Yankees sign Sheffield

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Lyfer

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: biffbacon
buying their wAy to victory

From ESPN.com

"ESPN.com's Peter Gammons reported Friday that Schilling will earn $12 million in 2004, and his extension will pay him $12.5 million in 2005 and $13 million in 2006. The deal also includes a $13 million option for '07, according to Gammons, that could become guaranteed if Schilling meets specified performance levels."

Please tell me you're a Red Sox fan complaining about this deal as you need to look no farther than your own team's free agent signing to see an equal or larger contract for the same period of time. If you're not a BoSox fan, read it anyway as Boston seems willing to shell out lots of money to beat the Yanks. Down with all of the Yankee haters.

-Tom

Agreed.

Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.

When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.

In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.

-Tom

Who said that a payroll guaranteed a playoff spot? It helps an incredible amount and is an amazing advatange.

Also, the ONLY reason the A's have a solid team is because they had THREE aces develop at almost the SAME time. That is a very very rare incident and if that's the only way that a small market team can be competetive for 4-5 years, then something is definitely wrong. Let's even see if the Marlins have the payroll to even return to the playoffs next year...hell, they already traded their starting 1B b/c of payroll problems.

In summary, payroll is a huge advantage...I'm also a fan of one of these incredibly bloated payroll teams, but I'm also a fan of baseball...for once baseball needs to get their act together and learn to compete against the NFL, NBA, etc and not against each other so much to hurt the game.

I don't argue against payroll being an advantage for one team over another, HOWEVER, my point is that it is not necessarily the payroll itself that creates success (as many would lead one to believe). That is why I keep bringing up the Mets and Rangers.....2 of the highest payrolls in baseball this year, and two of the worst records as well. Then there are other teams like the Yanks, Red Sox, and Dodgers spent their high payrolls a little more wisely and as a result, had better success. Then there is the flip side of that with Oakland, a small market team that developed 4 nasty pitchers through their farm system, and the Marlins; both of which have achieved success through developing their own players and/or getting the most out of the players they have.

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices. :Q

-Tom

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Lyfer

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: biffbacon
buying their wAy to victory

From ESPN.com

"ESPN.com's Peter Gammons reported Friday that Schilling will earn $12 million in 2004, and his extension will pay him $12.5 million in 2005 and $13 million in 2006. The deal also includes a $13 million option for '07, according to Gammons, that could become guaranteed if Schilling meets specified performance levels."

Please tell me you're a Red Sox fan complaining about this deal as you need to look no farther than your own team's free agent signing to see an equal or larger contract for the same period of time. If you're not a BoSox fan, read it anyway as Boston seems willing to shell out lots of money to beat the Yanks. Down with all of the Yankee haters.

-Tom

Agreed.

Yeah, let's ignore the $50-$60 MILLION difference between the Yankees payroll and the projected Red Sox payroll.

When will people give up on the payroll argument? Clearly, payroll didn't do anything for the Mets, Dodgers, or Rangers last year (#2, #3, and #4 payrolls in MLB), nor did it win a championship for the Yankees ($180 million) or the Red Sox ($105 million). I'm starting to think that fans go around playing the payroll card so that if their team loses to a club with a higher payroll, they can just blame the loss on "buying championships". Meanwhile, they conveniently neglect the fact that Oakland fields solid teams every year with one of the smaller payrolls in MLB and the World Series champion Marlins had a $60 million payroll.

In summary, the payroll argument is stale at best.....give up on it.

-Tom

Who said that a payroll guaranteed a playoff spot? It helps an incredible amount and is an amazing advatange.

Also, the ONLY reason the A's have a solid team is because they had THREE aces develop at almost the SAME time. That is a very very rare incident and if that's the only way that a small market team can be competetive for 4-5 years, then something is definitely wrong. Let's even see if the Marlins have the payroll to even return to the playoffs next year...hell, they already traded their starting 1B b/c of payroll problems.

In summary, payroll is a huge advantage...I'm also a fan of one of these incredibly bloated payroll teams, but I'm also a fan of baseball...for once baseball needs to get their act together and learn to compete against the NFL, NBA, etc and not against each other so much to hurt the game.

I don't argue against payroll being an advantage for one team over another, HOWEVER, my point is that it is not necessarily the payroll itself that creates success (as many would lead one to believe). That is why I keep bringing up the Mets and Rangers.....2 of the highest payrolls in baseball this year, and two of the worst records as well. Then there are other teams like the Yanks, Red Sox, and Dodgers spent their high payrolls a little more wisely and as a result, had better success. Then there is the flip side of that with Oakland, a small market team that developed 4 nasty pitchers through their farm system, and the Marlins; both of which have achieved success through developing their own players and/or getting the most out of the players they have.

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices. :Q

-Tom

Yup, payroll is just an advantage - not a guarantee.
I don't think that you should use Oakland as an example of what a small market team can do to become successful for a good run since developing three aces at about the same time is very remarkable and extremely rare. I doubt that FLA will even return to the playoffs next year.

