Teixeira, Boras, and the Press

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:37 am

Originally posted by Schwks:

Joe Morgan thinks? It certainly doesnt come through in his broadcasts I didn't say he thinks, I said wonders...he does a lot of that.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:53 pm

Just read an article by some reporter who was basically saying, "good for the Yankees - they have it, so they should spend it!"

I wondered thru the whole article who this freakin' idiot was - rather than spend your way to an unfair advantage that goes against the spirit of competition, how about show a little respect for your fans and drop ticket/food prices? ... I guess that never occured to him, or the Yankees.

Yep, much better to concentrate huge sums of wealth into a handful of players (and thereby force other teams to the same) rather than reverse, or even slow the consistent escalation of prices which no doubt kicks lower-income fans right of their seats.

[ December 24, 2008, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:51 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Just read an article by some reporter who was basically saying, "good for the Yankees - they have it, so they should spend it!"

I wondered thru the whole article who this freakin' idiot was - rather than spend your way to an unfair advantage that goes against the spirit of competition, how about show a little respect for your fans and drop ticket/food prices? ... I guess that never occured to him, or the Yankees.

Yep, much better to concentrate huge sums of wealth into a handful of players (and thereby force other teams to the same) rather than reverse, or even slow the consistent escalation of prices which no doubt kicks lower-income fans right of their seats. I would love if they did that, but I don't really blame them like it is their responsibility. Every team spends what they earn. Should we criticize the Yanks just because it is more? There does need to be a salary cap but if I was the Yanks I'm not sure I'd be doing differently.I'll spend it if I have it. The whole system should change.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:13 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

[QUOTE] Every team spends what they earn. I'll spend it if I have it. Are you sure you are not in Congress?

The Yanks are the most storied and valuable franchise, probably in sports history. They survived the horrible revolving door manager years (Virdon, Martin, Howser, Lemon, Martin, Howser, Michael, Lemon, Michael, King, Martin, Berra, Martin, Pinella, Martin, Pinella, Green, Dent, Merrill...that is 19 changes in 17 seasons if you are counting) and have survived damaging the game with the uncontrolled spending. They may even cause baseball to go to something stupid like salary caps. The Yanks haven't proven they can do it better, only spend more. However, they can actually IMPROVE the value of the franchise if they adopted a bit more of a homegrown mentality.

What would happen if the Yanks kept themselves to a paultry $135m to $145m self-imposed cap. First, you put $50m+ straight to your bottom line. Take some of that and develop your own talent rather than trade away nearly every propect on players with shorter useful Yankee lives. Do you think the fans would love "home-grown" talent more or less than the overpriced veteran du jour? I think the Yankee Pride would be enhanced with a more Yankee formed players in their lineup.

You can win one of two ways. Manage your organization so that you have a consistent flow of new talent (who doesn't love the rookie!) or you can play Daddy Warbucks and spend...spend...spend!

I think the way the Yankees have won (and they have won) is stupid business and bad for baseball.

Joba belongs in the rotatation until he proves he cannot handle the work load. He may start out as the #5, but if he pitches to expectation, he finishes as the #2 starter in the playoffs.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:50 am

something stupid like salary caps I think the way the Yankees have won (and they have won) is stupid business and bad for baseball.I like ice cream but vanilla is stupid. And chocolate is stupid. All the flavors are stupid.

So uncontrolled spending sucks, but controlled spending also sucks? I guess you are saying leave it up to the teams and they will control themselves? We already do that. Clearly, it doesn't work.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:06 am

How is what the Yankees are doing stupid business, btw? They were clearly in the black last year in a year when many businesses were not. I agree 100% that it is bad for baseball, but winning in the biggest market with your own network and a huge fanbase is imperative to keep the money rolling in. The easiest way to do that is to reinvest in the team.

If you want to argue that they can run their team better, hardly anyone is going to disagree, but that is all the more reason they need to spend--to make up for their bad decisions. But they are clearly making more money by spending. How many wins would they get if they cut 100 mil out of the payroll or 50 mil? They can only trade good contracts so they have to keep all the bad ones. Then they lose players to free agency and can't replace. Then they have the (somewhat) dreadful farm system to replace losses. You think when the Yankees are playing like the Pirates they will still have mountains of money coming in?

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:44 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

You think when the Yankees are playing like the Pirates they will still have mountains of money coming in? In short, yes. With all due respect to BoSox and Cubbie fans, the Yankee fans are the most rabid and loyal, in my opinion. Loyal does not mean they like what is going on, be it on the field or the league standings, but they will be there or watching TV or buying hats, pennants, peanuts, hot dogs, beer, and expressing their opinions (loudly). And the NYC market is not getting appreciably smaller. I do not see their fans turning their backs on the Yankees if the less than dynamic duo changed the Yankee business model to one that is more stable and self-sustaining.

The Yanks were in a perfect position to truly cut salary, rebuild a very old team, invest in the club (not just veteran salaries) farm system which would pay long-term dividends, and set up to establish the dynasty from within. Instead, they leveraged the next decade on a pitcher who will never grace "Health and Fitness" magazine, an injury prone pitcher whose two best years were contract years, and Tex, the best of the three in my opinion, but who has never really been in the position to prove whether or not he can be that clutch bat in the middle of the order. He has the tools, but let's face it, Texas was not exactly a playoff pressure cooker. It is not like they can rely on ARod in and his $28m in the playoffs, can they?

From way back when with Dave Collins, to Pavono, Boone, Contreras, and Johnson, the Yanks have blown bucks on mistakes. Or they dump just because they are just not good baseball people (Vazquez and Lieber). Deep pockets hide many errors, but they waste alot of their money (I know, it is their money to waste). With a few good baseball people and ban the Stienbrenner's to the Marge Schott Memorial Owners box, the Yanks would truly be the envy of the baseball world.

[ December 29, 2008, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 7:57 am

People do not go to see teams that lose. They don't buy their merchandise. They don't watch them on TV. It has been proven multiple times but you can use common sense. When your team is in the playoff race, do you watch them more, as much, or less than when they are out of it (or even have clenched)? Unless you never miss a game, the answer is the same for everyone. When the team is out of it in May, people will not pay them nearly as much mind (or money).

The only reason Yankees fans seem loyal is because they've been consistently winning for over 15 years. They never had a reason to not be loyal.

Again, with your post, you are continuing to argue that the team makes mistakes so they should not spend money. That is some seriously faulty logic. I say again that they need to spend so they can cover up mistakes. I'll paraphrase what Doughboys said last week, it is their way of creating a level playing field.

[ December 29, 2008, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:22 am

I understand your point, but there is an old saying about throwing good money after bad.

I seem to remember those long stretches when the Yanks were not winning on a regular basis (1965 to 1975), like during the years of the revolving door managers (1981 to 1993), the Yanks fans stuck by their team. The have spent more money, by far, than any other team from 2001 to 2008 without a World Series, haven't won an ALCS in five years, have exited in the first round of the playoffs in four of those eight years, and missed the playoffs totally last year. The Braves did as much in their 14 year run and spent much less.

We will just have to agree to disagree, my friend.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:45 am

I've used the analogy before but I'll take it a step further. It is like the Yankees are one of us headed to the draft in March. They get the first, eighth, and 16th pick while foregoing the 29th and 30th rounds.

With that advantage we may take Hanley Ramirez, Ryan Howard, and Chase Utley(just an example, no opinions needed). Meanwhile, the Yankees would select ARod, Howard, and Adam Dunn. Overkill, to be sure, on the power department and it doesen't kill their team. And the fans love it. That's the Yankee style.

They don't use all the resources entitled to them in a strategic way, thus, indeed, leveling the playing field.

[ December 29, 2008, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:51 am

While the Yankees are not the best decision makers, it would be hard to say they've spent 'bad' money considering they are making a profit and having success. Bad would be the money the Mariners spent last year.

Here are some Yanks finish and attendance records:

Year attendance place

83 2.2 mil 3rd

84 1.8 3

85 2.2 2

86 2.2 2

87 2.4 4

88 2.6 5

89 2.1 5

90 2.0 7

91 1.8 5

92 1.7 4

93 2.4 2

94 1.7 1

95 1.7 2

96 2.3 1

97 2.6 2

98 3.0 1

99 3.3 1

00 3.2 1

01 3.3 1

02 3.5 1

03 3.5 1

As you can see, The Yanks attendance had been sparse throughout the 80's and as they got worse and the fans grew tired, it had really dwindled into the 90's. Even their good seasons between 93-95 could not break fans out of the apathy years of losing had created. It was not until their historic 114 win season in '98 that the attendance broke out and their winning since then has kept the attendance very high. I think it is fairly clear that if the Yanks had had losing seasons for the last 15 years, their attendance wouldn't be up over 4 million now.

[ December 29, 2008, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:42 am

Who is talking 15 years? Anyway, using '94 (strike year) and '95 (lingering effects of the strike) is a bad analogy.

Per your numbers, the '83 Yanks had 2.2m attendees to games and finished third. The '00 Yanks won the World Series and had 3.2m attendees or a 1.0m increase or 45.5% over '83. Total MLB attendance in 1983 was 45.5m total and for 2000 was 72.7m or a 27.2m increase or a 59.8% increase. Even spending the money and winning the World Series the Yanks lagged MLB overall growth of games attended. Taking into account the approx. 9.0m who attended games in Denver, Miami, Phoenix, and Tampa (expansion teams since '83), MLB growth was still 40%.

In short, the growth in Yankee attendance had much more to do with the overall increased popularity of baseball rather than the way the Yanks spend money.

[ December 29, 2008, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Edwards Kings ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:32 am

So...just to be clear, you think the Yankees would have had 3 million + attendees (or at least 95% of the number of attendees) every year since 1998 even if they had the same record as the Pirates in each of those years?

[ December 29, 2008, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:57 am

Anyway, using '94 (strike year) and '95 (lingering effects of the strike) is a bad analogy.Also, thank you for giving an even better explanation of why attendance was down despite good records in these years. I'll concede that my 'analogy' was wrong.

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:37 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

So...just to be clear, you think the Yankees would have had 3 million + attendees (or at least 95% of the number of attendees) every year since 1998 even if they had the same record as the Pirates in each of those years? Not really my point. I guess I am saying it badly but I think if the Yanks wanted to spend even $50m less, they would still be competitive (unlike the uber-cheap and dramatically baseball challenged Pirates) and still have one of the highest salaries in baseball. It is not like they would be reduced to trolling for the Daniel Cabrera's or Mark Hendricksons of the world.

Over the course of a few years of restocking the minors (and how many college or high school prospects do you think would jump at the chance to wear pinstripes), they would not have risk throwing money down a rat hole three or four years into long and stupidly expensive contracts.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:02 am

I've bashed on the Yankees enough, but this is just too good of a factoid.

The Yankees paid 27 million dollars for their luxury tax, matching the entire payroll of the Marlins.

The Yankees ended up with five more wins than the Marlins.

[ December 30, 2008, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:11 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

People do not go to see teams that lose. They don't buy their merchandise. They don't watch them on TV.

1) see CUBS

2) see CUBS

3) see CUBS