The Curse of Jeters Contract - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

The Curse of Jeters Contract

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:14 pm

dyuen87 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
DK wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:DK.......I can't say that I agree with Les and I won't say that you should, either. I just ask that you not make anything that resembles a personal attack.


Understood. I would have edited it had you not done so already.

I think that's the first time a moderator's had to edit my posts... I don't know if that says anything or not, just something I noticed.


No biggie. It wasn't terrible but it served no purpose there.


is there really any purpose to this thread? :-b just sounds like a yankee bashing thread to me.


Maybe not but it would be nice to have a civil discussion here for a change. :-°
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby dyuen87 » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:21 pm

i guess. so civil conversation it is. ;-D

jeter's contract shouldnt really surprise anyone in new york. almost every new york team overpays to have a "team leader." piazza for the mets, houston for the knicks, pennington for the jets, and jeter for the yankees. curse of the contract? maybe.
Image
dyuen87
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 2514
Joined: 26 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby DK » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:34 pm

lesgrant wrote:First of all DK, what EXACT studies are you referring to? I know of no such study that was conducted to find out why fans go to games. As we all know, you like to hold up numbers that support your prejudices without questioning how they were obtained. Please supply the link, given that there are numerous examples which contradict your homegrown, half-baked oversimplification of consumer behavior.


http://studentwebs.coloradocollege.edu/~t_muhlfelder/WORD%20files/mlb%20star%20players2.htm

last paragraph:
The evaluation shows that star players have little affect on attendance in baseball. Other factors like winning, payroll, payroll variance, and new stadiums increase overall attendance. A team is better off with three mid-priced free agent signings than one high priced super star. Other findings show that winning will put people in the seats. If a team makes the playoffs consistently it can expect higher attendance figures. Lastly people want to see a game from a new facility played on natural grass. By using regression this study proved star players are not necessary to increase attendance.


I could highlight the entire paragraph but what's the point? That sentence alone proves the point. Read the rest if you don't believe my "prejudice", "home-grown", "half-baked oversimplification of human behavior."

It's not even MY theory. Jeez, can you find a better definition for speaking loudly and carrying a small stick than this guy?

Secondly, you bring up Texas when any moron knows that Dallas is about football, not baseball. Always has been, always will be. Babe Ruth couldn’t draw baseball fans there on a consistent basis.


In the years that Texas won the division, they drew an average of 2.86 million fans. In the A-Rod ages, when they won 71, 73, and 72 games, they drew an average of 2.42 million fans. In the last two years, where they have won 89 and 79 games, their attendance has gone back up to 2.52 million fans per year.

It's not rocket science. Just... look at the proof. It's not that hard. I have faith in you.

lesgrant wrote:Thirdly, George Steinbrenner is not the richest man in baseball by far. He’s not the second, nor the third, nor the fourth. In fact, Fred Wilpon’s personal fortune is greater than that of Steinbrenner. So come back to reality. Unlike other owners in the league, baseball isn’t a side business for Steinbrenner, it’s the only business he’s in. And it burns you up that he breaks the bank to make your team look like the second-rate operation it is.


I should have specified. George Steinbrenner has more cash available to put into baseball than most third-world countries. That better, dear?

lesgrant wrote:But by your metrics the JV team wins! But wins what? The title of most efficiently run baseball franchise in NYC? The only losers who obsess about this are people who have an ax to grind against the Yankees. You and I both know the Mets can’t compare to the Yankees on any level. To assert such is pure desperation.


Are you freaking serious?

YOU MENTIONED THE METS FIRST. I was giving the counter-point to your argument.

On any level? How about the pitching staff? We have an ace to anchor our staff. You have a 42-year-old piece of cartilage. How about efficiency? The Mets win more relative to their team payroll this year (which I just proved.)

In fact, I've said nothing derogatory about the Yankees at all. I've just shown the facts. YOU'RE the one shooting your mouth off about the "JV team" and "Who got 4 million fans? The Mets? Didn't think so."

Who's really hating here?

And again with the desperation stuff... I swear you use that word in every argument. It gets old after a while. Nobody pays attention.

lesgrant wrote:And I’m sure you missed my foot in your a**, which is what you’ll be getting from me all winter in response to your silly little Yankee-hating rationalizations.