 

[erikistired]

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices.

very well said.

 

[huesmann]

Originally posted by: chibchacan
They should had spent the money on Andy Pettitte who might sign with the Astros or the Red Sox. :|

It's okay they got mo' money they can spend on him.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: fisher

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices.

very well said.

not really. it just shows ignorance. whereas football derives a SIGNIFICANT percentage of it's revenue from a SINGLE TV contract, which SINGLE network is going to give the MLB a contract??

NFL Season consists of 16 football games, 1 game per week per team (approximately) over a 17 week period.

baseball season consists of 162 games, about 5 games per week over a 4 month season. there is ABSOLUTELY NO Way that MLB Televised games can generate the type of interest or revenue that NFL Televised games can. NFL teams will draw at most 170,000 fans (at the stadiums) PER Season and realistically only HALF that as half their games are on the road. EVEN small market MLB teams draw over 1 million fans at the stadiums and large market teams draw 2.5 million + at the stadiums.

NFL Teams will NEVER generate the type of Stadium Income that MLB teams will, HENCE by their very nature MLB teams will be a LOT more restricted to the Market size and Less dependent on TV Revenues when compared to NFL teams.

to simply state that MLB needs to share revenue like the NFL shows an apalling level of ignorance.


HOWEVER, all that having been said, MLB DOES need to have SOME type of revenue sharing. it will and can never be to the extent of the NFL but to deny it also shows ignorance, particularly on the part of large market teams fans (spedifically the NY Yankees fans). the DEATH of small market teams HURTS all baseball fans. (to an extent, MLB could probably could/should contract 2 or 3 franchises) but to allow franchises like the KC royals, Cincinnati Reds or St Louis Cardinals just DIE would hurt ALL of baseball. At some point Yankees management, fans and MLBPA will have to come to the realization that MLB Teams aren't competing against EACH other in the financial arena but against the NFL, NBA and NHL (btw, MLB has been losing steadily to the NFL for about quite a while now).

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: fisher

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices.

very well said.

not really. it just shows ignorance. whereas football derives a SIGNIFICANT percentage of it's revenue from a SINGLE TV contract, which SINGLE network is going to give the MLB a contract??

NFL Season consists of 16 football games, 1 game per week per team (approximately) over a 17 week period.

baseball season consists of 162 games, about 5 games per week over a 4 month season. there is ABSOLUTELY NO Way that MLB Televised games can generate the type of interest or revenue that NFL Televised games can. NFL teams will draw at most 170,000 fans (at the stadiums) PER Season and realistically only HALF that as half their games are on the road. EVEN small market MLB teams draw over 1 million fans at the stadiums and large market teams draw 2.5 million + at the stadiums.

NFL Teams will NEVER generate the type of Stadium Income that MLB teams will, HENCE by their very nature MLB teams will be a LOT more restricted to the Market size and Less dependent on TV Revenues when compared to NFL teams.

to simply state that MLB needs to share revenue like the NFL shows an apalling level of ignorance.


HOWEVER, all that having been said, MLB DOES need to have SOME type of revenue sharing. it will and can never be to the extent of the NFL but to deny it also shows ignorance, particularly on the part of large market teams fans (spedifically the NY Yankees fans). the DEATH of small market teams HURTS all baseball fans. (to an extent, MLB could probably could/should contract 2 or 3 franchises) but to allow franchises like the KC royals, Cincinnati Reds or St Louis Cardinals just DIE would hurt ALL of baseball. At some point Yankees management, fans and MLBPA will have to come to the realization that MLB Teams aren't competing against EACH other in the financial arena but against the NFL, NBA and NHL (btw, MLB has been losing steadily to the NFL for about quite a while now).

I wasn't saying that MLB should have the EXACT same structure as the NFL, but that it should be similar because, as you pointed out, there are differences between the leagues, their followings, etc. I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the finances of any of the major sports leagues. However, it appears that the revenue sharing and salary caps have helped in the NFL, and I'm sure that these things could be adapted to address some, maybe even all, of the monetary needs within the other professional leagues.

-Tom

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: fisher

On another note, I think baseball needs a financial structure similar to what the NFL has. Revenue sharing has helped many of the smaller market teams in the NFL (Green Bay most notably) and the salary cap forces teams to keep salaries down. Salaries in MLB have gotten way too high and IMO, rather excessive (see A-Rod's 10 yr $252 million deal). I mean honestly, what can a person do with $10 million that they can't do with say $5 million? I would imagine that even $5 million/yr could buy a good sized house with just about everything anyone could want, some nice cars, etc. with some money leftover to spend on whatever else one could possibly desire. Lower salaries could possibly even lead to *gasp* lower ticket prices.

very well said.

not really. it just shows ignorance. whereas football derives a SIGNIFICANT percentage of it's revenue from a SINGLE TV contract, which SINGLE network is going to give the MLB a contract??

