brandnew wrote:The only thing I really dislike about the Yankees and other huge market teams is that they have an unfair advantage in international signings. The draft is in place to try to even the disparity between teams, yet teams like the Yankees still can stock up their farm with elite minor league talent by throwing money at the best international prospects. It just ruins the whole purpose of the draft/FA system.
Even that's not true. The draft doesn't help small market teams at all. The small market teams have to skip the best players and instead take players they can sign. Then the teams that can spend money like that take them later in the draft.
The Yankees roster is rediculous. Us small market fans hope to compete every 3 or 4 years. The Yankees can buy 90 wins EVERY year. Football is a shining example of how a salary cap makes the sport better and keeps players with teams longer.
brandnew wrote:The only thing I really dislike about the Yankees and other huge market teams is that they have an unfair advantage in international signings. The draft is in place to try to even the disparity between teams, yet teams like the Yankees still can stock up their farm with elite minor league talent by throwing money at the best international prospects. It just ruins the whole purpose of the draft/FA system.
Even that's not true. The draft doesn't help small market teams at all. The small market teams have to skip the best players and instead take players they can sign. Then the teams that can spend money like that take them later in the draft.
The Yankees roster is rediculous. Us small market fans hope to compete every 3 or 4 years. The Yankees can buy 90 wins EVERY year. Football is a shining example of how a salary cap makes the sport better and keeps players with teams longer.
Salary cap would be fine with me but there isn't one.
houstonoilers wrote:the market is a little different in Toronto than in New York
Your argument doesn't hold much ground. So its Steins fault that his team has lots of fans.
Lets look at the biggest cities in America and Canada
New York: City Pop: 8.1 million LA: City Pop: 3.8 Million Chicago: 2.8 Million Toronto: 2.5 million Houston: 2.0 Million
BTW: Boston 600,000
Now considering New York has 2 baseball teams fielding you could break that down to 4.0 million yanks fans/ 4.0 million Mets fans.
Still a big Market but lets not pretend that Toronto is a small city. Its freaking huge
Back to my original post: Why even bring it up?? He's playing within the rules. Thats nice that the twins bake their players cookies so they feel at home. This is a billion dollar buisness here no the boyscouts.
Don't try to belittle the yankees accomplishments because your billion dollar owner likes spending money on other things. Wow the blue jays have half the payroll of the yankees..Good they aren't gonna make the playoffs and its the fans who suffer
market isnt just SIZE....do you think Baseball is the main sport in Toronto?
My opinion, not that it matters, is there should be a cap.
Zito is God wrote:I understand that, but there is nothing wrong with that. I didn't mean that I didn't understand your arguement about fan expectations and a big market in New York, I meant I didn't understand why that is a negetive thing. George did not choose Ney York to become a city like it is and the fans to become as demanding as they are, but it happened. Your arguement then needs to extend to Seattle, LA (both the teams), San Francisco, etc. when the cities are just as large, and the prices are just as high (San Francisco I believe actually surpased New Yokr in a recent Forbes Magazine article) in price to live at.
But all of that has nothing to do with anything, those things are NOT NEGETIVE THINGS. Owners of those teams do not spend enough money like George does. You said that george makes all that money off of corporate companies buying box seats, well, most of that money (don't know exact figuire obviously, but I'm sure the % is higher then other teams) goes back into the team to make them better.
What in the world is wrong with making money from a rich market to spend on your own team (and not on yourself like other owners) to make the team better and win, make the fans happy because the New York market demands it and not show greed by keeping all the money to yourself like other owners with minimal passion? Thats the part of your arguement I don't understand.
The part that you're missing is when Yankees fans don't expect fans of other teams not to despise them for it. If you grow up with no money, work 3 jobs over the summer, and save up to buy a used Chevy and then a classmate pulls into the lot with his new Porsche that his father bought him because his father is a surgeon and then rambles on how beastly the weather was in the French Riviera this past summer, you're going to be pissed. Sure, at a dispassionate level, that's the breaks. He got the father who is a surgeon and your dad does construction. But you're still going to be pissed. And then if he continually complains on how people just don't understand that his father really TRIES to make him happy and he COULD save more money and not buy him his Porsche... well, that's the point when you smack him in the mouth.
THAT'S the part that you're not getting.
The Yankees franchise is in very good circumstances. Now shut up about it and don't pretend that it's the result of other factors.
You're example is correct, the situation isn't however. In the baseball situation, you have george and other owners who sport the same amount of money and george spends in onm baseball while other owners spend it on themselves. In your scenario, you are the poor one and your friend is the rich one, if you wanna make it accurate it should be that both your dads are rich but his buys him cars and your keeps all the money without spending it on you. That would be accurately portraying the situation, but then you have to be pissed at your own dad and not thekid that gets everything.
Don't be pissed at george, be pissed at your team's owner who doesn't wanna put in the money that he has (In some cases more then george) while George does. So no, your example is quite inaccurate.
Sean Tracey has my apologies, we all know Ozzie Guillen is an idiot. I'm rooting for you!
Zito is God wrote:You're example is correct, the situation isn't however. In the baseball situation, you have george and other owners who sport the same amount of money and george spends in onm baseball while other owners spend it on themselves. In your scenario, you are the poor one and your friend is the rich one, if you wanna make it accurate it should be that both your dads are rich but his buys him cars and your keeps all the money without spending it on you. That would be accurately portraying the situation, but then you have to be pissed at your own dad and not thekid that gets everything.
Don't be pissed at george, be pissed at your team's owner who doesn't wanna put in the money that he has (In some cases more then george) while George does. So no, your example is quite inaccurate.
No. George spends money and still makes money at it. Because it's profitable for him to do so. That's why I said earlier let's move to the Yankees to Omaha and then find out how much, "passion" he has. But in any case, there's two essential truths here:
(1) George makes more money at baseball than anyone else. (The Yankees have the highest value and value is a future discounted profit stream. This may be in the form of YES as opposed to gate revenue, but it's still true).
(2) Other teams cannot spend nearly at the Yankees level and be profitable, or even break-even.
Not sure why you guys just don't accept it, accept that other fans won't like the Yankees, and not raise the issue.
Matthias wrote:(2) Other teams cannot spend nearly at the Yankees level and be profitable, or even break-even.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Yankees lost money last year. I remember a big thread about it after last season. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Bingo, Matthias. Just because the owner of the Twins or Royals has more personal wealth than Steinbrenner, doesn't mean he can spend it. You can only spend on your baseball team what your baseball team (and its cable network, etc) brings in. You can't expect a franchise to operate beyond break-even point, however independently rich the owner is. This isn't soccer.
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.
Matthias wrote:(2) Other teams cannot spend nearly at the Yankees level and be profitable, or even break-even.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Yankees lost money last year. I remember a big thread about it after last season. I'll see if I can dig it up.
Creative accountancy. The Yankee baseball operation lost money. That doesn't count the franchise's stake in YES, which made a ton of money. Steinbrenner overall raked it in.
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by IllinoisBandit » Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:56 pm 