It’s no surprise to find you shooting your mouth off on a thread which slights Jeter. Why do you even bother to sugar-coat your hatred with meaningless “nothing against Jeet” statements?

I love how you call him Jeet, like the two of you are long lost buds. Can you get any faker?


Again, are you freaking kidding me? You're going to jump on my back for calling him by one of his nicknames? THAT is desperation at it's finest.

Did I bash Jeter at all? In my post, did I mention anything about Jeter's futility as a player? Jeter had the highest on-base of any SS in the league this year, and was second in WS to only Eckstein. He's better in real life than he is in fantasy, but even you must admit that he's not worth $19 million when you can have Young for 2.6 million, Eckstein for 2.3 million, Reyes for 325K, or Peralta for 316K.

(EDITED BEFORE I WRITE IT)
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby thomasps3 » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:38 pm

Can anybody say "Locked Thread"?

:-? :-?
Image
thomasps3
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 1672
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 2 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Giving BIG UPS to Teddy BallGame for the AWESOME SIG

Postby HOOTIE » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:57 pm

dyuen87 wrote:is there really any purpose to this thread? :-b just sounds like a yankee bashing thread to me.


Probably no purpose, other then a fun fact. I stated in my post, that it was all in fun. I didn't bash NYY or Jeter at all. I merely stated that since they signed Jeter to the 10 year deal, 5 years in no rings. Jeter's post season numbers are down since then, Rivera blew 2 critical games. Just a coincidence, sure. Nothing more to it then the so called Boston curse of trading Ruth.

Lesgrant, winning draws for sure. But stars do add to attendance in spurts. SF attandance increased once Bonds came back. Attendance usually increases when big sp like RJ and Pedro start. Teams typically get a spike in sales when they land a big free agent or two.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
HOOTIE
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe Ranker
Posts: 15115
(Past Year: 297)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.

Postby lesgrant » Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:07 pm

DK,

This is why I have no respect for you whatsoever. You try to pass off a thesis as proof. You have only supplied an ABSTRACT. Where’s the actual paper itself so that its methods can be challenged? And it doesn’t really address the issue anyway. Why are we looking at a formula which factors in ticket price when the draw is calculated by paid attendance? What does playing surface have to do with anything? It asserts that turf teams draw less, implying (because of its very inclusion)that it’s in part due to turf and not the broader market issues like with Montreal, to name a turf stadium.

This reminds me of your range-factor assertions about Jeter. When the curtain is pulled, you had nothing but smoke and mirrors. You’re clearly the type of guy who reads the Cliff Notes instead of the actual book and then tries to act like the authority on something he’s never read. Not to be picky, but who is the author of this supposed masterpiece? I must have missed it because it wasn’t at the top of the page next to the title. I hope it has an author other than your a**.

As far as Texas goes, your pattern isn’t proof of anything because it assumes all other variables are constant. For example, other sports / entertainment options, like the Mavericks and the Cowboys. How do those two teams’ draw affect the Rangers? What about the overall economy in Dallas over those years? Last time I checked, disposable income is a factor in making an entertainment purchase – especially for families.

I hope you’re not foolish enough to assert that there are no financial benefits to having marquis players on a team. If so, then why is it that the Yankees usually lead the league in road attendance? (and don’t say ‘because they are a winning team’ when winning could be attributed to marquis talent) Why is it that the length of the Yankee season, over the past three years, keeps getting shorter and shorter, with them winning fewer regular season games each year, while their total attendance increased each year? Where’s the new stadium? How does your source address that issue? Who was that source again?

And Texas is a lame example to begin with. They had one guy. The Yankees have that guy plus a slew of others who were marquis players on their former teams. That collective is more valuable financially than say, the LA Dodgers or Angels or Mets. It generates much more overall revenue than the winning group of nobodies. This includes all level of merchandise, ticket sales, TV licensing, both foreign and domestic, etc. Kaz doesn’t deliver Japan like Hideki. And I guess Pedro has had no impact on Mets’ ticket sales or TV ratings. Right? He sure did in Boston.

The bottom line is that Steinbrenner’s way of business works for him, works for me and a bunch of other Yankee fans, but it sucks for you. Too bad. Until it no longer makes financial sense for the Yankees to spend money on marquis talent, then it’s good for the Yankees, bad for you. It’s just that simple.

