The discussion began before the blog was started. So to catch everyone up the remaining dialogue is all below. I wanted to do fancy things with the font to make it easier to follow but I have a Mac and am working on getting it formatted with this PC centric blogsite! No time for banter, let us get to the points at hand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) In regards to the talent developed in the farm systems...keep in mind that when these guys reach the majors they get the major league minimum salary for probably the first 5 years of their career and they become arbitration-eligible. So, knowing that you're going to pay the kids chicken feed for a while, why not spend a bit more to ensure they sign with you after the draft? Penny-wise and pound-foolish if you ask me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Players are in serfdom and are only obligated league-minimum salary for three years of service time, not five. It might seem like a small difference, but when the ideal is to have a player's least expensive years coincide with their early prime, an extra two years difference is pretty huge. Plus, arbitration payouts are hardly peanuts. Not everybody gets Soriano/Zambrano payouts of 10+mm dollars, but the fact that a salary can conceivably escalate to 30 times league minimum over a short three year period is something a lot of teams (you know, the ones that actually have budgets) need to plan for.
Again, I have a hard time arguing with the idea that turning prudence on its head actually IS prudence. Signing bonuses aren't pennies. And the reason not to overpay to ensure players sign with you is that a)then the demands will get out of control, like Andrew Miller's demands for an MLB appearance in 2006 to get his service-time clock started and b)not all of them will play MLB ball in their lifetime.
The only reason that teams have to pay out-of-slot bonus demands is that if they don't, another team will. And that's not a good enough reason, particularly when the draft is set up to give bad teams a shot to improve.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(responding) Whether the arbitration comes at 3 years or 5 years, you’ve got to view an additional signing bonus (though I know it’s paid it out immediately) as being amortized over those years of relative serfdom for the good, young player. Yes, I know the salary increases through arbitration aren’t pennies (though, as you say, they aren’t like Soriano’s usually, either). But, if paying out a little more early gets you the good player, then you see what happens. If you don’t get the good player to start with, nothing will happen. Furthermore, I agree about the Andrew Miller situation, but that is, in part, an issue with agents as well. The classic example of this provision is the Todd Van Poppel fiasco. That clause, basically, ruined his career by forcing him to the majors before he knew how to pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Most owners operate teams solely to make money. Now, I understand that it's important to make money on your investment. That's fine. But, most owners refuse to understand that the best way to make money, in the LONG TERM, is to put a winning team on the field. Period. I remember when the Yankees were lucky to draw 2 million in a year. This year they'll draw 4 million. That's not because Yankee Stadium is in the best part of town, either. Steinbrenner's first goal has always been to win, which I've always appreciated. I do feel sorry for the Twins that Carl Pohlad spent probably 5 years convincing Selig to contract the team just so he could get a good deal on the team and be finished.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's right that winning has a huge impact on attendance, but it's been awhile since the main revenue stream for baseball teams was simply ticket sales. What allows the Yankees to be so profitable isn't winning. It's being one of two teams in a market that's been proven (when the Yanks, Dodgers and Giants were around) to be able to support at least three teams and can probably support four. The Yankees wont be making money because of Jeter's on-base percentage. It will be because of a deal on their new stadium that charges them ten dollars rent a year and their stake in the YES Network that's actually worth more than the entire team.
And all these things are fine, to be honest. It would be nice to be in their position. But hearing Yankees fans pretend they haven't lucked into a unique situation, that their success is the result of intelligence, gumption and pinstripe-y goodness is what bothers people. Like Lyndon Johnson said about RFK, "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Most owners cry poverty rather than being creative. So the Yankees start the YES network-nothing more than a regional sports network. Is this business model impossible to replicate in other markets? I would seriously doubt it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pohlad made his billions foreclosing on farms during the Depression. If completely overcoming any sense of human decency in order to make money isn't "creative" then nothing is. The Twins actually tried to start their own RSN, but it didn't work. They couldn't get enough money from local cable providers to make it profitable, so unless we've redefined "creative" as either "willing to operate at a loss in order to tell yourselves you've done everything the Yankees have done" or "keeping games on Victory Sports in order to hold fans hostage" then there was never a problem of creativity. It's not impossible to replicate in other markets. It's just really, really difficult to replicate profitably. And it having as much success with it as the Yankees enjoy probably is impossible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The Twins will be opening a new stadium in 2010. Not that I've researched it, but I'm assuming this stadium will be built largely on the generosity of the taxpayers. So, unencumbered by stadium costs, will the Twins make an investment in player salaries to put a good team on the field in 2010 to drive up attendance, merchandising, etc. and really take advantage of their new environment? Or will they continue to look to save $2M by trading all-star caliber players? At some point, I don't care if you're in MN or NY, you have to make an investment and spend money to ensure longer-term success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's been the promise from the team so far, though obviously I'll believe it when I see it. It's worth noting that merchandising money is actually put into a pool and shared, though. A big part of the current problem is that the Twins don't control any of the luxury suites in the Metrodome, since the park was constructed for the Vikings and the Twins have been 3rd class tenants behind the Gophers and the Vikings for about two decades now. Jerry Bell says we'll see a larger payroll when the revenue can support it, and in the sense that charity believeth all things, I'm willing to accept the promise. Either way, it's silly to keep talking about the Twins since they actually are competitive.
On that note, I'm completely tired of the "they traded an All-Star 2B to save 2mm" meme from Twins' fans, so I'm definitely not interested in hearing it from Yankees fans. Castillo was a goner after the season anyhow. They've upgraded defensively and on the basepaths, and given the guy who was anointed as their 2008 second baseman a head start on learning on the job. It wasn't a salary dump, it was a lateral move in the present and a forward move for the future. Casilla will probably outplay Castillo over the stretch this year, and if he doesn't, Castillo isn't a valuable enough player to make the difference more than 1-2 wins.
----------------------------------------------------------
(responding) First, the Yankees are footing the bill for 90% of their new stadium. The only part the taxpayers are paying for, to my knowledge, are the public trans/parking improvements that are necessary. Secondly, as a fan since birth, and hearing more than my share about the good old days for the Yanks, I can basically say that when the Yankees made good baseball decisions, they’ve won. When they haven’t then they haven’t won. When CBS owned the team in the late 60s and into the 70s they were awful. No investment in anything. In the 70s, Gabe Paul built that team brilliantly. After the early 80s when Paul was gone and Steinbrenner stopped developing talent and attempted to make up for it with free agents, the team suffered. Finally, Steinbrenner was banished in the early 90s and Gene Michael built-up the farm system again, the Yankees took off. Again, no one will ever convince me the Yankees would’ve won championships without Jeter, Williams, Pettitte, Rivera, and Posada. On top of that, we TRADED for Tino Martinez and Paul O’Neill. Teams actually gave these players to us. Again, are these players the result of us having more money or good baseball decisions? I understand that keeping them all together takes money. But assembling them? That is intelligence and gumption.
Going further on the finances…Correct, the Yankees’ share of YES is worth roughly $4B and the team itself is worth $1.5B. But, how is it possible that the $1.5B is in no way connected to attendance. A revenue stream driven by attendance will have a significant impact on the teams’ overall valuation (as will their owning 90% of their new stadium). If this isn’t the case, why would teams build new stadiums to attract more people? Why would the Twins take the chance of building a new stadium if people aren’t going to come out in higher numbers?
I agree that simply throwing money at problems isn’t praiseworthy. Using money to back-up smart baseball decisions is, however. That epitomizes the Yankees of the late 90s and, hopefully, the Phil Hughes Yankees to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the fact the Yankees are richer than everyone else isn't new. It's been that way for 100 years. The Yankees still haven't won every year. So, other teams must have some way of competing with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the way to compete with the Yankees is to be smarter and more resourceful. These things are actual virtues that teams like Oakland and Cleveland and Minnesota possess. And I'm fine simply watching my team compete with the Yankees on the field with these conditions. I actually don't have any real problem with the Yankees themselves so long as they're unapologetic about what they do. The irritation comes with Yankees fans insisting on turning common sense on its head and insisting that outspending the field and throwing more piles of cash at any problem is something virtuous and praiseworthy. It isn't. It just makes it more impressive when smarter, better teams beat New York and Boston at their own rigged game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment