MLB - 2006 Season! Continued!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Michael,

Want to cry some more about the Yankees payroll? Go ahead, maybe it'll be cathardic.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever - it ain't crying, it's just pointing out the fact that despite the poor decisions (the results just don't add up to the value), it distorts the game. Too bad that the MFY just can't seem to deliver when it counts, despite that bloated payroll. Sox fans don't need catharsis. Steinbrenner & co. need catharsis (or maybe an enema) after all the extra dough means the players hit the golf course maybe a week after everyone else in the bigs.

First and foremost, it's very clear to me that you have no interest in discussing it rationally & fairly. You're a pissed-off Red Sox fan venting frustration, which given recent events is understandable.

"Rationally and fairly" - is that like Fox's "Fair and balanced?" The salary thing was an issue in 2004 as well. Frankly, I'm more pissed off at tactics like the Marlins' where there's no pretence of even attempting to field a competitive team, and the sole intent is to profit off of revenue sharing and the national TV pie. The Marlins didn't have to sell one ticket this year, - not one fan, not one concession, no parking, nothing, and they would make a profit by gaming the present system. Selig & co. will never touch an owner, and we all know that. We might as well exhume Kennesaw Mountain Landis and we'd have just as effective a commissioner's office.

But as a fan of the #2 team by payroll out of 30, shut the **** up about the unfairness of it all already.

Ah, the good ol' self-justifying mantra of the Yankees fan. Sorry, bub, but 2 out of 30 would get you a pass if the Sox' total current season payroll costs (salary + plus luxury tax + (subsidy of players traded out - other team subsidy of players traded in) + deferred compensation from prior years) was 10 or 20 or even 30 percent higher than the Sox.

Total 2006 season payroll costs for the Yankees will be more than double that of the Sox once you factor in luxury tax computations at the end of the year and the Abreu-Lidle trade. When the total payroll costs of the number one payroll team exceeds the number two payroll team by a factor of two, and the number one team is the only team subject to the luxury tax, then the "you're the number 2 team out of thirty, you're a bunch of hypocrites to complain about us" shtick just doesn't play anymore. Simple facts are that the Sox are within the defined competitive balance threshhold set by major league baseball this year.

Steinbrenner's right - for that kind of dough, you ought to go 162-0 every year. Too bad you don't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Here's your "fair and balanced" or was that "rationally and fairly?" From the 'Dogs:


Good Morning Red Sox Nation

At Least The Team Still Knows How to Make (and Save) a Buck

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh please. The White Sox win one world series and suddenly they're all that? They've been ****e for a long time, their fan base is tiny compared to the Red Sox and/or Yankees, and frankly, why do you care what game ESPN shows? The ESPN announcers are friggin' AWFUL.

-Arrian

Um, the white sox haven't been '****e for a long time' ... They were a lock for the 1994 Sox-Expos world series :sigh: and have won their division several times since then. In the 90s they and the Indians had a great rivalry, once the Twins fell apart. And what year did the Yankees last win the world series, anyway?

Anyhow, the White Sox are one of the best teams in the league this year, yet ESPN jumps head over heels to show Yankees and Red Sox games. Chicago isn't exactly a 'small market', either ... and the fact that white sox fans are found in decent sized groups at any away game shows there are people who want to watch those games that aren't shown on local markets outside of Chicago.

I don't particularly want to watch them on ESPN, and don't (living in chicago, they're generally blacked out and shown on real TV). The point is that the national media (ie, ESPN) pretty much ignores the two best teams in baseball (tigers, white sox), and that's just stupid...

[Ming]

Both the White Sox and Tigers have reasonably "solid" national appeal... but neither can come even close to matching the "faithfull" for the Yankees, BoSox, or even the Cubs. Face it... National/Cable TV is all about the numbers. A Yankee game will draw better ratings... A BoSox game will draw better ratings... When they play each other... PRICELESS!

