How bout them Dodgers

Pre-College Topics High School Life
121

<p>

</p>

<p>No it’s not. Something can be an advantage - even an overwhelming advantage - without being a guarantee.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>A-Rod is payed $33M? Manny got $7 mil this year.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And what laziness and lack of commitment has there been?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That really doesn’t make any sense. And there’s a difference between wanting and needing. There’s no salary cap in baseball because the Players Union is incredibly powerful and wouldn’t want one. Comparisons to football are completely invalid because of the radically different financial structure of the league.</p>

122

<p>I can’t take a baseball fan seriously if they constantly bring up the money argument…</p>

123

<p>So, the Yankees have an advantage due to their revenue which funds their pursuit of great players? Is that what you are trying to say? Let’s get this straight because I really want to end this. This is getting pointless, interent aguement with no merit. </p>

<p>Yankees advantage has been the spending of cash, which brouhgt in the titles (a la Reggie Jackson) and this brought more dollars in return. They have kept this up, and although we do not win it every year, let alone make the playoffs, we are still title-contenders coming into the season every year. This gives fans hope, and reason to pack an over-priced Stadium.</p>

<p>A-Rod made like $26M this year. Why is Manny making $7M? OK, I see that he got paid $10M this past year. He is on backpayments. Haha you accuse me of not knowing what kind of contract a player will take, yet your “star” is on backpayments. Nice. </p>

<p>If the superstar is making in the $8-10M range (the contract decreases prices), should the team not allocate more money aside for other players? I mean I know $100M is different than $210M, but if the Dodgers are “young” why is their salary not gettign better players. Like why do they pay young guys so much if other good young players don’t make an average of $4M (appriximately the Dodgers average). LA needs to better work out those contracts, and this divoroce is gonna mess up the team. Good luck getting through it! :slight_smile: It will be a rough road!</p>

<p>The Players Union is so rigid because honestly, the Yankees’ success made thema global empire, and this generates amd cash (as we both know lol). So, baseball needs or reall really wants the Yankees, and other big-time, marquee organizations like the Dodgers, Red Sox, Cubs, etc to win titles because the product of a competitive league makes the MLB look better. And honestly, this is a business, so yes, the more you spend, the more in return. It is up to the owner to decide how much money he would like to make every year, if he cares about winning. </p>

<p>In football, there is a difference, but it’s not a huge diffrence. Yes, caps “allow” all teams to compete, but look at the Rams. And the Steelers. Pittsburgh, a marquee name, is succeeding (this year they have been so-so, but they won a title last year anyway). Even with caps, teams still are terrible for years (Lions). Or great for a long time (Colts). So, they all get a certain amount of money to spend, but there are still a rough equivalent of yearly contenders and yearly losers between baseball and football. </p>

<p>Manny’s lack of commitment is looking like a doofus with his long hair (barely wanted it cut last year), not running hard to first on grounders, and not staying with team until the end of the game. Sure, if he was in severe pain by all mean go shower, but he just left the field regurlarly after being subbed out. I mean, at least hang around for an extra inning. Just shows your teammates that you are on their level as well. I don’t get $45M contracts, but when I mess up and hit a grounder, I am charging to first to be safe. Manny is just like “whatever, forget it.” He’s old, but Jeter (at like 35) and Posada (36) run hard to first. Shows some hustle and commitment.</p>

124

<p>OK, so we agree that the Yankees have a built-in advantage. You think they deserve credit for that; I think it’s BS. You think it’s possible for other teams to erase that advantage; I think it isn’t.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>see law of diminishing returns</p>

125

<p>Alright, you still tried to claim victory. Yanks advantage is cash, which stemmed from initial spending on quality FAs. This led to rings, and that led to more cash. That is true, irrefutable. They deserve credit for wanting to spend cash and not horde it all, don’t take my words out of context. </p>

<p>Sports are a business, yes (duuuhhhh), and I argued that the more you spend, the more you get back the whole time. That is what the whole thing was about. </p>

