Baseball Rumor Mill: Yankees trying to get AROD!!!!!!!!!

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

I guess you didn't catch last years postseason numbers. The success of Boston made for huge boost in the overall interest of the postseason. Just in case I'm not being clear, interest in a sport = good for said sport. Can you imagine how good it would be if they actually won the championship? Personally, I don't know too many people that wouldn't like to see Boston get the monkey off their back. Arod would have brought them closer to this. Foregone conclusions as to the ultimate champion are rarely good for any sport. This is no exception. The fact that you seem to be arguing that it is just shows you to be a myopic NY fan.
That's ridiculous. So it's great if Boston gets him, but terrible if NY gets him because more people will watch?!?! Insane. What makes it bad or good for the sport is the exact same thing if Boston gets him or NY. Just ask a KC fan.
As far as Stein understanding the importance of the people who help him win, that's laughable. You're talking about a man with a spoiled, petulant mentality commonly found in 6 year olds. He's alienated Torre and Cashman, pissed off DJ earlier last year, and generally annoyed God knows how many other players and personnel in the organization. Stein understands nothing but how to sign checks. To credit him with anything more is amusing at best.
Hahaha. Another ridiculous statement. Steinbrenner is playing by the rules, and he is willing to spend more than other owners. Don't hate the guy for being a great businessman. He understands that the more you spend on the team USUALLY adds up to more wins. More wins = More fans in the seats. More fans in the seats = a nice return on his investment. And not only the fans in the seats, also the TV money. It ain't about the size of the market, just ask the Mets. It's about WINNING. Fans love to root for a winner. He spends money to give them that winner.
comon guy, you know better than that.

you talk as if steinbrenner is spending at a cost to himself. he can afford to spend more because his team generates more money than other teams and not necessarily because of how good they are, look at the mets, their HORRIBLE and they STILL generate more income than 60% of the teams in MLB. don't just blame other owners and say it's because they aren't willing to spend the money. the Diamondbacks no matter HOW good they are can never market to more than 8 or 9 million. the Yankees can market to about 25 million.
Do you know why his team generates more money than other teams? Because they win, and have been winning for years, so they built a national fanbase = more TV money. Do you know why they have been winning for so many years? Because the owner spends the money! The Mets just make my point. Sure, they may make more than other teams but they DON'T WIN. Because they DON'T SPEND. There are plenty of owners out there that are worth 10x George's. They are not willing to make the investment.
Here's a tip: read up about the finances of baseball. It is virtually impossible for a small market team to generate as much money as a team like the Yankees. Even if they win 10 years in a row, they just won't be able to sustain a $200 million payroll. Why? Because their market is already small. The Yankees have an insane advantage because of their television network.

Anyone that says 'Hey, if small market teams spend the money, then they'll win and eventually get a large revenue stream' has no idea what they're talking about.

And your comment on personal finance shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, the Yankees have the largest revenue stream - by far. Steinbrenner never uses his personal wealth to support the payroll. Why should David Glass or Pohlad do the same?
Okay, fine. Explain the Mets to me.
What do you want explained? The Mets aren't a small market team. Again, the Mets have a very good television contract that pays them an fantastic amount of money.

Would the Royals be able to all of a sudden get a fantastic television contract after 5 years of winning? Of course not.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,730
16
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
How can you possible know that? Maybe if the Braves spent more then they'd make more? No, the Braves DO NOT win. How many WS's did they win? Last year the Mets payroll was $116,253,927. The Braves were $103,912,011.
i can know approximately just based on number of fans in the seats. there just aren't as many baseball fans in the atlanta area as there is in the tristate area.

oh btw, did i mention that the state of ga is probably bigger than the tristate area in size.

you cannot compare the most densely populated part of the US with anywhere else. it just doesn't work.

lets say there were NO MLB teams and a league was starting, how much of a premium would a team in NY fetch vs ANY other part of the US??

