot, and then let everyone go the next year, ala the Marlins, so they could get back under the tax. This way they could give the illusion they're trying to win.

Would the Royals or anyone else draw if they were winning? I believe so. Any successful busness I know of spend money to get competitive in their given market, stay afloat for a couple of years, and if their good they will flourish, if not. they lose money and must improve, make changes, of go out of business
Just because someone goes into business doesn't mean they have the right to make money no matter what. Baseball is no different.

 

[williamgoody]

I keep hearing Tejada and Arod for the A.L. MVP. I think it should go to Derek Lowe. Where would the Red Sox be without him?

 

[kerelybonto]

Uh ... missing the playoffs, just like now.

Soriano's going to get the MVP. A pitcher will never win it.

The A's have done very well with their payroll. An even better example is the Twins, who with the lowest payroll in baseball have a great record and a huge lead in the AL Central. Unfortunately, as soon as the A's pitchers grow up, they're going to be worth too much to play for Oakland; when Doug Mienkiewitz (or however you spell that) and some other Twins reach free agency, they won't be in Minnesota.

The point's not that it's possible to win with a low payroll. The point is that those who can have massive payrolls have a much greater chance of winning. Baseball is a game, a sport. It has to be competetive to be worthwhile. It is not competetive now and it will not be until a good economic system is put in place.

And by the way, the last time the Yankees sucked, there was no such thing as economic disparty in baseball; as recently as 1993 the Tigers or someone had the highest payroll in the league, and pretty much every team was within $10M of the others. Then game the big TV contracts, a spike in the payrolls of the stars, etc, and we end up with the Yankees spending $140M and the Royals at $40M (which, by the way, they have to cut next year to something closer to $30M -- last I heard they're working on getting MLB to approve a four-player lineup).

You get the point, I know. I just wish everyone would stop blaming the small markets for being small markets. Fact is, no one wants a three-team league (New York, LA, Chicago), so something needs to be done to even the playing field. I love the fact that Green Bay, a city of like four people, has an NFL team that's steeped in history and remains comepetive. I love the fact that Kansas City has and NFL team that had the most wins in the '90s and sold out every game that decade. Why can't baseball be like that?

kerelybonto

 

[williamgoody]

I understand what your saying, but I'm talking about the mid 80's to mid 90's, Where the yanks had the higherst payroll, bought every free agent there was and didn't win anything. No one was complaining. (I go back to being a Yankee fan since the late 70's).
You make great points about what happened to the game, but i feel it real has more to do with management and how you manage your money rather than how much you spend. Again about four or five teams have really bloated payroll, but it's only the Yanks that consistently win. Can they afford to make mistakes others couldn't, sure. But they built this without new stadiums and revenue sharing and personal seat licenses and all that in the past.
And even with George, I will not believe a word about what he or anybody says about how rich they are or how poor they are until they open the books and show everyone. It's rediculous how secretive they are about their numbers.

I really don't believe Soriano will win it.

 

[kerelybonto]

What would the Yankees have to complain about when they were spending more than anyone else and still losing? It's not the Rangers that are whining now, it's the small market clubs that can't even afford to sign the player's they've developed. And it's pretty ridiculous to say that a $130M payroll won't give you a damn good shot at winning when you're playing teams with an average payroll of about half that.

kerelybonto

 

[williamgoody]

Actually, the Rangers did complain, Tom Hicks himself complained to the press that salaries had to be held in check. And I never said that a $130 million dollar payroll wouldn't give a team a damn good shot at winning. All I'm saying is I won't believe the poverty of the owners until they open the books. If their losing money why don't they sell?
Steinbrenner when he was building what he has now in the 70's, he was using not only his baseball revenue from the Yankees, but also other revenue resources he had access to. He knew to restore the team he would have to pump money into it. Now that he's done this, the other owners are crying basically because they won't do the same thing. Pohlad in Minnesota is crying for a new stadium, hell I remember when they played in the stadium before the Metrodome, and I'm only 33. Plus he's a billionaire.
And say what you will about the advantages of being in NY, but one thing's for sure, those advantages are not available to you unless you win. That's a fact.
If there needs to be revenue sharing, fine, prove it. Open the books. If I was in a position for my business to earn revenue sharing, I'd surely be pulling out all the stops to prove why I need the cash. If I'm honest, I have no problems opening the books.
Do you have any problems with the owners opening the books to explain their case, do you think it's unfair?

 

[kerelybonto]

Not at all. But it's irrelevant. What matters is the amount of revenue each team generates, not its profits. And it's well established that teams' revenue is not at all consistent throughout the league.

And I really don't think it's fair to say that some small market owner should have to lose $50M a year to put a competetive team on the field, even assuming there are enough owners/potential owners willing to do that. But I could care less how much the owners are making/losing as long as they all have the same opportunity to field a good team.

I'm a ****ing Red when it comes to baseball economics.

kerelybonto

 

[williamgoody]

Irrelevant? The revenue matters, not the profit? I'm not saying open the books to check profit margins, check the revenue streams in the books. I don't believe there is enough evidence to say revenue isn't consistant.
Build it, and there will be revenue. Simple enough. And if an owner has to lose money for a year or two to field a winning team, the revenues will eventually be there, and he won't be losing anymore, He'll have a better chance.
There were plenty of years George lost money with the Yankees, but he knew he had to do this. It just took him longer because he never used to listen to any advice from his baseball people. Now it's different, he's a little smarter. And George never asked for handouts.
I agree wholeheartedly there are definite problems with the game. When you have an owner as a commissioner, there's already trouble. The economics are out of whack. Why? Greed by the owners as a whole? Yes. By the players? Yes. I don't blame you for being a "red" concerning the economics, but it's never been that way. The difference now is that a lot of owners don't want to put in the time and resources to build their business, they want instant gratification and profits (Just look at Philadelphia).
That's my opinion anyway, the only way I'll change that point of view is if they open the books. What is there to hide?