And frankly, I don't care. We get to see pretty much all of the Cubs and Sox games on local television, which is superior to the crappy coverage served up by ESPN.
I only turn to ESPN when I want to watch OTHER teams... and It's usually better to turn down the sound and play some music

So when the lead story is yet again on Sports Center about the Yankees or Red Sox... I can understand... it pays the bills.

[Arrian]

Simple facts are that the Sox are within the defined competitive balance threshhold set by major league baseball this year.

If you're going to trot out stuff like this, Michael, I will simply respond with the following: The Yankees are not breaking any rules. They pay the luxury tax (instituted just for them, as everyone knows) which is then distributed to the poor boys of the league (such as the aforementioned Marlins).

If and when MLB comes up with rules that make sense (preventing both Yankee-like excess and Marlin-like parasites), great. I'd like to see it. Until then, just 'cause your Red Sox are merely the Yankees-lite when it comes to payroll, you really have no cause to whine.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian


If you're going to trot out stuff like this, Michael, I will simply respond with the following: The Yankees are not breaking any rules. They pay the luxury tax (instituted just for them, as everyone knows) which is then distributed to the poor boys of the league (such as the aforementioned Marlins).

If and when MLB comes up with rules that make sense (preventing both Yankee-like excess and Marlin-like parasites), great. I'd like to see it. Until then, just 'cause your Red Sox are merely the Yankees-lite when it comes to payroll, you really have no cause to whine.

-Arrian

Awww, da pooh picked on Spankees... :sniff: The luxury tax was not exclusively targeted at the Yankees, as everybody outside Yankees fans know. There were several reasons, including the Marlins' previous buy up of a world series and next season fire sale, and the general complaint by most small market teams (real or imaginary) about large market teams, (including, but not limited to) the Yankees.

And Yankees-lite? roughly 50% of total payroll burden doesn't even come close to the Yankees' excess. The Sox have three players earning 10 million plus - Manny, Schilling and Varitek. The Yankees have three players over 20 million, and seven more over 10 million. Manny is in the late years of a contract with a lot of deferments, Schilling is well worth the 13 million he's paid (and a lot of teams would pay in that range for a top starter), and Varitek is just making 10. If you look at the contracts for specific players, the Sox aren't doing inflated contracts. That is a field still dominated by the Yankees. Not that it will get them a world series ring.

[Arrian]

I never claimed the Yankees were picked on.

I repeat: If and when MLB comes up with rules that make sense (preventing both Yankee-like excess and Marlin-like parasites), great.

Until then, cry all you want, but I really don't give a ****.

And Yankees-lite? roughly 50% of total payroll burden doesn't even come close to the Yankees' excess. The Sox [have a bunch of massive contracts and financial resources that any team other than the Yankees would KILL for], waaaa!

Fixed that for you.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
The Sox [have a bunch of massive contracts and financial resources that any team other than the Yankees would KILL for], waaaa!

Fixed that for you.

-Arrian

Awwww,

The Sox have 3 massive or semi-massive contracts, but Manny's is inherited from prior ownership. They tried to shop Manny in '03, '04 and '05 to get out from under the contract (stupid, IMO, but then I'm not an Epstein fan), but couldn't get good value in return. Schilling and Varitek's contracts are entirely in range with what a large number of teams would pay for players of their caliber and role on the team.

Financial resources? Do you really think the Sox have more juice than the Dodgers, Angels, or the Cubs and White Sox for that matter? The Braves, Astros and Rangers ain't exactly hurting for revenue, either.

[Arrian]

Yes, I do. Are you even paying attention? The Red Sox have done an EXCELLENT job of capitalizing on their market. They have all of NE, they have NESN, they had a rapid and massive national fan base (road attendence, check it out) they have the highest ticket prices in the league and sell out every game (true, the size of Fenway dampens the impact of this, but they're guaranteed ~34k for every home game). I don't hold any of that against them... in fact, I think it's great. Well done, Boston management/ownership

While no one has the exact data (trasparency? MLB? Buwahahaha!!!), I don't think it's crazy at all to think that the Sox have more financial muscle than those teams you mentioned. The White Sox? Richer than the Red Sox? Comeon! Atlanta? The team that had trouble selling out playoff games? The Rangers? Astros? Not poor, but not close to the Red Sox.

