It has to all stop at one point ...
Gotchya in here didn't I ...
OK everybody running their mouths about the yankees commiting over half a billion dollars this offseason, as nicely as i can say Shutup !! ESPN among other analysts and sports institutions have said it all along, all the other teams out there are haters and I love it. You all sit there and say "money, money all the money the yankees are spending, its not fair, bah bah bah..cry cry cry...". Well. first off the yankees are sepnding this money on proven players well not AJ so much but we will see, not one hit wonders like pavano or an older guy like kevin brown. Second, they have commited this money yes but it has all only added up to 63 million a year, which as some people may know 85 million came off the books so yes we have signed all these players but we are still cutting payroll from last year. Third, the yankees make the money to spend it, its not just ticket prices, its licensing its advertisements, its the YES network, its the new stadium, its fan shop sales all over the world. But most of all they yankees owners are not taking what they make a year and stuffing it all in their pockets.
Other Teams cant say the same if your going to tell me that the red sox are only making 150million a year i will laugh, they are making a lot more and pocketing the money. The steinbrenner family may look greedy grabbing this free agent and that, but they are commited to putting the best possible product on the field and although it hasnt worked out that way on paper we have been picked to win a lot of the past 8 years. Now with the new stadium they have restaurants and bars and lounges, that will pull in more money.
Another huge thing that annoys me about red sox/celtics fans and all others who think this way: "The yankees buy their championships, its not fair" What in gods name did The celtics just do? Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett .. what do you call that ? Garnett will always be a timberwolve, and Ray Allen wil always be a milwaukee buck. These guys the yankees are singing are just getting into the prime of their careers. Also the lakers had Kobe and Shaq for the longest time did anyone says its not fair about them? Grow up people.
I am not sorry that I am a fan of a team that is commited to do whatever it takes to win, and they will put the money they make back into the club to give the fans what they want, what all fans should want To Win. Now although the yankees have gone out and opened those checkbooks this year is different, they will have a solid pithcing staff with no true question marks this year. Their 2nd and 3rd guys could be aces on other staffs.
Even the GMs, and owners are starting to cry .. WOW, well hows this the yankees payroll will be lower last year and with the luxury tax the yankees just paid they just bought someones big name player for them, so don't tell me they are runing the sport, like it or not they are the sport. So your team can't keep up, develop players like the rays did, it is possible obviously to not spend a fortune to put a solid team on the field so stop the whining. The Yankees will do it their way you do it yours.
And the yankees have done all of this and still continue to develop their own players in Austin Jackson, and Hughes, and Kennedy, and Melky. So yes they are a huge corporate basebal machine, developing young players and not trading them off like they used to and bringing in the "WIN NOW!" talent they always brought in.
In closing Merry Christmas to all Especially Yankee fans !
Safe Holidays to you All and your families !
0 recs |
27 comments
Comments
*sigh*
But they are ruining the sport you incompetent moron.
Baseball is about building your team, not buying it.
by Charged on Dec 24, 2008 1:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Baseball is about
doing everything you can to win. Within the rules.
Strong Yankees are good for baseball’s economics and good for Yankee fans.
If I's known I was going to live so long, I'd have taken better care of myself. Casey
by Cbeck3 on Dec 24, 2008 8:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But
Many sports have stricter salary caps than MLB does to try to keep things competitive. Baseball obviously has some differences, making it more possible for low-payroll teams to win sometimes, but I think some changes would help.
(Of course, I’m saying this as a Giants fan, not Yankees, and we have big contracts for Zito and Rowand. Not that they turned out very well so far. Anyway, we figured out that the free agents the yankees signed this offseason will make more money in 09 than several whole teams. That is getting a bit unfair, don’t you think? just my opinion)
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Dec 24, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it's not unfair
Other teams get higher draft picks than we do. Is that unfair? No. You need it to build your team because you don’t have as much revenue to turn around and spend. But you know what? Your payroll is aided by our big spending in the form of the revenue sharing baseball instituted, which has helped parity in baseball immensely. See this River Ave. Blues post:
http://riveraveblues.com/2008/12/does-baseball-need-a-salary-cap-6413/
"If you lived in my grandfather's house...and you wanted to eat, you had to be a Yankees fan." --Joe Biden
by SenorSwanky on Dec 24, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
i dont understand what people dont get about this statement the yankees are baseball and they are good for baseball … last time i checked our big spending hasnt led to a world series in 8 years so come on seriously unfair huh?
by I Bleed Pinstripes on Dec 24, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm... failing to understand a point that differs from yours
Fail to understand, or fail to agree? How can you not understand a differing opinion? It’s pretty easy. You say the Yankees are good for baseball. Someone else says they’re bad for baseball. Understood?