<p>It’s OVER. You root for the Phillies, and I’ll stick with the Yankees in the World Series. Okay? Got it? Good, get over it.</p>

126

<p>

</p>

<p>No it’s not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See law of diminishing returns again.</p>

127

<p>The Yankees advantage is playing in the largest market in an uncapped sport. Nuff said. There is no such advantage in the NFL.</p>

128

<p>Hatersunite, that’s not what I’m even talking about. Yes, there is no restriction rally on spending, so why not use profits to better fund your business. I don’t care, I’m just hoping we get past the Phillies!!!</p>

<p>If you are a sports team owner, you obviously have loads of money. You can spend your money on personal items, or be willing to drop big bucks into your new business, the team. You mean to tell me that the Yankees have not been helped by spending money on their players? Gosh, listen here. The Yanks spend money, assemble a good team, they win (possibly World Series), and then get more money because other companies see that the Yankees have gained widespread popularity/fame and enter agreements with them. You think that most hat makers pay the Yankees or Royals more money for a licensing agreement? Why? The Yanks because of the renown from spending money, and this led to all of the titles. You spend money to make money. If you have a succesful business, the money you put in is hopefully dwarfed by the money that you receive. If I spend more money to go nab a Class A free agent, then I may pay more in salary, but if my team excels, I sell more tickets. More food at games. More merchandise. You think having A-Rod around has been good for the Yankees as a business? Of course, he’s a great draw to pack stadiums and sell jerseys/T-shirts/souvenirs.</p>

129

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please do</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nope. I think it’s safe to say the revenue he has generated doesn’t recoup his salary. From a marginal profit perspective he was a bad deal. From a baseball perspective, he’s a great player, and that’s why the Yankees spent the money on him.</p>

<p>

The fact that the former metro area is 10 times the size a good place to start. New York is New York. I do see a surprising number of Royals hats around, though. Gang affiliation?</p>

130

<p>Fine “mister,” if you do not believe that if you put some more cash into a business, the moer it can generate, that’s fine. Law of diminishing return is true in some cases, but I don’t really think so here. Look at the Mets, same large market. they don’t spend as much, they do not get as much in return, nor are they a good team. </p>

<p>A-Rod has been smart business-wise for the Yanks because he contributes very nicely to the overall product, which is how revenue is generated. You said he’s a good player, and a collection of good players with good chemistry make a great team, and the Yanks’ great team makes $400M a year. </p>

<p>Stop the gang affiliation stuff. And why would gangs (from all over the USA) don these caps? Because they symbolize greatness and domination, and a big market helps, but so does winnign titles. Mets don’t sell as many hats as Yanks do across the country, the success made the difference. Yes, the Royals do sell merchandise, big surprise there, but the Yanks do get paid more for slapping their logo on stuff because they have the “mystique of being” the Yankees, they are a major brand due to moeny well-spent, which led to rings, and this led to widespread popularity and renown.</p>

131

<p>

The Mets had the second-highest payroll in baseball, second only to the Yankees.</p>

132

<p>

</p>

<p>I was referring to Royals hats. I see them more than any other team, Dodgers aside.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course it’s true here. Obviously there’s only so much revenue one can make on baseball. The law of diminishing return applies in EVERY case because there is ALWAYS a limit.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You have to be joking if you think the Yankees made $400 mil because they have good players. That revenue figure is from LAST YEAR, when they didn’t make the playoffs. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The Mets are a good example. They’re a relatively new franchise with relatively little history of success. They don’t have a good team now, and the good teams they’ve had have been few and far between.</p>

<p>And they’re third in the majors in revenue. Must be all those great players they’ve had! Must be all that spending they’ve done!</p>

133

<p>

</p>

<p>The Mets are relativbely new yes, but they have been around long enough to have som more success, that arguement is a bit weak. The Ravens were an expansion team, and have won one SB and contended for more. That’s a little messed up because the Yankees spent $60M more than the Mets, which is significant. </p>