The Red Sox have their limit, and it's much lower than the Yankees. Nothing to dispute there. But it's hilarious (and, like I said before, hypocritical) of you to cry poverty. ****ing amazing.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yes, I do. Are you even paying attention? The Red Sox have done an EXCELLENT job of capitalizing on their market. They have all of NE, they have NESN, they had a rapid and massive national fan base (road attendence, check it out) they have the highest ticket prices in the league and sell out every game (true, the size of Fenway dampens the impact of this, but they're guaranteed ~34k for every home game). I don't hold any of that against them... in fact, I think it's great. Well done, Boston management/ownership

While no one has the exact data (trasparency? MLB? Buwahahaha!!!), I don't think it's crazy at all to think that the Sox have more financial muscle than those teams you mentioned. The White Sox? Richer than the Red Sox? Comeon! Atlanta? The team that had trouble selling out playoff games? The Rangers? Astros? Not poor, but not close to the Red Sox.

Ok, you win a semantic pointlet. The Red Sox probably have a few percent more resources. Fenway is small and expensive to operate (a lot of renovation and repair each year, since we're devoted to our stadium, unlike certain other teams ), so higher ticket costs are a given, and are mostly absorbed by attendance limits and higher costs.

The White Sox have a opening day salary over 100 million, the Braves in the mid 90's, Dodgers and Angels over 100, Astros 92 not counting Clemens mid-season deal, Cardinals 88 (and look how they're doing ), Giants 92, Mets over 100, etc.

Lower than the Red Sox? Yes, but not by much, certainly in comparison with the Yankees excess.

The Red Sox have their limit, and it's much lower than the Yankees. Nothing to dispute there. But it's hilarious (and, like I said before, hypocritical) of you to cry poverty. ****ing amazing.

-Arrian

Nobody's talking poverty - we're talking about "best team money can buy" excess, just without the results to go with the expenditure.

[Ming]

MLB 2006 TEAM PAYROLL (US$)
1. NY Yankees 198,662,180
2. Boston 120,100,524
3. LA Angels 103,625,333
4. Chicago Sox 102,875,667
5. NY Mets 100,901,085
6. LA Dodgers 99,176,950
7. Chicago Cubs 94,841,166
8. Atlanta 92,461,852
9. Houston 92,101,503
10. San Francisco 90,862,064


Yes... your Chicago Cubs, the worst team money can buy

[Arrian]

That really is a disgrace. Reminds me of the late 90s Orioles... but probably worse.

Nobody's talking poverty - we're talking about "best team money can buy" excess, just without the results to go with the expenditure.

I take it, therefore, that you had no complaints whatsoever concerning the Yankees payroll during the late 90s dynasty?

Yeah, right! I bet you were whining about it then, too. Waaaa, "MFYs" waaaa.

For enlightenment, I give you the 1998 payroll leaders:

1. Baltimore Orioles - $74,170,921
2. New York Yankees - $73,963,698

I couldn't find the NL data, but I'm thinking there was a team or two in the ~$70 mil range.

Forbes.com on the value of the Red Sox as of 2005: http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/...&datatype=Misc

They are listed as #2 at $563 million. The Yankees are #1 at $950 million. The Mets are #3 with $505. The Dodgers are 4th at $424 mil, then it's the Mariners, Cubs, Phillies, Braves, Giants and Cardinals.

Thus, the Yankees clearly blow everyone away in resources. Duh. Then the Red Sox & Mets. Then it drops off fast.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

By the way, reading through the original 2006 MLB thread is fun.

-Arrian

[OzzyKP]

I was at the Tigers-White Sox game on Tuesday in Detroit.

[jsorense]

Originally posted by Ming
MLB 2006 TEAM PAYROLL (US$)

Yes... your Chicago Cubs, the worst team money can buy

Hey, they are playing .500 ball. That ain't so bad, for the Cubbies.