|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 29, 2008 20:50:21 GMT -5
I wonder who will be to blame when the Mets sign Santana to an extension that tops Zito's.....I guess it is the Yankees because of what they paid Clemens for a couple months.......
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 20:54:20 GMT -5
No, it's everyone else fault but the Yankees. the Yankees just sit around and do nothing while everyone overspends. Then one nice Spring day the Steinbrenners read the paper and go 'Shit! This player is getting a ton of cash! Now we will have to pay market price! If it weren't for them we'd have a $60 million dollar payroll! DAMN IT!'
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 20:58:00 GMT -5
That's a bit of an exaggeration, but at least for the amount players get paid, there is truth to it.
When ARod gets $25 million a year, Jeter is worth $18 million a year. The Yanks have every right to use their resources to compete. If they can afford more players at market value, good for them.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 29, 2008 21:05:18 GMT -5
Grover come on now you are exaggerating sure the Yanks have inflated salaries but stupid half cocked owners like what Hicks did with A-Rod have as much to do with it if not more....I just take umberage that Tom always paints the picture that it is the Yankees and the Yankees only, period, amen and that is not the case.........they have contributed and done their fair share of bonehead deals but so have other teams.......what seperates the Yanks, Sox and a handful of teams from the rest is that they can throw money to rectify their mistakes a lot easier..My problem is some teams don't even try to improve or even make mistakes.....
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 29, 2008 21:07:26 GMT -5
And you are missing the point.
The point is you guys trying to make it seem like it's not that big of a deal, and that any team can do this. They can't, and even if owners are richer than the Steinbrenners, they also have the right to spend on a team what they make from the team. This is my main reason on why a cap won't work as well in Baseball, because there are more bad owners in Baseball than in the other 4 major sports.
Sure, while there are a number of shitty owners who pocket cash, many don't, and many don't want to dip into their other funds, especially if they will not come out on the positive in the end. Besides, can any of you tell me how much of non-Yankee funding to the Steinbrenners dip into? The Yankees are a fucking gold mine. I doubt the Steinbrenners are dipping into personal funds.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 29, 2008 21:18:23 GMT -5
I think you are the one missing the point. These teams have a LOT more money than they let on. They CHOOSE to hoard it. And they pay the price. Sometimes to make money in one venture, you need capital from another one.
And actually, Steinbrenner funded the Yankees from his shipping business and BUILT them into the juggernaut they became. The team should be running itself fairly well now, but that's because of their hard work and efforts.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 30, 2008 11:41:41 GMT -5
I think the amount of teams that pocket cash isn't as vast as Yankee fans make it out.
And I think you are wrong in thinking that if a team can't compete they should be retracted. Take Oakland for example. They play in a football stadium and even though they actively try to compete and get better, they still draw shit. Thus, they want to move to Fremont.
And yeah, you have to put money in at first, but eventually a baseball team pays for itself, and it doesn't make much an owner shouldn't dip into his funds if he doesn't have to, especially since the new trend is spending a bit of money as well as developing youth.
And you're also wrong about the Knicks and the inability for them to get better with no cap. The Knicks are owned by Dolan, who also owns the Rangers. The Rangers operated with no cap for years, and the only thing worse than that stretch of Dolan owned pre-cap Rangers is this current Knicks squad. With no cap the Knicks would still be terrible.
Sorry, caps work pretty well, and since you don't watch or follow any sports with a cap, you don't see the results we see.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 30, 2008 13:01:05 GMT -5
They can't, and even if owners are richer than the Steinbrenners,
That is not true...There is no reason with a new ballpark and being the richest owner in baseball that Pohland couldn't pay Santana and keep him......
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 30, 2008 13:03:58 GMT -5
The real way to test the pocketing money is to somehow get the data on what teams receive cash, and what happens to their payrolls. The Marlins are an abomination in how they deal with the luxury tax.
As for the Knicks, good point about the Dolans of course, but let's say tomorrow the Dolans got smart and hired a GM that had a clue--someone that would do things like remember to protect lottery picks when trading draft picks. The small stuff. Let's say this guy is the best GM ever. His hands are tied.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 30, 2008 13:13:11 GMT -5
Sorry, caps work pretty well, and since you don't watch or follow any sports with a cap, you don't see the results we see.
Grover I think it is a matter of what taste you prefer....Do you like 90% of the league being between 7-9 and 9-7 or having dominant teams like the old 49ers, Cowboys etc (and even with the cap we have a dominant team in the Pats).....Also good management wins over all else, look at The Pats.........and bad management will be even more magnified in a cap situation (which is just one more thing to manage--see the Knicks).
Also this decade so far 7 different champions in 8 years:
2000 - Yankees 2001 - Diamondbacks 2002 - Angels 2003 - Marlins 2004 - Red Sox 2005 - White Sox 2006 - Cardinals 2007 - Red Sox
NFL 6 different champs in 9 years:
2000 - Rams 2001 - Ravens (beat Giants) 2002 - Pats (who beat the Rams) 2003 - Bucs 2004 - Pats 2005 - Pats 2006 - Steelers 2007 - Colts 2008 - Pats & Giants in it again
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 31, 2008 13:34:24 GMT -5
From today's Post..
A pact (Santana) such as that would top two pitching contract records - Barry Zito's total package ($126 million) and Carlos Zambrano's average annual value of $18.3 million.
HmmmmmI don't remember any of these guys pitching fo rthe Yankees.....LOL
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Jan 31, 2008 13:44:06 GMT -5
No they were too busy throwing 16 million at admitted steroid user Andy Pettitte and 25 million at Roger Clemens
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 31, 2008 13:49:00 GMT -5
Neither one of those deals set any records. The Yankees were following the pattern set by the Astros, and Pettitte was getting fair market value easily. Not to mention, Pettitte's contract is year to year, while the other contracts are 7 & 5 years.
The Yanks were simply smarter than the other teams there.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 31, 2008 13:56:42 GMT -5
You see a list of the top 10 paid ballplayers going into last year? I think the Yankees had 6 or 7 of them. And the top paid not being here means nothing. Just cause someone else owns one $70,000 automobile and you own TEN $60,000 automobiles, while everyone else is driving $15-20,000 cars does not mean they are more extravegant than you for paying the most on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 31, 2008 14:25:11 GMT -5
And then you have the A's....equivelent of Larry David (net worth 500 million) driving an $18,000 Toyota.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 31, 2008 14:28:37 GMT -5
So what?
The Yankees do have 4 out of the top 10. 3 of them are Jeter, ARod and Pettitte, and the 4th was Giambi. It's well established that Giambi was a dud. But the other three were not.
Good players cost money.
And your analogy is wrong because most people only need one car. You need more than one great player to win.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Feb 1, 2008 21:41:56 GMT -5
The six-year, $ 137.5 million extension alone would be the richest contract ever given to a pitcher. Included in that $137.5 million is a $7 million signing bonus the Mets added on top of the $13.25 million that Santana is already owed for 2008.
Please change the name of this thread to:
Thanks to the Mets Salary Cap Needed Thread
Thank you.....
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Feb 1, 2008 21:53:02 GMT -5
The only players with larger packages are New York Yankees third baseman Alex Rodriguez ($275 million), Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter ($189 million), Boston outfielder Manny Ramirez ($160 million) and Colorado first baseman Todd Helton ($141.5 million).
And we all know that the only reason Jeter got his deal was because Hicks gave A-Rod the big deal and the Yanks had to come in the neighborhood at the time..........
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Feb 1, 2008 23:19:58 GMT -5
Not to mention those guys play every day. Well, except for Manny.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 2, 2008 12:51:52 GMT -5
If the Yankees signed Santana to this deal, we all know that people would be bitching about it, and yes, this does set a new bar and will affect future pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Feb 2, 2008 14:58:40 GMT -5
You guys couldn't have bigger Yankee blinders on than in this thread.
The fact that you are bending over backwards to wash all blame from the Yankees hand as if they have little to no influence on salaries and payrolls in the MLB is laughable.
Sorry, the Yankees and Red Sox, as well as the Braves up until recently, are the biggest culprits in the game, and trying to say that their actions have not effected the game is sticking your head in the sand. All have spent tons of cash to stay competitive, and all have seen great success over the past 15 years. During that time they have been model franchises on the field with a handfull of Pennants and 7 titles between them, as well as in the revenue department where not many teams compete with them, especially the Yankees.
The idea that other teams below them don't look at these model franchises and go 'They have been successful for so long, so let's sign these guys for a good amount and hope that we can get a good mix going, and draw some fans' is nonsense. To think that the Yankees mold of success is not a blueprint is fucking stupid, and to think that that wasn't the blueprint for other teams high spending is also stupid. Just because a team isn't spending smart doesn't mean they are not trying to do what the Yanks, Sox and Braves have done. They are, they are just not doing it right.
LOL! I mean, really. You think some owner is sitting in his board meeting, yelling at his inner circle 'We've got to do something to be successful!'? and NOT looking to what the competition is doing to be successful? Isn't that one of the key ways to be successful in business to begin with? Assess the competition and their tactics and try to improve on that? I mean, there was talk before about the business side of the MLB which go tot he point where it seemed like some were measuring a teams success on revenue and individual success on contracts. How is it that one side is argued to the point of absurdity yet one of the most basic business tactics of doing what the competition does, only better, is ignored?
Y A N K E E
B L I N D E R s
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 2, 2008 15:13:20 GMT -5
Hold on--Yankee blinders is the excuse people make when they don't have a real argument.
The Yankees have NOTHING to do with this deal the Mets made. They did not trade for him. They walked away from the table because they felt that the package, combined with the money it would take to sign him, was NOT worth it.
Santana is now averaging $21.54 million a year. Because of that, other pitchers are now worth a hell of a lot more. Wang is now worth $15 million a year on the open market easily. Easily.
So if the Yanks don't sign him for that, someone else will. Will it be the Yankees' fault? No.
This hate the rich philosophy doesn't fly. If another team sets the high bar, don't blame the Yanks because they can afford more people at that level. Blame the teams that start the domino, and teams like the Mets, Cubs, Rangers and Red Sox have done FAR more to hurt the salaries of the game than the Yankees.
But I guess blaming the Yankees is just easier.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Feb 2, 2008 15:41:03 GMT -5
You're not missing the point, you're ignoring the point.
The Yankees have everything to do with the Mets deal. Know why? Because who's blueprint do you think the Mets and Minaya are taking? You guys just spent a few pages saying the Yankees should not be faulted for being in the biggest revenue market in the world (And rightfully so might I add) and you're trying to tell me, the Mets did NOT look toward the Bronx and the Yankees, who are in the same fucking market as them for fucks sake, and go 'Look what they are doing, we can do the same thing, and get the same results' at all?
The Mets brought up their prized youth in Reyes and Wright, brought in a manager who was on the Yankee bench for how long, spent quite a bit on free agents like Delgado, Beltran, Ect, and made steal deals like the one they just made for Santana, and are aggressively spending to try to get more out of the New York market, and you're telling me that the fact that a few miles away the Yankees have been the model franchise of the MLB for the past 15 years has NOTHING to do with it? It has EVERYTHING to do with it! They are trying to muscle their way on top of our platform because they came to the realization that they are in the same city as we are, and they can yield the same results.
Same goes for the Cubs. The owners want to sell, so spend spend spend and make it look nice and sell high. Sort of I'm doing with my moms house. The Cubs started spending the way the Yankees and Red Sox do. Notice how the Yanks trimmed a bit of payroll in 2007? You think it could be because other teams who have seen success over the past few years have mad a mix of youth and payroll? You think the Yankees didn't take that into account when they DIDN'T trade for Santana? Tons of things effect other teams, including what the Yankees do.
And you see why I bring up Yankee blinders? I mention three teams in my posts and you go 'The Yankees have nothing to do with it' as if to imply that ONLY the Red Sox and Braves had an effect.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 2, 2008 15:49:18 GMT -5
So basically, when in doubt, bring up the Yankees.
The Yankees have NEVER given this long of a contract to a pitcher. The Yankees never paid this kind of money for someone who plays in 1 out of 5 games.
The Mets here did something that NO TEAM has ever done, and set a new standard for the elite pitcher.
I think the Yanks trimmed payroll in 2007 because they saw that they weren't winning with all these bloated 30 somethings coming into town and cashing checks.
The Red Sox have had far more of an effect on rising salaries than the Yankees over the past few years. I'm not saying the Yankees have no effect, but for the most part, the Yankees do not set standards. They follow standards set by other teams. This has been shown time and again.
It's not Yankee blinders. It's fact. The Yankees are not at the root of all that is evil in baseball.
You really think that the Mets are following the Yankees, and not doing this on their own?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Feb 2, 2008 17:43:28 GMT -5
I have to sortof side with Balls on this. The Yankees have outspent the rest of the league by huge margins every year, with no title since 2000. I don't think copying their gameplan is the best one the Mets could have done.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Feb 3, 2008 12:57:42 GMT -5
With no title yet an AL crown, one trip to the ALCS, and the playoffs every season since, and how much revenue?
Owners don't look at things that way. We're fans, we look at success on the field, but the owners look at that stuff too, the revenue and such.
Balls, the contracts are not what influences, it's the way the Yankees do business. We're the gold standard in the MLB: We make the playoffs every year, gain a shitload of revenue, draw tons of fans, and are always in the thick of things. Other teams look at us and go: 'We have to do what they are doing.' Just because some teams don't do it right doesn't mean they haven't been influenced by the Yankee gameplan. It also doesn't mean the Yankees should be faulted for another teams inability to spend correctly more often than not. But, you can't deny it. You can't say the Yankees are just throwing thier hands in the air going 'Great, now that so-and-so got this contract we have to raise our salary, again....' when they don't seem to care about salaries at all.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 3, 2008 13:12:15 GMT -5
But that's a mistake. They DO care about salaries. Anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't know what they're talking about. If the Yankees didn't care about salaries, Beltran would be on this team right now.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Feb 3, 2008 14:16:37 GMT -5
To a point. The pass on Beltran but give a middle relief guy a boatload of cash.
They are willing to pay for guys like Arod and Santana(if we got him), and some teams look to that and try to get the same results. Some succeed, some fall way short and just fuck things up for everyone else. Still, the Yankees have a great influence on that process. It's not the only influence mind you, they are not solely to blame, but it's there. It's undeniable.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Feb 3, 2008 14:38:05 GMT -5
The amount of money to get Beltran was far more than a middle relief guy. There is nothing wrong with what the Yankees do. They invest in their own team. If other teams attempt to follow them and fuck all of baseball up in the process, it's on them.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Sept 1, 2008 21:20:10 GMT -5
So this idea of a salary cap is starting to gain some legs again. Already with Hank's bluster and all the money the Yankees will get selling seats in the new park, most are expecting the Yankees to buy everyone available next year in another bid to purchase a pennant.
Jays president / CEO Paul Godfrey says, "If they get too outrageous and force salaries to a stratospheric level, they're going to invite teams like ours to say, 'That's enough....its salary cap time.' If the Yankees go nuts on this, maybe even Boston will join the salary cap era. And if the salary cap does trigger, you're going to have a very different competitive balance."
That said, count me in on a salary cap idea.
|
|