<p>And let’s talk about those same Mets. Last year, and the year before that, they looked to be in good shape to head to the playoffs. This got nearly every Met fan excited, but they imploded at the end. They made a fair amount of cash from fielding a pretty good team for 9/10ths of the year. I think they generated around $240M this past year, which is not bad (with a $140M payroll). But, they opened a new stadium, a big fn draw. And a testement to fans, who did keep buying stuff and posted pretty good attendance I think (please check me here, I think maybe 40,000+ showed up). Fans kept hope, an especially good sign considering the owners have lost a fortune because of Madoff. Plus, like you said, a large market, and all those people are not Yanks fans, the same that not all Chicagoans are Cubbies fans, people form allegiances. </p>

<p>Now about generating revenue. The Washington Redskins spend the most on free agents in the NFL (look at Haynesworth and Deion Sanders). Yep, they do reeeally well nowadays. Snyder spends every off season, and they lose, yet he still makes money. The Yanks, unlike Mets and Redskins, target the correct players that fit in with their team,a nd the right coaching staff to boot. Plus, the Yanks have a pretty stable continous ownership. So, bad teams still generate revenue from TV and whatnot, but that does not garauntee succes. That is a point I have maintained: The Yanks spend money on the right pieces at the right time. Nearly everybody thought that Haynesworth was/is the ebst NT in the entire NFL. The Redskins got him, and it’s been ho-hum so far. It takes a complete team to win, and the Yankees strive to do so. Yes, they missed the playoffs last year, but the brand alone that the Yankees have built up is worth over $240M, and that generates healthy returns. Brand’s get built up by success and renown, and big spending on the right people gets you there. </p>

<p>Well, law of dimishing returns is correct, but what is “the limit” here? The Yankees were at an opperating loss in 2007, shows how much they care about winning (and hence the spending to ensure that a good product is fielded. It shoudl be noted that revenue was still made through TV contracts). So, what do the Yankees do? they manage to have a new concessions deal, inked with the Dallas Cowboys, to generate more profit. You see ways to generate more money, so you don’t hit the glass ceiling. Harvard increases their revenue by investing in stocks for funding reasons. When they ran into one wall, they found a way to work around it. There is a “limit” that businesses reach, but in 2008, right before the economic meltdown, the busienss of baseball increased again. So, yes, there is a limit, but some people find ways to stretch the limit. That is like saying that, for most people (dependent on religion), that there is no limit on extent of life on this earth. Of course there is one, according to beliefs, and that does exist in baseball true. But, the Yanks are stretching that limit so far, but a wall may be soon hit again.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Let me clarify because that is not what the intent was of that group of statements. Having a good team helps of course. Why would people want to see a horrible team (Nationals)? I am saying that the best product available usually garners the most money. TV contracts and most merchandising sales are generally fixed at the beginning of the season, only percentages of revenue are not set in stone. So, a good portion of the money the Yanks generated was set before the season, and payed through the season. Amount of concessions, merchandise, etc were obviously not known yet, but most people do anticipate that the Yankees do contend every year because of the big spending, which is done correctly, not like the Mets or Redskins spending is done.</p>

134

<p>

</p>

<p>No they weren’t, and football is completely different anyway. We’ve been over this.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, they didn’t really operate at a loss.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The Phillies opened a new stadium, the Phillies won a world series last year, the Phillies have had players win MVP twice in the last 4 years. The Phillies were $40 million short of the Mets. THE METS.</p>

<p>And w t f does Madoff have to do with any of this?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Putting aside the vast differences between the NFL and baseball, are you really trying to suggest that having the most money isn’t a big advantage? Really?</p>