I, personally, think the Yankees’ spending is good for baseball, but in really bad taste. Requesting public revenues to build a $1.3 billion stadium, while spending $500M on free agents, in this economy, is bad PR for the Yankees. I think the City of NY should tell the Yankees to pay for their own stadium if they’ve got this kind of money… Why should taxpayers be stuck holding the bill for a team is clearly raking in revenues?
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As for the Yankees' payroll being lower in 2009 than in 2008
That’s really a non-point. The comparison is, and always will be, between the Yankees and OTHER TEAMS. Comparing the Yankees to the Yankees is pointless and useless.
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a few points:
First let me clarify: I am not necessarily saying the yankees are unfair or are cheating, but that the system is not completely fair (IMO).
As for your world series comment, the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot, the regular season is what really shows how good a team is. And just because they didn’t win the championship doesn’t make the system more fair. I’m not expecting us to agree, and I don’t want to get into some huge argument. Still, I think it’s clearly not a level playing field when the highest-payroll team spends 9 times as much as the lowest-payroll team. Again, let me emphasize that I’m not saying this is a problem with the yankees, they are just taking advantage of the system, which isn’t wrong.
Less arm, more talk. Raisingcain is a GAMER.
Adopted Giant: Henry Sosa
by raisingcain on Dec 24, 2008 4:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What would you think about a performance floor? A team must show x improvement in y number of years or lose their revenue sharing benefits? For a big market team like the Mets or Phillies, they could face additional taxes for years of suckatude.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
by jscape2000 on Dec 24, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm... Your Proof is Very Convincing
Basically, you’ve stated your opinion. Here’s my opinion: baseball will be totally fine whether or not the Yankees are good; in fact, it might be good for baseball for the Yankees to be bad for a while because (1) the Yankees won’t stop spending money even if they’re losing and (2) fans in other American League cities might get to watch a playoff-competitive team for once.
Strong Yankees are good for Yankee fans? That is true.
Good for baseball’s economics? Maybe, maybe not (tough to say, and you haven’t really proven that it is good).
Good for baseball? Baseball will be fine whether the Yankees go 100-62 or 62-100… the Yankees being good matters not to the “good” of baseball.
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The better the Yankees are, the better they are for other teams
The rivalries mean something, and it draws more fans to the away stadiums and TV broadcasts if their home teams are playing a fearsome Yankee team. Sure, some would rather see their home team beat up on a lesser Yankee team, but if their home team is playing its best ball against a mighty Goliath, it’s even better.
"If you lived in my grandfather's house...and you wanted to eat, you had to be a Yankees fan." --Joe Biden
by SenorSwanky on Dec 26, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Heard the same crys
Back in 2001 when the Yankees signed Giambi. Since them MLB revenues have grow quite substantially since them. Since them 6 other teams than the Yankees won the World Series. Former expansion teams like the Rays, Rockies, Dbacks, and Marlins made strong playoff runs and World Series appearances. The Twins and As have been regular play off teams.
A lot of the small market success is being funded by the 150 million the Yankees have thrown into the pot for Taxes and yet another pot for Revenue sharing. A team like the Rays for example had most of their pay roll expense paid for by Yankee cash.
Yet in all of this is last the Yankees will be reducing their tax hit for 2010. As much press has been made about their recent contracts they are still below their spending for 2008 and the tax thresh hold has been raised.
Stop crying wolf… seriously you are the one who is incompetent.
"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ
by Rankdog on Dec 24, 2008 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Unfortunately most owners use the baseball revenue
and the luxury tax revenue to pay off the debts of their other poor business decisions. The Yankee ownership spends the money on the field. They also (this may be hard for some of you) generate the most interest in the sport. People who aren’t die hard fans usually only wonder what the Yanks are doing? who’s doing what on that team now? who is making a headline now?
Interest = $$
$$ = everyone winning
As much as you may hate the Yankees, you need them. Without them is like having a story without an antagonist (boring).
by ilBrutto on Dec 24, 2008 1:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
thats a fact,
Without the yankees would baseball even be america’s past time. If it wasn’t for the yankees the NFL would have passed baseball as the most popular sports years ago. For all you haters, just imagine baseball without the Yankees. The Hall of Fame would be more than half empty, in fact the town might not even exist anymore. All those latin countries, Japan, and many more would be playing Cricket instead. And all that imported talent you have on your teams probaly wouldn’t be there. You may not like it but the Yankees are Baseball and that is a fact of life. Lets Go Yanks!!
by miracle96 on Dec 24, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please...