NFL Season consists of 16 football games, 1 game per week per team (approximately) over a 17 week period.

baseball season consists of 162 games, about 5 games per week over a 4 month season. there is ABSOLUTELY NO Way that MLB Televised games can generate the type of interest or revenue that NFL Televised games can. NFL teams will draw at most 170,000 fans (at the stadiums) PER Season and realistically only HALF that as half their games are on the road. EVEN small market MLB teams draw over 1 million fans at the stadiums and large market teams draw 2.5 million + at the stadiums.

NFL Teams will NEVER generate the type of Stadium Income that MLB teams will, HENCE by their very nature MLB teams will be a LOT more restricted to the Market size and Less dependent on TV Revenues when compared to NFL teams.

to simply state that MLB needs to share revenue like the NFL shows an apalling level of ignorance.


HOWEVER, all that having been said, MLB DOES need to have SOME type of revenue sharing. it will and can never be to the extent of the NFL but to deny it also shows ignorance, particularly on the part of large market teams fans (spedifically the NY Yankees fans). the DEATH of small market teams HURTS all baseball fans. (to an extent, MLB could probably could/should contract 2 or 3 franchises) but to allow franchises like the KC royals, Cincinnati Reds or St Louis Cardinals just DIE would hurt ALL of baseball. At some point Yankees management, fans and MLBPA will have to come to the realization that MLB Teams aren't competing against EACH other in the financial arena but against the NFL, NBA and NHL (btw, MLB has been losing steadily to the NFL for about quite a while now).

I wasn't saying that MLB should have the EXACT same structure as the NFL, but that it should be similar because, as you pointed out, there are differences between the leagues, their followings, etc. I'll be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the finances of any of the major sports leagues. However, it appears that the revenue sharing and salary caps have helped in the NFL, and I'm sure that these things could be adapted to address some, maybe even all, of the monetary needs within the other professional leagues.

-Tom

i'm saying that structurally it is VERY VERY different hence even similar solutions just won't work.

again, MLB has a much larger %age of revenues from what generated AT the stadium AND there is no national TV contract and it is very unlikely that the MLB will ever get one because there are SOO many baseball games you will never get the TV ratings to generate a national contract. in order to get revenue sharing you are going to have to get owners to reveal all their sources of income and that is very very unlikely. a few teams, Yankees, Braves, Cubs have very sweet tv deals. most teams just don't have the market to support a tv contract like that.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

last year, the yankees drew 3.4 million in attendance for their 81 home games, think of all the concessions revenue generated their.
even the lowest drawing team the montreal expos drew over 1 million in attendance for their 81 home games.
when the yankees are on the road, their games draw an average of 38k PER game, that's more than all but the top 3 teams draw on average WITHOUT the yankees. that's why everyone want the yankees to come to their city to play.


an NFL team rarely draws over 75k for a game and there are only 8 home games every season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance?year=2003

other than arizona there isn't a big a discrepency in attendance figures.

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Storm

Originally posted by: ClueLis
$36 million for 3 years.

He's good, but not that good. It's not surprising that they overpaid him in the wake of the Schilling deal.

The Yankees always overpay because they can.

And that's supposed to be a good thing? I think this contract is OK for Sheffield.

But if he has a .370 OBP/25 HR (which I guess you're predicting a not so great SLG), then that would be a huge disappointment and then he would be overpaid.

I guess now the Yankees must have around $90-$100 million in dedicated payroll for 2006? It's possible that they could have the highest payroll in baseball without signing anyone in the next 2 offseasons. I haven't looked at the details, but I know they have a ton in backloaded contracts. It'll be interesting to see who else they sign.

Nah thats not a good thing. Im just pointing out thats the way the Yanks sign players by overpaying them.

Edit
Changed Nah thats not a good thing...

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: chibchacan
They should had spent the money on Andy Pettitte who might sign with the Astros or the Red Sox. :|

Pettitte isn't signing with the Red Sox, there's never been a word mentioned about him. Steinbrenner would pay him a Trillion bucks before he ever let him go to the arch-enemy. He'll be in either Houston or staying in pinstripes, depending how the negotiations play out.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Sheffield isn't really overpaid....he's worth $12 million.
I guess every team overpays their players.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Sheffield isn't really overpaid....he's worth $12 million.
I guess every team overpays their players.

compared to Manny at 20 mill or so and Arod at 25 mill or so, i'd say Sheff is a bargain.

BUT on the other hand, i don't think Vlad will get over 16 mill per season so compared to vlad at 16 mill / season probably with a 5 yr deal instead of 3, i'd say sheff isn't overpaid.

 

[RabidMongoose]

A little unfair to compare players from different 'economic eras'...even in this current climate, I'd agree that Sheffield isn't being overpaid. I don't see how anyone can say he is overpaid, unless you think all baseball players are overpaid.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
A little unfair to compare players from different 'economic eras'...even in this current climate, I'd agree that Sheffield isn't being overpaid. I don't see how anyone can say he is overpaid, unless you think all baseball players are overpaid.

i agree, no one will ever get ARod or Manny type money, but even Vlad isn't likely to get over 16 mill per year with a five year deal.