135

<p>Uhm, The Ravens were not always in Baltimore. They formed in 1996 because the Colts left in the '80s and the Cleveland owner wished to relocate to Baltimore. They had new logos, colors, etc and not all players/staff members we retained in the switch, so considerin the team has been regarded as a good team this deade, and they are techically only 13 years old, they have been a good expansion franchise. Not an “expansion” team in the sense of Jacksonville, and football is the same if you have an owner like Snyder who goes over the cap anyway. Like I said, sure restrictions exist, but it depends on the owner’s willingness to open his pocket book. Mark Cuban has done the same in Dallas in the NBA.</p>

<p>Philly is a smaller market than NYC, so yes, there is going to be less money made (most likely). Sure, Philly has put together a winner, yeah. Why did you bring them up? Philly is a dangerous team of course, and the Mets made more money yeah. The Dodgers spent less than the Cardinals, and they did better than them this year. </p>

<p>Bernie Madoff is why the Mets owners are in a bit of a financial pickle here. The Ponzi scheme affected them greatly actually, and I was saying that it is encouraging for an owner to see good fan attendance when the team is ho-hum and financially they are in a bit of trouble. </p>

<p>Uhm, you have taken those comments out of context. I said spending the right money on the right people is the Yanks advantage. In NBA, Euro soccer, MLB, NFL, etc there may be differing financial rules when it comes to cap and such, but it comes down to the owner. The Redskins are like the Yanks in that they spend a fortune on FAs, yet they target the wron people for their team. Dallas Mavericks have done the same. Chelsea, who are the “Yanks of English soccer,” spend so much money, and that is why they compete every year. Manchester United has a high payroll as well, and that is why they compete every year. The players on these teams fit well with each other, and that is why these two teams are going at it for the top spot year-in and year-out. Madrid and Barcelona are much the same in Spain. You can spend money anyway you want, no matter how much you want to spend, but if it is on the wrong players, where’s the advantage?</p>

<p>The Yankees “baseball” operation lost money, much the same you said that when it comes to sellign tickets/food, there can be a limit year-to-year. But the “Yankee brand” made the proft for that year. The same happened to the Red Sox and Blue Jays.</p>

136

<p>

</p>

<p>Their players were for the most part retained, though obviously every NFL team has huge shifts in personnel in relatively short periods of time - another reason you can’t really compare the league with MLB.</p>

<p>

In terms of profit, there’s really no point in distinguishing between the baseball side and the organization as a whole, which wouldn’t really be accurately referred to as a brand.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The advantage exists independent of how it is used. That being said, you’re going to have to clarify whether you think it provides an advantage. If you would take a firm position rather than blindly supporting the Yankees’ every move it could make this whole thing easier - unless blind support is your position (which I would be fine with).</p>

137

<p>TCBH is absolutely destroying big dreamer. Time to call it quits big dreamer.</p>

138

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, “most” players were retained sort of, but they were truly an expansion team. The fact that some teams have personnel changes, no matter how large or small, cannot be the reason why MLB differs from the NFL. Football rosters are a little over twice as big as baseball rosters, so obviously football rosters are more prone to change, but that is not a valid reason why the 2 leagues can never be compared. There is the threshold where teams get to the luxury tax in MLB, and there is a cap in NFL. As in most cases in both leagues, the majority of owners do not want to go over the cap or get to the luxury tax threshold. That is how they can be compared. And refute the Euro soccer points i made, they are all valid. Real Madrid has been one-upped by Barcelona as of late, these teams are the Yanks and Sox of Spanish soccer btw, so Real Madrid spends over $200M this past offseason to just BUY the players from other teams, let alone pay them their salaries. They spend money wisely on arguably the two best players in the game, much the same the Yankees did this past offseason. If that means a title for the Yanks, good for us. If not, there’s next year. Same thing with Real Madrid. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>When it comes to the bottomline, sure you can say it does not matter. The Yankees baseball enterprises were lising money in 2007. We agree that there is a “limit” year-to-year on revenue on baseball items, so that is why teams expand their money-making horizons beyond the normal baseball business. That is where revenue sharing and TV cotnracts come into play. The brand that the Yankees have built up kept them afloat financially that year, and allowed them to continue spending money (i.e. resign A-Rod). Take a pro athlete, whatever sport, for example. The limit that they make in their sport, their max salary from their respective team is the max amount they make in their sport. So, they turn to endorsements. Do you think LeBron makes more money from basketball money or from their endorsements? Does the word “Nike” help? The popularity he built up to form his own personal brand makes him more money. The brand the Yankees have built up is where the bulk of their money comes from, and this stemmed from their large market yes, but the titles they have won as well. The large market supports the Mets, but the Yankees still make $140M more than the Mets (last year’s revenue). </p>