Baseball would be fine if the Yankees didn’t spend $500M in one offseason. Don’t give me this ridiculous party-line garbage. How do you feel about paying $1000 to take your family to a game next year? Is that good for baseball?
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would baseball..
be any better if the Steinbrenners pocketed the 500Mil instead? They charge those prices because its what people will pay. There is more parity in football yet the average fans are being phased out there by luxury suites and corporate seating. Goodluck going to the Superbowl.
The owners combined make billions on baseball alone not to mentioned their private TV networks. You are a fool to buy the line that investing money in the product hurts the fans. They aren’t going to lower ticket prices, concession prices or write you out a check because they decided not to sign Mark Teixiera.
That line of thinking is line of media spoon fed bull****
"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ
by Rankdog on Dec 24, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My point...
… was that baseball is not made better by the Yankees spending. Baseball would be just fine if CC had landed in Milwaukee, AJ Burnett had landed in Boston, and Teixeira had landed in Anaheim.
Yankee fans like to pat their organization on the back for “doing what’s good for baseball.” I’m just saying, the Yankees aren’t doing as much “good” as they think they are… Be happy that your team spent $500M this offseason and that it will cost you a college education to get into a game. I’m not going to begrudge you your happiness. I’m just saying, the whole rest of the baseball world would be just fine if you hadn’t spent the money.
Your arguments are all over the board (I’m not trying to get into the Super Bowl), and don’t even answer my argument.
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Because Yankee money didn’t fuel the 03 Marlins running including the deadline pick ups. I am sure the Rays are lining up to turn down their cut of the revenue check that will likely help them sign the bat they need this year. Because the Yankees selling out their road games doesn’t help baseball. Because the Yankees replacing Giambi’s 22 million salary slot doesn’t draw millions of hits across the web and draw national interest. All this possible because of the way the Yankees do business. They have been out in front of every team for the last 30 years in drawing revenue and finding ways to market their brand. Investing in the product and stars drives their media frenzy market. It draw revenue was is siphoned off for the poorly managed and small market teams to have. The more the Yankees spend the more draft picks they give up. The more money they spend the more tax the give up.
The fact that you are debating me on the issue 3 months before catchers and pitchers report in the dead of winter tells me this helping MLB more than its hurting it.
"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ
by Rankdog on Dec 24, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No
We’d be debating this anyway, so that’s a wash (no better or worse for baseball).
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhh...
“And the yankees have done all of this and still continue to develop their own players in Austin Jackson, and Hughes, and Kennedy, and Melky.”
On this, I completely disagree. I don’t have a problem with the Yankees spending all the money they want in an offseason (it’s not my money). I’m not sure it’s good for baseball, but I don’t think it’s as bad as some people think.
But, on the issue of whether the Yankees still develop their own players, the answer is clear: THEY DON’T. The Yankees have already essentially abandoned two of their vaunted threesome of starting pitchers (Joba, Hughes, Kennedy) by signing CC Sabathia and Burnett. Hughes, once projected as an integral piece of the Yankees’ future rotation, has been relegated to 5th-SP/swingman status, and Kennedy is not even in the plans at all (the Yankees are still talking about bringing Pettitte back).
As for position players, the only two players in the last 4-5 years that the Yankees have “developed” are Melky (who they’ve given up on already… unless you think they’re going to bench Damon, Swisher, Nady or Matsui…) and Cano. So, basically, in the last five years, the Yankees have developed Joba Chamberlain (a former SP turned setup man) and Cano. THAT IS IT!!
Austin Jackson may be an up-and-coming talent, but based on their historical philosophy, I seriously doubt Brian Ca$hman will commit to a rookie CF when he’s got his current roster makeup. The fact is, the Yankees do draft and develop players in their farm system, but they do not commit to completing the development by actually inserting those players into their everyday roster/rotation/bullpen. Yankees’ fans will rarely get the enjoyment of seeing a homegrown product (like Posada, Jeter, and Rivera)… instead, your roster continues to be filled out by FA signings from other teams. Nothing wrong with that, you just need to stop pretending that your team still actually brings players up from its farm system.
As for Ca$hman being a “top GM,” I’m not sure how hard it is to be a good GM when you can spend almost $500M on three players in one offseason. Everyone in the world acknowledged that Teix and CC were the two top prizes this offseason, so it’s not like Ca$hman swooped in and scooped up some unknown talent. Ca$hman, to me, is totally average. He doesn’t make many boneheaded moves that totally screw his team (e.g., signing Jose Guillen to a $12M per year deal), but he also rarely makes any moves that are truly impressive. Signing CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, and Mark Teixeira to ridiculously large contracts when you are one (maybe) four or five franchises that can afford such a contract does not make you a “genius GM.” It just makes you a “GM with massive resources.”
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 3:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Umm
Coke, Joba, Wang, Soriano, Melky. Hughes and Kennedy aren’t abandoned. There is still a spot in the rotation. Joba is going to limited by innings. Its clear Kennedy needs more time in the minors to work on his stuff. He was drafted in 2007 for pete’s sake. Hughes has not been able to get his innings the last two years due to injury. Hughes could be in the running for the 5th spot or spend part of the year at AAA. WIth Marte aboard they could try Coke out as a starter and there is Averes.
"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ
by Rankdog on Dec 24, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
show me the contender for whom 5 starters was enough.
And if you accidentally wind up with 6 quality starters you trade one- like the Rays did with Edwin Jackson two weeks ago. They turned an arbitration eligible arm into a top prospect, cost controlled outfielder.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
by jscape2000 on Dec 24, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uhh...
… are we talking 5 All-Star quality starters, or just five starters? You live in a different universe if you think the Yankees need to line up CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, Wang, Pettitte, Joba, Hughes, Kennedy, and Averes to fill a rotation. Most teams live in the real world, where you have to piece together a rotation with what you’ve got and maybe one FA signing…
Yes, it never hurts to have more than 5 starters. That does not lead to the conclusion that it makes sense, or that it’s necessary, to sign two FA starters for $240M and go out and grab a third (Pettite) for more than $10M per year.
Again, Yankee fans need to spend some time in the shoes of fans of other teams…
by Uncle Charlie on Dec 24, 2008 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A bunch of errors
The Yankees’ abundance of pitchers in the farm system has only come about in the last 2-3 years. These guys are all still developing in the minors, so obviously they aren’t ready to be inserted into the rotation. Now, Hughes will very likely compete with Kennedy and Aceves for the final rotation spot, and one of the others will be the long man in our pen. Our pen itself will be filled mostly with arms we have developed (Coke, Veras, Melancon, et al) or acquired by trade or waiver signings (Bruney, Albaladejo, Ramirez). The only free agent will be Marte. Like Johan Santana and Joba, many of our future starters will first be used in the pen (Coke, possibly Horne). And Joba is not our setup man; he is one of our future rotation horses who will be stretched out into a full 200+ innings by 2011.
The Yanks also haven’t totally given up on Melky; he could be our starting CF or fourth OF. We aren’t going to play Damon or Swisher in CF permanently (though they may get a few appearances there at times if we need extra offense). And no one was ever dreaming that Austin Jackson would be at all in the Yanks’ picture for 2008; he hasn’t even played in AAA yet (but may this season). But in 2010, our outfield will be largely empty, with Damon, Matsui, and Nady gone (though I could see us re-signing Nady). If AJax proves himself in AAA, he could be a starter as early as 2010. I’d love to see an OF of Matt Holliday-Austin Jackson-Nick Swisher/Xavier Nady.
Signing Tex, CC, and AJ wasn’t just about the money. We didn’t outbid the Nats for Tex, and we didn’t allow the Red Sox to outbid us and drive up the price since we didn’t bid in the first place; instead, Cash lurked on the fringes and let Boras know he should come back to us. We sold CC and his family on living in NY and being a Yankee by a massive player and Yankee veteran recruitment effort involving Reggie Jackson, Johnny and Michelle Damon, Derek Jeter, and a personal visit to the Sabathia home in CA by Cashman himself. That was Cashman’s doing. I would say Cash is an excellent GM when it comes to drafting, trading, and signing players off the waiver. For the latter example, I think Edwar Ramirez has been excellent for us and that Jon Albaladejo will be.
"If you lived in my grandfather's house...and you wanted to eat, you had to be a Yankees fan." --Joe Biden
by SenorSwanky on Dec 26, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
couldnt agree more
the celtics reference was great
lets see a championship out of the yankees
go yanks!
by yankees on Dec 26, 2008 12:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
when the Yanks are good
it’s good for baseball. ask other owners if they like it when they come to town. they BEG to have the Yankees visit them.
ask TV networks whether they like it.
Carl Pohlad is a billionaire, but chooses to ‘make a profit’ with the Twins.
speaking to the ‘fairness’ of MLB, i wouldn’t be averse to a European kind of setup. there could be a Premier League for the top 10-20 teams, then a secondary league and a tertiary league. the top two in each lesser league move up to the higher league while the bottom two drop down. then the best teams play each other more often which creates more excitement while the lesser teams play each other meaning more wins for them (with occasional inter-league games).
by Travis G on Dec 26, 2008 7:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 




