how much of a premium would the 2ND team in NY fetch vs ANY other team in MLB??

you are in denial bud, plain and simple.
Okay, so explain to me this. Why do the Yankees have a national fanbase? How many other baseball teams have the national and international interest that the Yankees do? Why?
The Braves don't really have a national following, although they try with the superstation.
Thats OBVIOUS because so many NYers to start off with that move all over the country. please.

also, MOST of the revenues are generated locally anyway. and yes, when the yankees go on the road the home team draws more for the yankees because of the star players on the yankees. yes, all of that plays a part, but nothing is as significant as the fact that the NY Yankees can, year after year depend on the HIGHEST spending in Yankee stadium, concessions, advertising etc than any other team. how can you continue to deny that. face it, yes, any team with the winning tradition of the yankees could draw the national type of audience but thats the EFFECT and not the CAUSE. the CAUSE is the large home market.
Okay, if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know if anything will.
The Yankees were first in attendance last year.
The Mets (who share the same overcrowded market) were SIXTEENTH!
People want to see a winner. If you don't spend the money, you don't win. If you don't win you don't make money. It requires an investment. George is willing. Not too many others are.
Again, you're showing that you have no idea about the economics of baseball. The Mets are actually part of the problem, too...but obviously not as big as a team like the Yankees.

If you don't win, you don't maximize your profits. Sure. It requires an investment? OK...George is willing to win? You act as if Steinbrenner is this angel that loves to spend his own personal wealth in the team? Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's just like any other owner. He will NOT spend his personal wealth to put up a $200 million payroll.

Again, a small market team will NEVER be able to sustain a ridiculously high payroll. Even if a small market team wins 5 years in a row, they still cannot do it.
No, I never read up on the economics of baseball, and I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. I'm just trying to use my head. Explain to me how the mets can't draw in the same market that the Yankees can, but the Yankees make so much BECAUSE of that very same market.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
ThePresence

i'll give you credit for a couple of things,

1. you didn't raise the stupidest pro yankee argument there is, the COL argument, but it COSTS more to live here so George HAS to pay his players more, please. obviously a stupid argument

2. you are persistent. :)

3. you spoke of contraction. i mostly agree with contraction but by itself won't resolve the problem of the yankees market being soo much bigger than everyone elses.

4. however, the mets are 16th and yet MOST owners would RATHER be in the mets situation than their own, you know why?? as you said, winning means more attendance, hence IF the owner spent WISELY on the mets and they started winning. . . guess what, they would have potential to be MUCH higher in the attendance figures, in KC that's just not the case. they CAN'T draw more people if they wanted to, the market ISN'T LARGE enough.

bottom line, the yankees market to the MOST densely populated area in the US, the tri state area is home to more than 35 MILLION people, plus over 70 million within an 90 minute drive.

 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
How can you possible know that? Maybe if the Braves spent more then they'd make more? No, the Braves DO NOT win. How many WS's did they win? Last year the Mets payroll was $116,253,927. The Braves were $103,912,011.
i can know approximately just based on number of fans in the seats. there just aren't as many baseball fans in the atlanta area as there is in the tristate area.

oh btw, did i mention that the state of ga is probably bigger than the tristate area in size.

you cannot compare the most densely populated part of the US with anywhere else. it just doesn't work.

lets say there were NO MLB teams and a league was starting, how much of a premium would a team in NY fetch vs ANY other part of the US??

how much of a premium would the 2ND team in NY fetch vs ANY other team in MLB??

you are in denial bud, plain and simple.
Okay, so explain to me this. Why do the Yankees have a national fanbase? How many other baseball teams have the national and international interest that the Yankees do? Why?
The Braves don't really have a national following, although they try with the superstation.
Thats OBVIOUS because so many NYers to start off with that move all over the country. please.