<p>An advantage exists if it is only used properly. The Mets, who are still lagging behind the Yanks in overall payroll, but highest in the NL, should be a much better team. They spend $30+M more than the Phillies, yet the Mets cannot put together a team that dominates the NL for an entire season. I think that the Yankees money, because it is generally spend properly, is the advantage. Anybody can blow cash, look at Tyson and where he ended up. The reason why the previous 5 years the Yankees have not gone back to the World Series because a true ace was lacked. Hatersunite said they should win the whole thing every year, but they did not spend the money properly. That is what I have tried to maintain. You can have loads of cash, but if you misuse it, it is as if you never had the advantage in the first place. The Yankees made some wise decisions in bringing in Texiera and CC last offseason, and AJ is not a slouch either. Those appear to be solid investments so far, we will have to wait it out.</p>

139

<p>

Valid to what end? The European soccer leagues are great examples of the wealthy teams dominating simply because they can get the players they want while the others don’t get a sniff.</p>

<p>

No, they made a profit of approximately $25mil, counting the YES network.</p>

<p>

No, it’s only relevant if used properly, but it continues to exist no matter what.</p>

<p>

The problem with the comparison with the Mets is that everyone knows the Yankees are the primary team in New York, in large part because they had plenty of history before the Mets even existed. There are plenty of people that know nothing about baseball or sports in general that buy New York merchandise. This has nothing to do with the brand they’ve built or any team could possibly build, it’s simply the city. The problem with pointing out the titles is the fact that many of those titles are due simply to the financial advantage that already existed. Nobody’s saying the Yankees haven’t capitalized on their advantages, it’s only the actual advantages to which people object.</p>

140

<p>TCBH, look I no longer want to keep this up. I do not feel like writing anothe response, even though I could. All I am saying is that the large amounts of money that certain teams have is only an advantage if used properly. Does a Cy Young quality pitcher have an inerent advantage if he has no care to win constantly, just enough to get by to earn a large paycheck? I think not. I am sure you see this differently. And the soccer points are valid with what I have said the entire time: You can spend money, but if it’s in the wrong places you got nothin’. Example: Mets, Redskinds, and Dallas Mavericks. Some teams, with relevantly the same amount of cash as others, decide to target the right players and make “necessary” moves to compete every year. Success is determined by the decisions you make on personnel in sports (at least when it comes to the titles aspect), and that is the result of spending money on the right people.</p>

<p>And you are a crazy if you think that the reputation of the Yankees has nothing to do with merchandise and revenue, as you stated the market is the big thing. If they did not build up a brand, then nobody would buy the stuff (that is actually quite simple). I am not disagreeing that the Yankees money can be an advantage, but the advantage is negated when spent on the wrong personnel. </p>

<p>And what good is an irrelevant advantage? And our information about the Yankees baseball revenue differs, as I got it from Forbes. The YES network is a TV contract and channel, which stems from being a succesful brand. Other teams’ networks do not make as much money, and I believe that reputation/perception/brand value has to do with that. You apprently disagree (I’m guessing). and if you must claim victory in order to feed your already-large ego, be my guest. Internet arguements are pointless, and nobody ever really wins. You like to be deemed" right," so pat yourself on the back for me.</p>