I agree Barry. Look at these stats.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/Income_1.html

Now I know that this is from the 2005 season, but I haven't found any more recent numbers. Generally speaking, the most profitable teams are those that lose. The winning teams tend to break even or lose money.

So I guess, before we attack ownership, you have to ask, do we as fans applaud well run (read: financially profitable) businesses, or should we applaud winning.

Obviously, many owners would prefer to line their pockets, while pleading poverty and continue to lose.

Jim- here's my solution to the problem:

Let's say the Yankees owe the Kansas City Royals $2 million in luxury tax. The money should be put in an escrow account, to be used towards a contract for a free agent. If the team can't negotiate a deal they like, the money stays in the account and more money is added the following year. Then the team could have $4 million available towards securing a player.

The whole point of the luxury tax is to create as much competitive balance as possible, so the team receiving it has to demonstrate to the league that that is what it is being used for. Just accepting free money to line one's pockets is a form of Socialism, don't you think?:rolleyes:

Barry,
I agree these small market teams which get the stipend from the luxury tax should have to show where it has been spent before they see a dime.
Jeff

King Kong Keller - Joltin Joe - Ol' Reliable Tommy Henrich
 

*

As a fan that had the privilege of watching Keller, DiMag and Henrich patrol the outfield, at the old ball orchard in Da Bronx ..... I agree with everything ced by the guy from Da Bronx.

I salute the formidable Philly team, and their fans.
It could've gone either way.
It wouldn't surprise me if we have a rematch.

As for the author of this thread.
Some people love being wrong ... but this guy loves being wrong LOUD!

Guys, your proposal would make total sense if in fact all of the teams' owners actually wanted to win more than make money.

Doesn't winning make money for a team? What's the downside?

It's a very complicated answer. Much depends upon your definition of "making money."

Steinbrenner bought the team in 1973 for $10 million. Estimates are that they are currently worth a little over $1 billion, so that's pretty good money. But, many years, they are cash flow negative. That possibility scares the bejesus out of some owners.

It seems to me that you can make money by winning, and you can make money by losing big and collecting the most money from revenue sharing and luxury taxes, but somewhere in the middle is a dead zone where you don't win enough to profit but don't suck enough to collect big dollars.

This "sea of mediocrity" is where you get killed. (I've heard that term somewhere before...)

But trying to win has it's risks. Spending money alone does not guarantee winning. So if your fans tolerate losing, that's the safer course.


Edited to add: The other thing to consider is that every year, only a couple of teams win enough to be successful, but lots of teams can stink it up.

If somebody buys a baseball team with no intention of putting together the best possible ball club, they should kick his sorry butt out of the league.

I agree, but there are about 20 of those guys in MLB right now.

Then you have the richest family of owners, the Pohlads, who run the Twins and we all know what kind of a payroll they have.
As far as accepting the luxury tax and other shared monies, many of the smaller market teams use that money not for signing free agents or keeping the players they have by paying them more to keep them from leaving, but plunge it in to their farm systems to pay scouts, sign draftees, and pay for their minor league franchises to keep them afloat.

Aside from the initial post, I see nothing douchey about this thread that would cause one to hate Yankee fans. I do see a lot of complaining from people who root for teams that don't win, though, largely due to their tiny payrolls.

Jim has it nailed. There are teams that are profitable BECAUSE of the revenue-sharing money produced by the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers (last number I read was actually $77 million paid out by the Yankees alone).

Baseball also shares its merchandise revenue. Every time a kid buys a Jeter jersey, the Florida Marlins benefit as much as the Yankees do. I believe each team received $3 million last year from merch revenue; Nick Swisher cost the Yankees $5 million.

What confuses me the most about all the anti-Yankee, big-dollar, high-payroll sentiment is the strange idea that this is some new phenomenon, some weird, "modern baseball" thing that's a result of free agency or George Steinbrenner or something.

The Yankees have won 27 championships overall. The first 20 all came in the 41 seasons between 1923 and 1964, and the last 7 have come in the 45 years since. The Yankees have ALWAYS been dominant, certainly more so in the old days than today.

If Babe Ruth played today, baseball fans would hate him and say things like "I don't understand how anyone could root for a fat, womanizing, alcohol-abusing, egotistical dirtbag who cheats on his wife." But since Babe played in the 1920s and 30s, we look back on him fondly and wish that baseball had some kind of rules to prevent the Yankees from outspending every other team the way they do today.

The problem with this is that the Yankees of yesteryear were more dominant, filled with more superstars, with more of a disparity between the Yankees and the other teams. How else do you explain the Yankee championship runs of the 1930s and 1950s?

If you look at the bottom 10 teams in terms of 2009 attendance, here's what you get: Oakland, Florida, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Washington, Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore. Four of these teams didn't even EXIST prior to 1977. I believe that eight of them - EIGHT - are playing in (relatively) new or renovated ballparks. None of them drew more than 24,000 fans a game in 2009.

How is it that teams that can't even get 25,000 fans in the park are able to build new ballparks, and continue to exist? How is it that the Kansas City Royals - who have managed to play .500 ball just ONCE in the past TEN seasons - can continue to exist? How can the Kansas City Royals stay in existence, renovate their ballpark, not win more than 83 games in ANY season since 1994, draw 23,000 fans a game, and yet still remain a viable business?

Thank the Yankees and their giant payroll. And who did the Royals spend their free agent money on in 2009? Kyle Farnsworth, Juan Cruz, Willie Bloomquist, Horacio Ramirez, and John Bale. Great personnel decisions. Blame the Yankees.

The Cleveland Indians played at the same ballpark in the late 90s when they were selling out every game and winning the division (made the postseason 6 out of 7 seasons between 1995 and 2001). In 2009 they drew 21,500 fans a game, losing 97 games and finishing 21.5 games behind the Twins.

That's the Yankees' fault?

Sorry, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. The Yankees spend money on players and are committed to win. As sports fans, somehow we look fondly at Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing," but disparage Steinbrenner for having the same attitude.

Not me.

-Al

Totally agree with Al. As a Mets fan, my team had the same opportunity to sign the guys the Yanks did for the most part but did not. Now Johan vs. CC is a wash I guess but I would have taken Texeira or A-Rod in a heartbeat. MLB needs a minimum cap (plug?) too.

At separate times during the World Series I was struck by some random thoughts about this subject.

During the opening game when it was Lee vs. Sabathia, and they were dueling it out to show who was the better pitcher, I couldn't help but think: 1) How did Cleveland have both these guys on the same staff and still lose? and 2) How did management let them go for basically pennies on the dollar in return?

During a later game the situation arose with Chan Ho Park on the mound, Teixeira at the plate and Arod on deck. All former Texas Rangers, and hated in this part of the country, but all still playing baseball in November, while their former team mates are playing golf.

Why did all these guys leave their teams? Most didn't leave for money. They left because they wanted to win, and that wasn't going to happen during their career with their old teams.

I live in Texas, but any Ranger fan who doesn't hate this management is crazy. Same with Cleveland. You will get from ownership what your dollars demand.

Sounds like major league baseball has some real issues. It's competition which makes the league successful and attracts fans. If some organizations are playing to win, and others are just going through the motions, the end result is a crappy product.

For the record we are now watching the Knicks and the Nets going through the motions. I don't know how I am going to be able to watch either of them this season.

Interestingly (or not), this self-published book was written in 1971, when Horace Clarke and Gene Michael were in their prime. (I don't hate the Yankees, for the record) However, as has been pointed out, baseball has had the "haves" and the "have-nots" for a long time--back into the 19th century. Strange that this book was published in the middle of the Yankees' lethargy

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/18...51fcd790_o.jpg

One thought that came from Bill Veeck was that there should be no long term contracts and players should be free agents every year. I wonder if that would increase or decrease the level of competition among the teams.

Max

Max,

You're going to have to let me know how that book turns out. I just checked Amazon. They do have one copy available. Asking price is $1,000. Sorry, I don't have Steinbrenner-like money!

To Veeck's thought. I think it would be worse than ever if everything was one year deals. When the Yankee's make a mistake, and they often do, they have to pay dearly for it. That's a good thing for competition.

With all one year deals, I think there would be even more movement, and I think the primary driver for premium player movement is the desire to win. The owners may not care, but the best players do.

I think it was Charlie Finley who suggested players should become free agents after every season.

I was talking about the OP. I don't dislike the Yankees, but a lot of their fans leave a LOT to be desired in a fan... like the OP.

Speaking only for myself, most Yankee fans are no different than fans of other teams. We run a pretty normal bell curve.

You can also be assured that, Yankee fan or not, you will have consensus in your categorization of the OP. It takes all kinds.

Al, I couldn't agree with you more on most of your points. I am a huge Phillies fan and for years we were told that we were a " small" market team. What we were was a team that suffered from a small market mentality. With a payroll of @140 million now and the stadium almost a sellout every night, they can't claim that anymore. To get to your point about hating the Yankees, I think its the smugness of the fans.....yeah a guy from Philly is knocking someone elses fans, but thats what it is. All you hear is the national broadcast (dont get me started on that lovefest) is 27 championships, every trivia question is a Yankees answer.....Tim McCarver swinging from the jockstrap of every Yankees player. Its enough. Its like a Cowboys fan...havent won a playoff game since 1996, but when you ask them about last year they can't remember, but they can remember the super bowls.

Every team wants their ownership to spend tons of money, some do it right (Twins),some do it wrong (Mets), but every fan wants, what the Yankees do...and thats spend money.

Go Phillies ....next year

What do trivia questions and Tim McCarver have to do with the smugness of Yankee fans? The fact that the media constantly trumpets the Yankees is not the doing of the fans.

Howard, your right....I should not have merged the two. The only area that it can be slightly relevant, is when everyone in the media hypes the Yankees, and people get sick and tired of it....but YOUR right...that has nothing to do with the FANS.

I haven't finished it, but I'm expect it will have something along the lines of "I am a more antique Roman than a Dane..."

We are living in very different times......
 

This comment by Al C.ristafulli really reflects the times we live in........

"" If Babe Ruth played today, baseball fans would hate him and say things like "I don't understand how anyone
could root for a fat, womanizing, alcohol-abusing, egotistical dirtbag who cheats on his wife." ""

However, I remember kinder times.

Since 1947, as a 9 year old, I've rooted for the Yankees (we lived 2 blocks away from Phil Rizzuto in Hillside, NJ).
I have been truly fortunate to see some of the greatest players, play some great games in the post-WWII era....
Joe DiMaggio, Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Johnny Mize, Mantle, Mays, Snider, Banks, Aaron, Clemente, , etc., etc.
Some great pitchers....Feller, Roberts, Spahn, Koufax, Gibson, Reynolds, Ford, and Don Larsen's Perfect Game.

Having said all that, I can tell you that every Fall, us kids (and later as teenagers) would enthusiastically root for
our favorite teams. In our neighborhood there were fans of the Dodgers, Giants, Phillies, Cardinals, Indians....and,
I was the lone Yankees fan.

As you know, from 1947 to 1958, the Yankees won 10 A.L. pennants and 8 World Series. My neighborhood friends
did not detest the Yankees, the likes of what you see nowadays......Why so ?......
Reflecting back on those times, the Yankees team consisted of, not one, but several "Derek Jeter's". Berra, Bobby
Brown, Joe DiMaggio, Henrich, Ellie Howard, Keller, Mantle, Mize, Rizzuto. Everyone, regardless team favorite, had
a lot of respect for these guys and their work ethic. Another factor in this equation was Casey Stengel....you just
couldn't help but like this guy.
Conversely, I had great respect for Aaron, Hodges, Matthews, Mays, Reese, J Robby, Snider, Bobby Thomson, etc.

I guess we were young and had not yet learned to detest others. We did not play organized Little League BB. We
formed our own BB games, or played "stickball" every day. Furthermore, we were collecting some real cool BB cards
of our favorites....thanks to the Bowman Gum Co. and Topps.

Indeed, those were tremendous times.



TED Z

sorry to burst your bubble bob stats, but yankess fans think that buck and mcarver are anti-yankee's...why is it ok to bring up their 04 4 game collapse against the redsox and not their championship record?? dont they go hand in hand? if anyone listened to the "wfan" during the playoffs you would have a heard a ton of yankee fans calling in and complaining about buck and mcarver. on why they bring up past failures. to me thats part of doing your job, bringing up failures and acievements. btw didnt philly fans boo mike schmidt his whole carrer? think about that. mike schmidt the best third baseman of all time.

I don't think there is a single owner out there who doesn't try to put together the best possible club within their financial constraints.

Obviously. But every owner has a different set of standards as to what their financial constraints are. Some want to spend every last dollar on their teams and others don't. To many this is simply a business in which the bottom line is all that matters. Being competitive, to some owners, is enough.