also, MOST of the revenues are generated locally anyway. and yes, when the yankees go on the road the home team draws more for the yankees because of the star players on the yankees. yes, all of that plays a part, but nothing is as significant as the fact that the NY Yankees can, year after year depend on the HIGHEST spending in Yankee stadium, concessions, advertising etc than any other team. how can you continue to deny that. face it, yes, any team with the winning tradition of the yankees could draw the national type of audience but thats the EFFECT and not the CAUSE. the CAUSE is the large home market.
Okay, if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know if anything will.
The Yankees were first in attendance last year.
The Mets (who share the same overcrowded market) were SIXTEENTH!
People want to see a winner. If you don't spend the money, you don't win. If you don't win you don't make money. It requires an investment. George is willing. Not too many others are.
Again, you're showing that you have no idea about the economics of baseball. The Mets are actually part of the problem, too...but obviously not as big as a team like the Yankees.

If you don't win, you don't maximize your profits. Sure. It requires an investment? OK...George is willing to win? You act as if Steinbrenner is this angel that loves to spend his own personal wealth in the team? Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's just like any other owner. He will NOT spend his personal wealth to put up a $200 million payroll.

Again, a small market team will NEVER be able to sustain a ridiculously high payroll. Even if a small market team wins 5 years in a row, they still cannot do it.
No, I never read up on the economics of baseball, and I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. I'm just trying to use my head. Explain to me how the mets can't draw in the same market that the Yankees can, but the Yankees make so much BECAUSE of that very same market.
Simple: The Yankes have their own cable network. It generates an insane amount of money for them. That's what really separates them from the Mets.

The Mets CAN and DO bring in a large amount of revenue.

You're arguing against small market teams and using the Mets as an example. That doesn't make sense. Two completely different environments.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,730
16
81
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
ThePresence

i'll give you credit for a couple of things,

1. you didn't raise the stupidest pro yankee argument there is, the COL argument, but it COSTS more to live here so George HAS to pay his players more, please. obviously a stupid argument

2. you are persistent. :)

3. you spoke of contraction. i mostly agree with contraction but by itself won't resolve the problem of the yankees market being soo much bigger than everyone elses.

4. however, the mets are 16th and yet MOST owners would RATHER be in the mets situation than their own, you know why?? as you said, winning means more attendance, hence IF the owner spent WISELY on the mets and they started winning. . . guess what, they would have potential to be MUCH higher in the attendance figures, in KC that's just not the case. they CAN'T draw more people if they wanted to, the market ISN'T LARGE enough.

bottom line, the yankees market to the MOST densely populated area in the US, the tri state area is home to more than 35 MILLION people, plus over 70 million within an 90 minute drive.
Okay. :)
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,730
16
81
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
How can you possible know that? Maybe if the Braves spent more then they'd make more? No, the Braves DO NOT win. How many WS's did they win? Last year the Mets payroll was $116,253,927. The Braves were $103,912,011.
i can know approximately just based on number of fans in the seats. there just aren't as many baseball fans in the atlanta area as there is in the tristate area.

oh btw, did i mention that the state of ga is probably bigger than the tristate area in size.

you cannot compare the most densely populated part of the US with anywhere else. it just doesn't work.

lets say there were NO MLB teams and a league was starting, how much of a premium would a team in NY fetch vs ANY other part of the US??

how much of a premium would the 2ND team in NY fetch vs ANY other team in MLB??

you are in denial bud, plain and simple.
Okay, so explain to me this. Why do the Yankees have a national fanbase? How many other baseball teams have the national and international interest that the Yankees do? Why?
The Braves don't really have a national following, although they try with the superstation.
Thats OBVIOUS because so many NYers to start off with that move all over the country. please.

also, MOST of the revenues are generated locally anyway. and yes, when the yankees go on the road the home team draws more for the yankees because of the star players on the yankees. yes, all of that plays a part, but nothing is as significant as the fact that the NY Yankees can, year after year depend on the HIGHEST spending in Yankee stadium, concessions, advertising etc than any other team. how can you continue to deny that. face it, yes, any team with the winning tradition of the yankees could draw the national type of audience but thats the EFFECT and not the CAUSE. the CAUSE is the large home market.
Okay, if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know if anything will.
The Yankees were first in attendance last year.
The Mets (who share the same overcrowded market) were SIXTEENTH!
People want to see a winner. If you don't spend the money, you don't win. If you don't win you don't make money. It requires an investment. George is willing. Not too many others are.
Again, you're showing that you have no idea about the economics of baseball. The Mets are actually part of the problem, too...but obviously not as big as a team like the Yankees.