BTW: None of the players you mentioned would EVER sign with the Yankees for the same price they signed with their respective teams – including Reyes. If you don’t get that one, you don’t understand much about the business of baseball. How could they have had Michael Young? Why would the pursue him? In terms of middle infielders, the Yankees have a farm system which has produced both Jeter and Cano. Why would they need a Young? The Yankees could have had your boy Beltran, but they let the Mets have those stale goods.

As for your assertion that “nobody pays attention” – you, obviously, do. And you do so every time I use the word desperate. I use it to apply to all of your ilk. (And what’s with the ‘dear’? – sarcastic terms of endearment are pretty weak, especially given that it’s no secret on this board that we don’t like one another. Be a man.)

But that type of pussy-footing around is par for the course with you. You try and hedge your Yankee-hatred with one meaningless affirmation, then you’ll spend the other 95% of your words bashing him. If we were to go through every Jeter/Yankee post you’ve made here, paragraph by paragraph, I guarantee that the paragraphs with negative subject matter far outnumber the positive paragraphs. But yet you want to, on numerous occasions, say how objective you are. Honest Iago - it’s farcical.

And then we get to:

(EDITED BEFORE I WRITE IT)

For once I’m backing you. You should seriously consider doing that a LOT more often. Trust me on this one.
Image
lesgrant
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 705
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby DK » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:22 pm

les, seriously, how do you say so much without saying anything at all? You've written about eight paragraphs without a single word of it being significant.

lesgrant wrote:DK,

This is why I have no respect for you whatsoever. You try to pass off a thesis as proof. You have only supplied an ABSTRACT. Where’s the actual paper itself so that its methods can be challenged? And it doesn’t really address the issue anyway. Why are we looking at a formula which factors in ticket price when the draw is calculated by paid attendance? What does playing surface have to do with anything? It asserts that turf teams draw less, implying (because of its very inclusion)that it’s in part due to turf and not the broader market issues like with Montreal, to name a turf stadium.


The paper was written by D.H. Rivers. I don't have it online, but if you look quickly it's pretty simple to tell that winning teams draw more fans than losing teams. Winning games is more important than having marquee players on losing teams. One of the most important factors to attendance is also the previous year's attendance; it sounds strange but it's true. A team that has a sudden increase or decrease in wins doesn't feel the ticket office effect until the year afterwards, in most cases (Re: Cleveland this year).

Examples:
A-Rod from 2001-2003 - on a losing team, attendance dropped in his era in Texas

Mantle - In the three years that the Yankees had a losing record in Mantle's illustrious career, they finished 2nd, 5th, and 5th in attendance. They were first every other year except 1960, 63, and 68, where they finished 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd.

Mattingly - In the years the Yankees had a losing record with Mattingly on the team their attendance ranked 8th, 9th, 11th, and 11th. When the Yanks had a winning record with Mattingly they were 5th once, 6th twice, 7th once, and all other times in the top 4.

Bonds - With marquee player Barry Bonds on the Pirates from 1986-92, the years they had a losing record they were 12th, 12th, and 11th on the attendance list. The years they had a winning record they were 8th, 6th, 8th, and 7th.

Gwynn - from 1983-2001, in the years with a losing record the Padres averaged 10.5th place in attendance. With a winning record they averaged 7th place in attendance.

From this quick sweep of players/teams, one can assert that having marquee players (Mantle, Mattingly, Gwynn, A-Rod, Bonds) has little correlation to attendance, or at least not nearly as much as winning percentage.

lesgrant wrote:This reminds me of your range-factor assertions about Jeter. When the curtain is pulled, you had nothing but smoke and mirrors. You’re clearly the type of guy who reads the Cliff Notes instead of the actual book and then tries to act like the authority on something he’s never read. Not to be picky, but who is the author of this supposed masterpiece? I must have missed it because it wasn’t at the top of the page next to the title. I hope it has an author other than your a**.


D.H. Rivers. First scholarly journal.

Seriously, what have you added to this discussion yourself? At all? Other than calling the Mets a JV team, I really don't see much originality.

Oh, and thank you for telling me what kind of guy I am. I didn't know beforehand. Now that I've been informed, I'll stop reading the four books I'm in the middle of right now and simply look up notes for them.

lesgrant wrote:As far as Texas goes, your pattern isn’t proof of anything because it assumes all other variables are constant. For example, other sports / entertainment options, like the Mavericks and the Cowboys. How do those two teams’ draw affect the Rangers? What about the overall economy in Dallas over those years? Last time I checked, disposable income is a factor in making an entertainment purchase – especially for families.


You know, lesgrant, I've done all the research so far. Why don't you stop typing essay-length papers and look this up yourself? After all, you have nothing to add to the discussion if you bring nothing but words to the table. They have to be backed with substance, which I haven't seen any of from you. You are, from what I can tell (see, I'm not telling you directly what you are, because I've never met you! I'm not arrogant enough to believe I know a person simply from online discussions.), a "fluff" writer.

lesgrant wrote:I hope you’re not foolish enough to assert that there are no financial benefits to having marquis players on a team. If so, then why is it that the Yankees usually lead the league in road attendance? (and don’t say ‘because they are a winning team’ when winning could be attributed to marquis talent) Why is it that the length of the Yankee season, over the past three years, keeps getting shorter and shorter, with them winning fewer regular season games each year, while their total attendance increased each year? Where’s the new stadium? How does your source address that issue? Who was that source again?


A) The Yankees lead the league in road attendance (I'm taking your word for this one) because they're the most popular team in the world. By far. No contest. Nothing sells like the Yankees in this day and age.

B) Attendance across the board in baseball has been going up year by year. That's kind of like saying that the Expos in 2003 were more popular than the Yankees in the 40s because they draw more fans.

lesgrant wrote:And Texas is a lame example to begin with. They had one guy. The Yankees have that guy plus a slew of others who were marquis players on their former teams. That collective is more valuable financially than say, the LA Dodgers or Angels or Mets. It generates much more overall revenue than the winning group of nobodies. This includes all level of merchandise, ticket sales, TV licensing, both foreign and domestic, etc. Kaz doesn’t deliver Japan like Hideki. And I guess Pedro has had no impact on Mets’ ticket sales or TV ratings. Right? He sure did in Boston.


Well, Pedro has an impact on the Mets actually winning games. All the other stuff he does is gravy. They create revenue because of the Yankee power, I think I've been over this. The Yanks have a ridiculous amount of power over the other ballclubs, and not just because of their marquee players. You're talking about merchandise now, by the way... All I'm talking about is ticket sales.

lesgrant wrote:The bottom line is that Steinbrenner’s way of business works for him, works for me and a bunch of other Yankee fans, but it sucks for you. Too bad. Until it no longer makes financial sense for the Yankees to spend money on marquis talent, then it’s good for the Yankees, bad for you. It’s just that simple.


Yeah, it works. Nobody's not saying that. But it could work much better with a few changes in business decisions. It's obvious that the Yankees simply aren't going to stop spending money. The difference is with what efficiency will they spend that money? The Yankees should be focused on winning baseball games AND turning the largest profit that they can (Econ 101).

lesgrant wrote:BTW: None of the players you mentioned would EVER sign with the Yankees for the same price they signed with their respective teams – including Reyes. If you don’t get that one, you don’t understand much about the business of baseball. How could they have had Michael Young? Why would the pursue him? In terms of middle infielders, the Yankees have a farm system which has produced both Jeter and Cano. Why would they need a Young? The Yankees could have had your boy Beltran, but they let the Mets have those stale goods.


Oh man, all these under-handed swipes at the Mets? What is with you? Did Anna Benson turn you down or something? I haven't had any swipes at the Yankees- I haven't bashed them at all. You're going crazy with this stuff!

I'm not saying that they would have them at that price, but signing Jeter for $19 million a year is not going to benefit them as much as if they had signed him for something closer to his market value. Without Jeter and his contract, they could have gone after David Eckstein this year, who signed for 2.3 million. That's a lot of economic flexibility.

lesgrant wrote:As for your assertion that “nobody pays attention” – you, obviously, do. And you do so every time I use the word desperate. I use it to apply to all of your ilk. (And what’s with the ‘dear’? – sarcastic terms of endearment are pretty weak, especially given that it’s no secret on this board that we don’t like one another. Be a man.)


It's not that I want to. It's that you say it in nearly every discussion we have. So after a while it just becomes old.

You don't like me? You've never even MET me! Your entire basis of knowledge about me is baseball discussions. It's kind of crazy to assume that we wouldn't get along in a social setting. Although, if you want to think of life on a fantasy baseball forum, be my guest.

lesgrant wrote:But that type of pussy-footing around is par for the course with you. You try and hedge your Yankee-hatred with one meaningless affirmation, then you’ll spend the other 95% of your words bashing him. If we were to go through every Jeter/Yankee post you’ve made here, paragraph by paragraph, I guarantee that the paragraphs with negative subject matter far outnumber the positive paragraphs. But yet you want to, on numerous occasions, say how objective you are. Honest Iago - it’s farcical.


Show me one paragraph in this thread where I've bashed the Yankees senselessly. Show me one paragraph in this thread where I've said bad things about Derek Jeter the player.

Seriously, where are you getting this from? All the bashing in this thread is you on the Mets! This conversation had nothing to do with the Mets until you brought them into it just to bash them!

lesgrant wrote:And then we get to:

(EDITED BEFORE I WRITE IT)

For once I’m backing you. You should seriously consider doing that a LOT more often. Trust me on this one.


You're one to talk. You write more fluff than anyone I've ever met in my entire life. Your post has no substance... All you're saying to me is your own opinion about these matters. Give me some hard facts.

It's like the Bonds discussion. I asked you for hard facts, and you never gave them to me. I suppose I should expect that by now...

Add something to the thread that actually matters before you post 10-paragraph essays that could be summed up in ten words: "I am right, you are wrong, that's what I think."
Image
DK
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle Eye
Posts: 9533
Joined: 22 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: on deck

Postby Lofunzo » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:16 pm

I don't want to get into everything here because I don't have that much time but I wanted to respond to this part:

DK wrote:I'm not saying that they would have them at that price, but signing Jeter for $19 million a year is not going to benefit them as much as if they had signed him for something closer to his market value. Without Jeter and his contract, they could have gone after David Eckstein this year, who signed for 2.3 million. That's a lot of economic flexibility.


I'm going to argue that, at the time, it was market value. You had A-Rod setting the market a few months earlier in a time of economic foolishness in baseball. No player was worth that much but he got it when Hicks basically bid against himself for A-Rod. He was the best player in the game but along came Jeter's negotiations. On 1 hand, we had a super-talented player who had never won a thing. On the other hand, we had the lesser-talented Jeter who was still great but not as great. That said, he was the unofficial captain of the team and had led them to 4 championships in 5 years. I will never say that any player is worth that much money but, if anyone was, it was Jeter at the time. He got lucky with the timing of A-Rod's contract as well as signing before the economics of the game changed. We can't forget that.
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby George_Foreman » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:44 pm

dyuen87 wrote:i guess. so civil conversation it is. ;-D

jeter's contract shouldnt really surprise anyone in new york. almost every new york team overpays to have a "team leader." piazza for the mets, houston for the knicks, pennington for the jets, and jeter for the yankees. curse of the contract? maybe.

have any of those teams won any championships after over-paying for their leader? i'm not as familiar with the NBA as i am with MLB, but i know the mets and yanks havn't.

maybe it's just a NY thing. :-b

<3
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"

"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
George_Foreman
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 4351
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi

Postby eftda » Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:59 am

lesgrant wrote:Secondly, you bring up Texas when any moron knows that Dallas is about football, not baseball. Always has been, always will be. Babe Ruth couldn’t draw baseball fans there on a consistent basis.


When did Ruth play for Texas? :-?


Im surprised you used the word moron becuase the Cowboys made Dallas into a football city, but Texas is a state and Dallas is a city.
:-°

lesgrant wrote:I hope you’re not foolish enough to assert that there are no financial benefits to having marquis players on a team. If so, then why is it that the Yankees usually lead the league in road attendance? (and don’t say ‘because they are a winning team’ when winning could be attributed to marquis talent) Why is it that the length of the Yankee season, over the past three years, keeps getting shorter and shorter, with them winning fewer regular season games each year, while their total attendance increased each year? Where’s the new stadium? How does your source address that issue? Who was that source again?


The Yankees are a brand name. You go to the store and see a nike shoe for 20 bucks and the same Rebok shoe for 20 bucks. Which one will you get? Nike, but becuase of the brand name. Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, etc... they all made that name bigger than life in New York and other cities want to see why. If you move to another state and you have a child, which team will you take them to? Home team vs. the White Sox or Home team vs. the Yankees. Doesn't matter if the Yankees are 0-161, you still go see them becuase there is history behind that name.
eftda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 9790
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact