Rollins- lots of hot air

[tbob]

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.

[Al C.risafulli]

Ever wonder why people hate Yankees fans so much? This douchey thread shows why.

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

[toppcat]

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.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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.


-Al

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[sportscardtheory]

Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli

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

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.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

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.

[Bobsbats]

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

[howard38]

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.

[Bobsbats]

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.