If you don't win, you don't maximize your profits. Sure. It requires an investment? OK...George is willing to win? You act as if Steinbrenner is this angel that loves to spend his own personal wealth in the team? Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's just like any other owner. He will NOT spend his personal wealth to put up a $200 million payroll.

Again, a small market team will NEVER be able to sustain a ridiculously high payroll. Even if a small market team wins 5 years in a row, they still cannot do it.
No, I never read up on the economics of baseball, and I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. I'm just trying to use my head. Explain to me how the mets can't draw in the same market that the Yankees can, but the Yankees make so much BECAUSE of that very same market.
Simple: The Yankes have their own cable network. It generates an insane amount of money for them. That's what really separates them from the Mets.

The Mets CAN and DO bring in a large amount of revenue.

You're arguing against small market teams and using the Mets as an example. That doesn't make sense. Two completely different environments.
The Yankees network started 2 or 3 years ago. They were outspending everyone while the games were televised on WPIX11 in NY.
The Mets might bring in revenue, but St. Louis draws more fans to the stadium! So does Seatlle and 14 other teams. So if it's all about the size of the market, why is it that the Yankees sell out the house, but the mets can't fill the upper deck? Why is a MUCH SMALLER market like St. Louis drawing ALOT more than the huge market of the Mets? Do you think winning has something to do with it?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
How can you possible know that? Maybe if the Braves spent more then they'd make more? No, the Braves DO NOT win. How many WS's did they win? Last year the Mets payroll was $116,253,927. The Braves were $103,912,011.
i can know approximately just based on number of fans in the seats. there just aren't as many baseball fans in the atlanta area as there is in the tristate area.

oh btw, did i mention that the state of ga is probably bigger than the tristate area in size.

you cannot compare the most densely populated part of the US with anywhere else. it just doesn't work.

lets say there were NO MLB teams and a league was starting, how much of a premium would a team in NY fetch vs ANY other part of the US??

how much of a premium would the 2ND team in NY fetch vs ANY other team in MLB??

you are in denial bud, plain and simple.
Okay, so explain to me this. Why do the Yankees have a national fanbase? How many other baseball teams have the national and international interest that the Yankees do? Why?
The Braves don't really have a national following, although they try with the superstation.
Thats OBVIOUS because so many NYers to start off with that move all over the country. please.

also, MOST of the revenues are generated locally anyway. and yes, when the yankees go on the road the home team draws more for the yankees because of the star players on the yankees. yes, all of that plays a part, but nothing is as significant as the fact that the NY Yankees can, year after year depend on the HIGHEST spending in Yankee stadium, concessions, advertising etc than any other team. how can you continue to deny that. face it, yes, any team with the winning tradition of the yankees could draw the national type of audience but thats the EFFECT and not the CAUSE. the CAUSE is the large home market.
Okay, if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know if anything will.
The Yankees were first in attendance last year.
The Mets (who share the same overcrowded market) were SIXTEENTH!
People want to see a winner. If you don't spend the money, you don't win. If you don't win you don't make money. It requires an investment. George is willing. Not too many others are.
Again, you're showing that you have no idea about the economics of baseball. The Mets are actually part of the problem, too...but obviously not as big as a team like the Yankees.

If you don't win, you don't maximize your profits. Sure. It requires an investment? OK...George is willing to win? You act as if Steinbrenner is this angel that loves to spend his own personal wealth in the team? Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's just like any other owner. He will NOT spend his personal wealth to put up a $200 million payroll.

Again, a small market team will NEVER be able to sustain a ridiculously high payroll. Even if a small market team wins 5 years in a row, they still cannot do it.
No, I never read up on the economics of baseball, and I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. I'm just trying to use my head. Explain to me how the mets can't draw in the same market that the Yankees can, but the Yankees make so much BECAUSE of that very same market.
Simple: The Yankes have their own cable network. It generates an insane amount of money for them. That's what really separates them from the Mets.

The Mets CAN and DO bring in a large amount of revenue.

You're arguing against small market teams and using the Mets as an example. That doesn't make sense. Two completely different environments.
The Yankees network started 2 or 3 years ago. They were outspending everyone while the games were televised on WPIX11 in NY.
The Mets might bring in revenue, but St. Louis draws more fans to the stadium! So does Seatlle and 14 other teams. So if it's all about the size of the market, why is it that the Yankees sell out the house, but the mets can't fill the upper deck? Why is a MUCH SMALLER market like St. Louis drawing ALOT more than the huge market of the Mets? Do you think winning has something to do with it?
Originally the Yankees had a very good television contract. The Mets had a fantastic one, too (which I believe is expiring soon - who knows what they'll do next). These television contracts still put them well above a team like the Brewers (who probably didn't even get $15 million in their TV contract...while the Mets made somewhere around 60-65 million a couple of years ago from theirs). Right now the Yankees can sustain such a high contract is because of their network. Salaries hadn't spiraled this much out of control.

First, you're taking one isolated season. The Mets were the 2nd worst team in the NL. Obviously attendance would not be as high. However, they had the second highest payroll? Coming off of consecutive poor seasons...I wonder how they ever got that money?!

If you think that the only major revenue is in ticket sales, then there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. Obviously attendance will rise if you have a winning team. Nobody is arguing with that. What I'm saying is that a small market team is inherently handicapped against a large market team.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
How can you possible know that? Maybe if the Braves spent more then they'd make more? No, the Braves DO NOT win. How many WS's did they win? Last year the Mets payroll was $116,253,927. The Braves were $103,912,011.
i can know approximately just based on number of fans in the seats. there just aren't as many baseball fans in the atlanta area as there is in the tristate area.

oh btw, did i mention that the state of ga is probably bigger than the tristate area in size.

you cannot compare the most densely populated part of the US with anywhere else. it just doesn't work.

lets say there were NO MLB teams and a league was starting, how much of a premium would a team in NY fetch vs ANY other part of the US??

how much of a premium would the 2ND team in NY fetch vs ANY other team in MLB??

you are in denial bud, plain and simple.
Okay, so explain to me this. Why do the Yankees have a national fanbase? How many other baseball teams have the national and international interest that the Yankees do? Why?
The Braves don't really have a national following, although they try with the superstation.
Thats OBVIOUS because so many NYers to start off with that move all over the country. please.

also, MOST of the revenues are generated locally anyway. and yes, when the yankees go on the road the home team draws more for the yankees because of the star players on the yankees. yes, all of that plays a part, but nothing is as significant as the fact that the NY Yankees can, year after year depend on the HIGHEST spending in Yankee stadium, concessions, advertising etc than any other team. how can you continue to deny that. face it, yes, any team with the winning tradition of the yankees could draw the national type of audience but thats the EFFECT and not the CAUSE. the CAUSE is the large home market.
Okay, if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know if anything will.
The Yankees were first in attendance last year.
The Mets (who share the same overcrowded market) were SIXTEENTH!
People want to see a winner. If you don't spend the money, you don't win. If you don't win you don't make money. It requires an investment. George is willing. Not too many others are.
Again, you're showing that you have no idea about the economics of baseball. The Mets are actually part of the problem, too...but obviously not as big as a team like the Yankees.

If you don't win, you don't maximize your profits. Sure. It requires an investment? OK...George is willing to win? You act as if Steinbrenner is this angel that loves to spend his own personal wealth in the team? Sorry to burst your bubble, but he's just like any other owner. He will NOT spend his personal wealth to put up a $200 million payroll.

Again, a small market team will NEVER be able to sustain a ridiculously high payroll. Even if a small market team wins 5 years in a row, they still cannot do it.
No, I never read up on the economics of baseball, and I don't claim to have any knowledge of the subject. I'm just trying to use my head. Explain to me how the mets can't draw in the same market that the Yankees can, but the Yankees make so much BECAUSE of that very same market.
Simple: The Yankes have their own cable network. It generates an insane amount of money for them. That's what really separates them from the Mets.

The Mets CAN and DO bring in a large amount of revenue.

You're arguing against small market teams and using the Mets as an example. That doesn't make sense. Two completely different environments.
The Yankees network started 2 or 3 years ago. They were outspending everyone while the games were televised on WPIX11 in NY.
The Mets might bring in revenue, but St. Louis draws more fans to the stadium! So does Seatlle and 14 other teams. So if it's all about the size of the market, why is it that the Yankees sell out the house, but the mets can't fill the upper deck? Why is a MUCH SMALLER market like St. Louis drawing ALOT more than the huge market of the Mets? Do you think winning has something to do with it?


you still didn't explain the part that IF the mets were winning, they have the POTENTIAL to draw SIGNIFICANTLY more BECAUSE of the base of population, those other CITIES DO NOT.

in NBA terms that would be like trying to compare the knicks to the Blazers, sure the blazers on good years will draw more than the knicks on bad years, but ON THEIR best years, the knicks will draw more.

an owner will spend based on current revenue AND potential INCREASES in the future. that potential JUST doesn't exist EVEN in atlanta, like it does in NY and atlanta is NOT a small market team, just smaller than what NY has.

so to get back to my original point a TEAM IN NJ WOULD help reduce the size of the potential market available to the yankees.

 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

I guess you didn't catch last years postseason numbers. The success of Boston made for huge boost in the overall interest of the postseason. Just in case I'm not being clear, interest in a sport = good for said sport. Can you imagine how good it would be if they actually won the championship? Personally, I don't know too many people that wouldn't like to see Boston get the monkey off their back. Arod would have brought them closer to this. Foregone conclusions as to the ultimate champion are rarely good for any sport. This is no exception. The fact that you seem to be arguing that it is just shows you to be a myopic NY fan.
That's ridiculous. So it's great if Boston gets him, but terrible if NY gets him because more people will watch?!?! Insane. What makes it bad or good for the sport is the exact same thing if Boston gets him or NY. Just ask a KC fan.
Yes, that's exactly right. Now you're starting to get it. You see, it's crazy but if people don't watch the sport doesn't do as well. The league loses advertising. Owners have less money. Players either get less money or teams operate at a loss or decreased profit margin, etc. Sports are built around T.V. in case you haven't noticed. Good numbers = healthy league. Look at the NFL if you don't believe me. Each regular season NFL game pulls, on average, a better number than a basketball or baseball playoff game. And I doubt it can be denied that the NFL is the most loved and successful pro sports league in America.

Hell, if you don't believe me go back and actually try reading this thread. You'll see a lot of people saying they've now lost interest in the season. I doubt they're all Boston fans.

As far as Stein understanding the importance of the people who help him win, that's laughable. You're talking about a man with a spoiled, petulant mentality commonly found in 6 year olds. He's alienated Torre and Cashman, pissed off DJ earlier last year, and generally annoyed God knows how many other players and personnel in the organization. Stein understands nothing but how to sign checks. To credit him with anything more is amusing at best.
Hahaha. Another ridiculous statement. Steinbrenner is playing by the rules, and he is willing to spend more than other owners. Don't hate the guy for being a great businessman. He understands that the more you spend on the team USUALLY adds up to more wins. More wins = More fans in the seats. More fans in the seats = a nice return on his investment. And not only the fans in the seats, also the TV money. It ain't about the size of the market, just ask the Mets. It's about WINNING. Fans love to root for a winner. He spends money to give them that winner.
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
actually, i'd be surprised if the yankees kept winning. steinbrenner seems to be going back to his '70s form and not listening to his baseball people anymore. Joe is gone after this season.

no, i think yankees fans are in for a dry spell.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
actually, i'd be surprised if the yankees kept winning. steinbrenner seems to be going back to his '70s form and not listening to his baseball people anymore. Joe is gone after this season.

no, i think yankees fans are in for a dry spell.
Really? I think the opposite. With their current level of spending, I see the Yankees always being competetive. It's one thing spending $120 million and failing. That could be done. But spending $200+ million and failing? I don't even think that would be possible.

I guess it could happen with the Red Sox in the same division - but then again we're talking about the Red Sox.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
actually, i'd be surprised if the yankees kept winning. steinbrenner seems to be going back to his '70s form and not listening to his baseball people anymore. Joe is gone after this season.

no, i think yankees fans are in for a dry spell.
Really? I think the opposite. With their current level of spending, I see the Yankees always being competetive. It's one thing spending $120 million and failing. That could be done. But spending $200+ million and failing? I don't even think that would be possible.

I guess it could happen with the Red Sox in the same division - but then again we're talking about the Red Sox.
call me naive call me optomistic, i still believe money well spent and good management can beat a team that just throws money at the problem.

 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
actually, i'd be surprised if the yankees kept winning. steinbrenner seems to be going back to his '70s form and not listening to his baseball people anymore. Joe is gone after this season.

no, i think yankees fans are in for a dry spell.
Really? I think the opposite. With their current level of spending, I see the Yankees always being competetive. It's one thing spending $120 million and failing. That could be done. But spending $200+ million and failing? I don't even think that would be possible.

I guess it could happen with the Red Sox in the same division - but then again we're talking about the Red Sox.
call me naive call me optomistic, i still believe money well spent and good management can beat a team that just throws money at the problem.
Well I think any other team that has good management and front office can win...I just don't think that the Yankees are in for a dry spell...if by dry spell you mean multiple seasons in which they won't be competetive.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Fvcking John Henry has egg on his face now, pisses me off... JUST PUT THE $$$ DOWN ON THE TABLE JOHN, YOU WANNA PLAY WITH THE HIGHROLLERS YOU GOTTA LAY YOUR CHIPS DOWN FCKKKKKKA. Oh yeah and go Red Sox...
 

SludgeFactory

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2001
2,969
2
81
Re: Adding more teams to the Tri-State

I've wondered about adding more teams to the NY market, the population numbers are there. Honestly they could support 4+ teams. That market supported 3 out of 16 teams for the first ~55 years of MLB. But.. I would tend to also think that it doesn't hurt the Yankees all that much. It's a good point about great-grandpa handing down his allegiance to the Yankees. Besides the Yankees' 100 yrs of history and generations of fans, how many new little cretins are sporting Yankee hats since 1996? People are front-runners by nature and it's hard to ignore 26 WS titles. Childhood memories of winning teams last forever. George's winning ways over the last 10 yrs have ultimately created a substantial number of lifelong Yankee fans. I guess it somewhat depends on what league the new team would be in, but I bet it would actually hurt the Mets more than the Yankees, since they're sort of the redheaded stepchild of NY baseball :D

But it might be worth a shot any way, you take something away from the Yankees/Mets in terms of broadcast revenue and create an opportunity for a bad franchise to turn it's finances completely around. Certainly the Expos would be a lot healthier feeding off the table scraps in NY than where they are now. What if you could get teams into NJ and Brooklyn?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: TheBoyBlunder
Originally posted by: BigJ
If this happens, MLB will be dead to me.
It shouldn't be dead to you if you're a Red Sox fan. Now if you were a Royals fan or something like that...
Nope, when a team is allowed to have a cap over 200/225 million a year (which is over 1/5 more than the next highest spending team, Boston), that's when I stop watching. This is the exact reason why Bosox fans are bludgeoned/raped by insane ticket prices, b/c of the Yankees and baseball's inability to create a viable spending cap... Not worth it to me, even if Boston makes it to the WS this year.

EDIT: At least IF Boston got ARod, the teams would be more evenly matched on spending. This just shows how ridiculous MLB is. Oh, and Bud Selig can blow me as well!

 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
Re: Adding more teams to the Tri-State

I've wondered about adding more teams to the NY market, the population numbers are there. Honestly they could support 4+ teams. That market supported 3 out of 16 teams for the first ~55 years of MLB. But.. I would tend to also think that it doesn't hurt the Yankees all that much. It's a good point about great-grandpa handing down his allegiance to the Yankees. Besides the Yankees' 100 yrs of history and generations of fans, how many new little cretins are sporting Yankee hats since 1996? People are front-runners by nature and it's hard to ignore 26 WS titles. Childhood memories of winning teams last forever. George's winning ways over the last 10 yrs have ultimately created a substantial number of lifelong Yankee fans. I guess it somewhat depends on what league the new team would be in, but I bet it would actually hurt the Mets more than the Yankees, since they're sort of the redheaded stepchild of NY baseball :D

But it might be worth a shot any way, you take something away from the Yankees/Mets in terms of broadcast revenue and create an opportunity for a bad franchise to turn it's finances completely around. Certainly the Expos would be a lot healthier feeding off the table scraps in NY than where they are now. What if you could get teams into NJ and Brooklyn?
wow, brooklyn has the population to support it, but does it have the infrastructure?? i'm not sure if they will even be able to build an arena for the nets, nevermind a baseball stadium.

the mistake they made with the nets was to try and make it a NY type franchise, they should have located it farther south and given it a distinctly NJ context. they could have done better
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Try reading what I wrote and not randomly responding. I didn't say Steinbrenner wasn't playing by the rules did I? I said that he doesn't understand people as well as some would give him credit for. That has nothing to do with playing by the rules does it?

In fact, in your random, useless answer you said that he understands that spending more usually equals winning more. I said that he understands writing checks and that's about it. Therefore, you basically just agreed with me and tried to pass your agreement off as me not understanding something. Come again?
actually, i'd be surprised if the yankees kept winning. steinbrenner seems to be going back to his '70s form and not listening to his baseball people anymore. Joe is gone after this season.

no, i think yankees fans are in for a dry spell.
Hey, I completely agree with you. Torre's contract is up this year (I believe??) and I doubt he'll be back. George isn't listening to Cashman (despite extending his contract :confused: ) who's actually done a hell of a job for him despite what some might say. He just figures he'll throw money at the players he wants and that will work. Look at the Lakers if you want a perfect example of how an all-star team doesn't always equal a winning team. Of course, the Lakers have a very abnormal problem in Kobe but still, money doesn't always solve problems in sports.
 

SludgeFactory

Platinum Member
Sep 14, 2001
2,969
2
81
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
wow, brooklyn has the population to support it, but does it have the infrastructure?? i'm not sure if they will even be able to build an arena for the nets, nevermind a baseball stadium.

the mistake they made with the nets was to try and make it a NY type franchise, they should have located it farther south and given it a distinctly NJ context. they could have done better
That probably would be asking a lot. The only hope would be to get a privately financed baseball stadium, especially if the city would have to significantly upgrade the infrastructure to support it. It's probably a moot point anyway, there's really only one team that's movable, and the Yankees and Mets would be a lot more willing to accept a NJ team than a Brooklyn one I suspect.

Funny how the Knicks are suddenly rising from the ashes just as the Nets are talking about moving into the city. BTW, who's paying for the Nets arena?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY