Yankees & Entertainment Sports Network on both Instagram and Twitter. Take it for what it's worth but doesn't sound like something he would do if he wasn't joining the Yankees. He doesn't even follow the Orioles..
“Fwiw (maybe not much), Manny Machado has now unfollowed Yes Network on instagram. Doesn’t want to lose leverage with Yankees? Changed his mind? Or just having fun? #yanks #phils #chisox”
When you charge a $1000 for a seat you lose the right to talk about a budget. Almost of all of us Yankee fans gave Hal a pass to get under the tax after paying it for so many years.
But watching the Red Sox out spend them by 60 million with a far lower revenue base and beat them . 4-1 since 2000 that ship has sailed. It's highly unlikely there will ever be two better 26 year old players available at the same time for nothing but money. Time for the Empire to Strike Back.
I’ve come around on dishing out mega deals, I guess it’s not Â
my money and there is no hard cap. Ideally, Machado signs and we bring Harper on board after trading Stanton to the Dodgers. We are not likely to see the wave of prospects coming up like Sanchez/Judge/Torres/Andujar in the near future, maybe it’s not a bad idea to load up on 26 yo superstars.
are some excellent articles recently out there about the Percentage the Yankees spend on players as a percent of Revenue.
Its shocking. As a percent of revenue they are one of the stingiest teams is the league.
They could easily afford both major FA and 3 top relievers
its astonishing to see the analysis of just how successful a money maker they are.
Please look up the articles in RiverAvenueBlues and from there the original article. Then let's not worry too much about the contract this guy or that guy makes.
Being a GM where some missteps mean you cant spend more money on a potential winnning player does not apply to the New York Yankees.
Let's face it. We root for one of, if not THE, most successful sports team in any sport anywhere in the world
I started rooting when I my grandfather taught me baseball and the Yankees were the only team in town.
I knew they were an historical team, but I had no idea about money other than a small allowance for a mountain of chores.
Honestly, guys I have been following the financial underpinnings of the Yankees for about 2 decades now and these analysis were surprising and must reads if you are a Yankee fan
I’ve read those posts. RAB does a great job with stuff like that, even if Axisa has become a little bit gruff over the years.
The suggestion that NYY would try and stay below the lux tax level as a general MO was always absurd to me. And to be fair to ownership, I don’t think it is (or was) ever a real plan as much as it was something that it was in their best interest to say to keep agents honest and on their toes.
At the same time, I don’t begrudge the mindset that they’d like to always have a visible path to pop back below the number every so many seasons to reset the tax level.
As long as they hitch their wagon to the right horses more than they miss, it’ll work out. Hence my view that landing at least one of two 26 year old stone cold superstars should be a given. Amidst all of the months of conversation, I think the rarity of that opportunity has been lost on some — baseball players worth their salt rarely become free agents before 28-29, let alone superstars.
I started rooting when I my grandfather taught me baseball and the Yankees were the only team in town.
I knew they were an historical team, but I had no idea about money other than a small allowance for a mountain of chores.
Honestly, guys I have been following the financial underpinnings of the Yankees for about 2 decades now and these analysis were surprising and must reads if you are a Yankee fan
I've been saying this for years Bill2. After 2009,where Hal allowed Cash to spend big time to win one more for Big George who was failing, the purse strings have gotten tighter & tighter. Hal can prove us wrong this off season by spending on Manny/and/or Harper plus at least 2 quality RPs but until that happens,I'll be very skeptical. He's always been about the bottom line which was why when he made the comment he didn't see why a team couldn't win a championship & be under the cap,I got concerned.As fans last year got excited when he allowed Cash to make the Stanton deal,it was only with the codicil that Cash lose salary to balance Stanton's,which he did by first including Castro in the deal & later moving Headley to the Padres who were willing to eat the contract when the Yanks included Mitchell. Castro/Headley=Stanton I hope Hal proves this wrong going forward but until it happens,I won't believe it!
If you didn't know better you'd think the Stein Kids were setting up for the big cash out. Competitive team, super low payroll ratio, buy back the network and sell out. Or you could say that the 4 kids are in it for just the 25% of the profits and winning World Series is not that important anymore.
If that was the case he’d join the Red Sox. You know considering he was the last out in helping them win yet another World Series.
I see you are registered 12/18. Forgetting the fact that you are a dupe/troll for a minute and I’ll pretend to play along...
Since you “just registered”, I’m gonna clue you in on a site rule. It is an automatic ban if “fans” of other teams come to threads of another team with the sole purpose to incite. We all know you will simply come back under another handle (how many is this for you?), but for now, be gone.
What kind of loser does this? Good lord, absolutely pathetic.
It's one thing to make a smart, competitive offer because you have the money to do so, but in my opinion it cheapens the game and cheapens the victory if you outbid your way to a championship by spending like a drunken sailor with a limitless credit card. And besides, there are owners richer than the Steinbrenners who can also spend whatever it takes regardless of the revenues associated with their toy baseball team.
I'm all for making a competitive offer for either Harper or Machado (preferably Harper), but I would rather see them sign neither than sign both. And I really don't want Machado at all. I think the team that lands him will ultimately regret it. With Harper my only concern is durability.
If you didn't know better you'd think the Stein Kids were setting up for the big cash out. Competitive team, super low payroll ratio, buy back the network and sell out. Or you could say that the 4 kids are in it for just the 25% of the profits and winning World Series is not that important anymore.
Gotta hand it to you, you’ve always got your hands on the pulse of every teams management groups, don’t ya? You always know exactly what they’re thinking and what their motivations are. And it’s always some kind of big conspiracy/shady motives behind every move they make.
Kudos to you! Oh, and however you got screwed by whatever management team that you got screwed by in your life, keep your chin up my friend. Those dirty rotten bastards didn't deserve you anyways! You’ll bounce back someday. No sense harboring I’ll feelings your entire life. Put your big boy pants on and go show them who the REAL boss!
I was part of management teams that screwed guys like you for almost 40 years. There's an entire corporate world that you know nothing about and probably never will. Happy New Year.
I was part of management teams that screwed guys like you for almost 40 years. There's an entire corporate world that you know nothing about and probably never will. Happy New Year.
Haha! Screwed guys like me? Hahahahahahaha! I’ll save you the embarrassment of a dick measuring contest, it’s lame ass hell and I could honestly give a shit about you or what you think of me.
Nobody is buying your schtick around here and the fact that you obviously harbor incredible resentment towards management on all levels tells the entire story all by itself. Maybe in your next life, work a little harder, don’t be so completely useless at your job and show a little respect towards your superiors and you’ll stand a better chance of not being shit canned repeatedly. Blame everyone else for your failures all you want, that’s fine, but don’t act like your disdain for people in charge isn’t personal. We all know it is
Think it’s more about giving your competitors money to help beat you. All of the owners are wealthy. The Twins owner was way richer than Steinbrenner back in the day when George was buy pennants as some say. George built this empire by putting his own money into the team. For those that are not old enough,the Mets would broadcast 90 plus games a year and thenYanks would broadcast about 60. This bitching about the other owners is B.S. they all knew when they bought their teams that the Yanks were around and it didn’t stop them from still buying their team.
Ten years ago, the Yankees spent 150% the payroll Â
Of the next closest team. I get the desire to move away from that, and had they not a hard cap would have eventually followed. But with revenues what they are, and the cost of attending a game what it is, fans are reasonable to expect the team to have a top 2-3 payroll, especially when their closest rival just won the Series while spending seventy million more and eating bad money.
It's one thing to make a smart, competitive offer because you have the money to do so, but in my opinion it cheapens the game and cheapens the victory if you outbid your way to a championship by spending like a drunken sailor with a limitless credit card. And besides, there are owners richer than the Steinbrenners who can also spend whatever it takes regardless of the revenues associated with their toy baseball team.
I'm all for making a competitive offer for either Harper or Machado (preferably Harper), but I would rather see them sign neither than sign both. And I really don't want Machado at all. I think the team that lands him will ultimately regret it. With Harper my only concern is durability.
That’s my view. I don’t need/want all stars at every position. Spending the most money for a title is lame. The 2009 team was the perfect example, didn’t care at all when they won - really didn’t like the team much, probably my least favorite of the “good” yankee teams.
and to Dunedin’s point, I don’t go to games so I don’t “invest” any of my money in the team. Maybe if I was a season ticket holder I’d feel different, but watching from my couch I think it’s a lame way to go about winning.
I loathe the thought of buying a championship, and Sox relied Â
are some excellent articles recently out there about the Percentage the Yankees spend on players as a percent of Revenue.
Its shocking. As a percent of revenue they are one of the stingiest teams is the league.
They could easily afford both major FA and 3 top relievers
its astonishing to see the analysis of just how successful a money maker they are.
Please look up the articles in RiverAvenueBlues and from there the original article. Then let's not worry too much about the contract this guy or that guy makes.
Being a GM where some missteps mean you cant spend more money on a potential winnning player does not apply to the New York Yankees.
Let's face it. We root for one of, if not THE, most successful sports team in any sport anywhere in the world
This POV (the Yanks are only spending a small portion of their financial assets) is missing the forest for the trees. It was George's annual spending sprees that essentially led to the revolt by the smaller markets that emerged in the last several labor negotiations to force the larger market teams to subsidize the small markets (the luxury tax, IFA hard caps, draft pick slotting, etc.).
If the Yanks ever decided to use their full financial might, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that the next CBA would result in a hard spending cap for teams. The Yanks do NOT want this result, as it would undermine their financial might. In fact, the last thing they want it to share their gains with Tampa, Miami and other clubs that should probably not even be a MLB team.
Sometimes people need to stop trying to justify their desire for the Yanks to outspend everyone with numbers taken out of context and to recognize that for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, George's high spending ways have already cost the Yanks the ability to spend freely in IFA, in the draft and are forced to subsidize other teams through the luxury tax and other ways. If you want the Yanks to be hard capped and eventually forced to share all their revenue like the NFL or NBA does, go ahead and keep calling for the Yanks to spend a higher percentage of their assets.
Just recognize that this position ends with the Yanks being forced to share their massive finances and subsidizing Tampa, Miami, Milwaukee, and other small markets and allowing them to compete on an equal footing.
Just because the Yanks CAN outspend everyone does not mean they SHOULD- because you have to see the BIG PICTURE.
I said fans should not over rotate on their ability to spend. imo, it's fun to play amateur GM, but being concerned about contract "mistakes" ( post Ellsbury) without understanding both their ability to spend and the evidence of hard lining value on guys like Corbin
Granted its a bounded capability. As most financial assets are bounded by market realities and stakeholder interests.
Lastly, in terms of forest for trees, you would have to see way in excess for several years before a cap that was more Yankee punitive. in particular you would have to see market price busting per position and ability contracts before there would be action.
Why?
The top teams draw the most attendance. By a huge margin. As long as teams dont see one team setting much higher FA price/value marks and some percentage within the next five teams it's not likely to turn into a problem. no one can complain about the payroll of home grown talent second contracts.
so for example, while I dont advocate it, if they moved Ellsbury and someday Stanton, that's demonstrated cost containment.
Hal already senses those winds before the next CBA.
Could be. In a 32 team league by definition 8 owners made bad investments and 16 made below average investments and 90% of all humans blame others as the reason they dont make more money.
Doubt owners like the Wilpons, as one example, are very self reflective.
is so easy to get past the first players association as some are insinuating. In fact I would guess they have zero chance of getting it. They wouldn’t have universal owner support and the players would always be against it big time. I don’t care what the Yankees spend but I also don’t think they have to spend some percentage or as I fan I will be mad.
I said fans should not over rotate on their ability to spend. imo, it's fun to play amateur GM, but being concerned about contract "mistakes" ( post Ellsbury) without understanding both their ability to spend and the evidence of hard lining value on guys like Corbin
Granted its a bounded capability. As most financial assets are bounded by market realities and stakeholder interests.
Lastly, in terms of forest for trees, you would have to see way in excess for several years before a cap that was more Yankee punitive. in particular you would have to see market price busting per position and ability contracts before there would be action.
Why?
The top teams draw the most attendance. By a huge margin. As long as teams dont see one team setting much higher FA price/value marks and some percentage within the next five teams it's not likely to turn into a problem. no one can complain about the payroll of home grown talent second contracts.
so for example, while I dont advocate it, if they moved Ellsbury and someday Stanton, that's demonstrated cost containment.
it's a deep forest
I wasn't specifically pointing at you, I just used your post to be the link point. The real culprit in my mind is the group at RAB, who really should know better. They have recognized that punitive measures the last several CBAs have placed on the Yanks and how in some cases, the Yanks were the specific target of the punitive measures.
In light of that, they should recognize the consequences of the position they are taking. If they are going to criticize the Yanks for only spending something like 30$ of revenue on the payroll, they should also acknowledge the consequences of the Yanks fully using their financial resources- namely, a hard spending cap AND full revenue sharing (i.e. the NFL and NBA).
Neither of those outcomes are in the Yanks short or long term interests. Thus, if the Yanks are being run as a business, it should (and does appear to be) their plan to use their financial strength only in specific cases and to take steps to minimize the impact elsewhere. This is both for PR and sound business reasons.
While I have no hard evidence to point to to support the belief, I strongly suspect that the move to play near the luxury tax line is a public strategy by the Yanks to signal to the small market teams that the Yanks are at least trying to play by the rules imposed by those teams. This gives the Yanks the high ground if and when the small markets come back hat in hand during the next CBA negotiations.
Furthermore, something to payroll numbers do NOT account for is the spending that the Yanks put into the rest of the product, such as minor league facilities, paying the best coaches, analytics, physical trainers, and other side spending that improves the minor and major league outcomes.
The Yanks spending in these areas has lead to an outcome where they can improve a pitcher's velocity and results- which in turn has produced a number of relievers and several SP in recent years. The hitters have been a little harder to develop, but they have had success in developing ML ready hitters in Judge, Sanchez, and Andujar. They also "fixed" Didi's bat- he was all glove, no hit when the Yanks traded for him. Same story with Hicks- who couldn't do much of anything in Minnesota with the bat.
These are hidden figures that do not show up in the payroll numbers, but are costs that the team invests in the product, with BIG impacts in the on-field results.
With that said, if the Yanks went "all in" on payroll, and the small market clubs (who are a majority of the owners) decided to curb the Yanks and force revenue sharing, the Yanks would have to cut back on these investments to focus on ML payroll simply because the unseen numbers that have been invested before would instead be shared with the other 29 teams and not be there anymore.
The bottom line, when you criticize the Yanks for spending a low percentage of their revenues on payroll, stop for a minute and think through the logical consequences of the Yanks spending the equivalent percentage of their revenues that other clubs spend- and how those clubs would react. Short sighted thinking often leads to negative outcomes- and the short sighted calls for the Yanks to maximize their payroll spending will lead directly to a hard cap and full revenue sharing.
RAB should know better than to fighting this strawman and should be ashamed of their posts on this subject.
is so easy to get past the first players association as some are insinuating. In fact I would guess they have zero chance of getting it. They wouldn’t have universal owner support and the players would always be against it big time. I don’t care what the Yankees spend but I also don’t think they have to spend some percentage or as I fan I will be mad.
I fully agree with the last sentence in your post and wonder why some fans get themselves so tied up in knots over this.
However, as to the hard cap and revenue sharing, this is much easier than people realize. The next CBA negotiations are going to be MUCH more contentious than many realize. The union now sees that it negotiated a VERY bad deal in the last CBA.
Veteran players are getting less and less money, fewer long term guaranteed deals, and the average that players get went down for the first time in years. The stars will always get paid, but the majority of the vets are being hurt.
Furthermore, the gaming going on with call-ups for young players to delay their FA by a year, or hold off their arbitration eligibility in hurting the younger players. Many do not get to the majors until they are 23 or older. If their team games their call-up to have them basically play for 7 years of team control instead of 6, taken together with the growing trend of over 30 players getting few guaranteed multi-year contracts, reduces the future salary growth for these players.
In short, the union is going to have to take a hard line in the next CBA. The owners like how the new system is going, and are very likely to push for even more gains.
There is a possibility that there is another labor stoppage in the next CBA. Remember that the last time there was a major stoppage, the owners locked out the players and cancelled the season in their attempt to get a cap imposed. This time, it could be even more draconian.
The owners COULD decide to just implement their last offer to the union, who would then go on strike. The owners will likely gamble that the union will crumble- mostly for the reasons outlined above- with fewer veterans having long term guaranteed deals, they will feel a lot of financial pressure when their contracts end. Remember how the NFL players caved years ago?
Sure, the union can go to court and seek an injuction like they did years ago- but will it be in time and will it resolve the longer term issues like vet pay? Not sure.
Furthermore, the issue of revenue sharing is even easier for the owners- if they as a group, decide that is the direction they will go, I believe that they have a rule that an owners can't sue other owners to stop a policy. In other words, since the small and mid-market teams form a majority of the league owners, they could decide to make a rule that all revenue- TV, ticket sales, merchandise revenues that go to the teams (not the player percentage), etc. will be put into a pool and shared equally among the teams.
In short, that would take away a vast portion of the Yanks revenue- and if I am right that the Yanks can't stop the other owners from doing this by rule- their financial advantage goes away.
In other words, this isn't as far fetched as some might think.
stream that the NFL does. I think the NFL gets a very large percentage of their income from TV contracts. MLB does not. It is easy to have revenue sharing when a huge percentage of revenue comes from a source that is really equal to all teams.
My guess is that a downturn makes several owners think that way. For baseball, it would be part of the path to second tier American sport.
Its an expensive sport. Hopefully they acknowledge the PT Barnum rule about entertainment dollars which went something like: "People pay full circus prices to see the Elephants and the rest of the time we are holding them long enough to sell lots of peanuts and candy"
So the hedges on this risk is investment in coaching, analytics, video learning, international and minor league players
Out post Rich. I should correct myself, I didn’t mean that it wasn’t possible but I still find it very unlikely that a hard cap gets put in. Even with a hard cap small teams aren’t going to spend to the max that the bigger teams will and with hard cap wouldn’t the small market teams lose money they are getting from the revenue share? You seem more knowledgeable than me on the subject so I am asking not trying to make a point. The small market teams cant have it both ways I would think. They either get to share in the revenue or they can implement a hard cap. I just can’t see a reason that the small market teams would want an NFL style cap. The Yankees, Sox, Dodgers of the league will always make more money and also be more attractive places for players to play. Why would the small market team want to cut off money that is coming in?
A player strike of 30-90 days would kill their franchise value and their profits. It almost relegated the sport to second tier status once before.
If I was a long term ( 50 years) hold investor/operator that was interested in a sport, I would not invest in either football or baseball. Football has medical risk and baseball has the risks of the rise of the mediocre owner that come when you over extend.
The next CBA will be considerably more player-friendly. Either they scrap a luxury tax or mandate a payroll floor. Or they mandate higher minimum salaries across the board (pre-arb, arb, vet minimums). The decline of compensation last year against higher revenues does not sit well with the players at all.
Checking back in after a fun day of college football. BigBlueShock you have no idea what you're talking about. Trust me you don't even know what you don't know. But if ranting about how I view NY sports blind loyalty to fools who run it gives you some peace glad to be of service.
What’s a “looser”?!
Here’s to hoping he’s another Kei Igawa
Quote:
In comment 14242123 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
In comment 14242119 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
Please sign elsewhere. Total cancer does not belong around the Yankees good young core. Harper would be a much better signing.
You are a fucking 12/18 looser dupe jackass.
What’s a “looser”?!
Yeah. Point out a spelling flaw. Still doesn’t make your take any less than, unfounded ridiculous fucking trash.
Well he is unarguably dirty. And he did say he wasn’t going to run everything put, which sounds lazy. I don’t know about cry baby.
Quote:
In comment 14242137 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
In comment 14242123 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
In comment 14242119 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
Please sign elsewhere. Total cancer does not belong around the Yankees good young core. Harper would be a much better signing.
You are a fucking 12/18 looser dupe jackass.
What’s a “looser”?!
Yeah. Point out a spelling flaw. Still doesn’t make your take any less than, unfounded ridiculous fucking trash.
Well he is unarguably dirty. And he did say he wasn’t going to run everything put, which sounds lazy. I don’t know about cry baby.
Thank you, at least someone pays attention.
Quote:
In comment 14242119 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
Please sign elsewhere. Total cancer does not belong around the Yankees good young core. Harper would be a much better signing.
You are a fucking 12/18 looser dupe jackass.
What’s a “looser”?!
Loser is a 12/18 troll like you.
Like OMG
Kind of a bit much...I’d prefer Harper too but man that’s harsh.
Quote:
In comment 14242144 Hsilwek92 said:
Quote:
In comment 14242137 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
In comment 14242123 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
In comment 14242119 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
Please sign elsewhere. Total cancer does not belong around the Yankees good young core. Harper would be a much better signing.
You are a fucking 12/18 looser dupe jackass.
What’s a “looser”?!
Yeah. Point out a spelling flaw. Still doesn’t make your take any less than, unfounded ridiculous fucking trash.
Well he is unarguably dirty. And he did say he wasn’t going to run everything put, which sounds lazy. I don’t know about cry baby.
Thank you, at least someone pays attention.
Way to let someone else fight your battles. Dumb ass fucking troll.
Please, why don’t you elaborate more on your original post like I know you can’t.
Trash.
I can see not wanting to spend 300 million on a free agent, but not wanting him because of his attitude is strange.
He's an excellent player. He would make the Yankees better.
Quote:
In comment 14242144 Hsilwek92 said:
Quote:
In comment 14242137 Ssanders9816 said:
Quote:
In comment 14242123 JPinstripes said:
Quote:
Well he is unarguably dirty. And he did say he wasn’t going to run everything put, which sounds lazy. I don’t know about cry baby.
Thank you, at least someone pays attention.
Good one - another Sox fan agrees with your trolling perspective...
But watching the Red Sox out spend them by 60 million with a far lower revenue base and beat them . 4-1 since 2000 that ship has sailed. It's highly unlikely there will ever be two better 26 year old players available at the same time for nothing but money. Time for the Empire to Strike Back.
Its shocking. As a percent of revenue they are one of the stingiest teams is the league.
They could easily afford both major FA and 3 top relievers
its astonishing to see the analysis of just how successful a money maker they are.
Please look up the articles in RiverAvenueBlues and from there the original article. Then let's not worry too much about the contract this guy or that guy makes.
Being a GM where some missteps mean you cant spend more money on a potential winnning player does not apply to the New York Yankees.
Let's face it. We root for one of, if not THE, most successful sports team in any sport anywhere in the world
I knew they were an historical team, but I had no idea about money other than a small allowance for a mountain of chores.
Honestly, guys I have been following the financial underpinnings of the Yankees for about 2 decades now and these analysis were surprising and must reads if you are a Yankee fan
The suggestion that NYY would try and stay below the lux tax level as a general MO was always absurd to me. And to be fair to ownership, I don’t think it is (or was) ever a real plan as much as it was something that it was in their best interest to say to keep agents honest and on their toes.
At the same time, I don’t begrudge the mindset that they’d like to always have a visible path to pop back below the number every so many seasons to reset the tax level.
As long as they hitch their wagon to the right horses more than they miss, it’ll work out. Hence my view that landing at least one of two 26 year old stone cold superstars should be a given. Amidst all of the months of conversation, I think the rarity of that opportunity has been lost on some — baseball players worth their salt rarely become free agents before 28-29, let alone superstars.
If that was the case he’d join the Red Sox. You know considering he was the last out in helping them win yet another World Series.
I knew they were an historical team, but I had no idea about money other than a small allowance for a mountain of chores.
Honestly, guys I have been following the financial underpinnings of the Yankees for about 2 decades now and these analysis were surprising and must reads if you are a Yankee fan
I've been saying this for years Bill2. After 2009,where Hal allowed Cash to spend big time to win one more for Big George who was failing, the purse strings have gotten tighter & tighter. Hal can prove us wrong this off season by spending on Manny/and/or Harper plus at least 2 quality RPs but until that happens,I'll be very skeptical. He's always been about the bottom line which was why when he made the comment he didn't see why a team couldn't win a championship & be under the cap,I got concerned.As fans last year got excited when he allowed Cash to make the Stanton deal,it was only with the codicil that Cash lose salary to balance Stanton's,which he did by first including Castro in the deal & later moving Headley to the Padres who were willing to eat the contract when the Yanks included Mitchell. Castro/Headley=Stanton I hope Hal proves this wrong going forward but until it happens,I won't believe it!
Quote:
Time to join them
If that was the case he’d join the Red Sox. You know considering he was the last out in helping them win yet another World Series.
I see you are registered 12/18. Forgetting the fact that you are a dupe/troll for a minute and I’ll pretend to play along...
Since you “just registered”, I’m gonna clue you in on a site rule. It is an automatic ban if “fans” of other teams come to threads of another team with the sole purpose to incite. We all know you will simply come back under another handle (how many is this for you?), but for now, be gone.
What kind of loser does this? Good lord, absolutely pathetic.
I'm all for making a competitive offer for either Harper or Machado (preferably Harper), but I would rather see them sign neither than sign both. And I really don't want Machado at all. I think the team that lands him will ultimately regret it. With Harper my only concern is durability.
Gotta hand it to you, you’ve always got your hands on the pulse of every teams management groups, don’t ya? You always know exactly what they’re thinking and what their motivations are. And it’s always some kind of big conspiracy/shady motives behind every move they make.
Kudos to you! Oh, and however you got screwed by whatever management team that you got screwed by in your life, keep your chin up my friend. Those dirty rotten bastards didn't deserve you anyways! You’ll bounce back someday. No sense harboring I’ll feelings your entire life. Put your big boy pants on and go show them who the REAL boss!
Still hoping they sign Manny and stop the nickel and diming. Get Britton and Robertson back and say come get me!
I won't hold my breath, quite yet.
Haha! Screwed guys like me? Hahahahahahaha! I’ll save you the embarrassment of a dick measuring contest, it’s lame ass hell and I could honestly give a shit about you or what you think of me.
Nobody is buying your schtick around here and the fact that you obviously harbor incredible resentment towards management on all levels tells the entire story all by itself. Maybe in your next life, work a little harder, don’t be so completely useless at your job and show a little respect towards your superiors and you’ll stand a better chance of not being shit canned repeatedly. Blame everyone else for your failures all you want, that’s fine, but don’t act like your disdain for people in charge isn’t personal. We all know it is
I'm all for making a competitive offer for either Harper or Machado (preferably Harper), but I would rather see them sign neither than sign both. And I really don't want Machado at all. I think the team that lands him will ultimately regret it. With Harper my only concern is durability.
That’s my view. I don’t need/want all stars at every position. Spending the most money for a title is lame. The 2009 team was the perfect example, didn’t care at all when they won - really didn’t like the team much, probably my least favorite of the “good” yankee teams.
It’s just that Astros and Sox have done so well that if we have to flex a little more financial muscle to get over the himp, so be it.
Rooting for Judge, Sanchez, Torres ( ok not so organizational), Severino, Andujar has been just about my favorite time as a Yankee fan.
But now I'd like to see that core get over the top
Its shocking. As a percent of revenue they are one of the stingiest teams is the league.
They could easily afford both major FA and 3 top relievers
its astonishing to see the analysis of just how successful a money maker they are.
Please look up the articles in RiverAvenueBlues and from there the original article. Then let's not worry too much about the contract this guy or that guy makes.
Being a GM where some missteps mean you cant spend more money on a potential winnning player does not apply to the New York Yankees.
Let's face it. We root for one of, if not THE, most successful sports team in any sport anywhere in the world
This POV (the Yanks are only spending a small portion of their financial assets) is missing the forest for the trees. It was George's annual spending sprees that essentially led to the revolt by the smaller markets that emerged in the last several labor negotiations to force the larger market teams to subsidize the small markets (the luxury tax, IFA hard caps, draft pick slotting, etc.).
If the Yanks ever decided to use their full financial might, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that the next CBA would result in a hard spending cap for teams. The Yanks do NOT want this result, as it would undermine their financial might. In fact, the last thing they want it to share their gains with Tampa, Miami and other clubs that should probably not even be a MLB team.
Sometimes people need to stop trying to justify their desire for the Yanks to outspend everyone with numbers taken out of context and to recognize that for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, George's high spending ways have already cost the Yanks the ability to spend freely in IFA, in the draft and are forced to subsidize other teams through the luxury tax and other ways. If you want the Yanks to be hard capped and eventually forced to share all their revenue like the NFL or NBA does, go ahead and keep calling for the Yanks to spend a higher percentage of their assets.
Just recognize that this position ends with the Yanks being forced to share their massive finances and subsidizing Tampa, Miami, Milwaukee, and other small markets and allowing them to compete on an equal footing.
Just because the Yanks CAN outspend everyone does not mean they SHOULD- because you have to see the BIG PICTURE.
Granted its a bounded capability. As most financial assets are bounded by market realities and stakeholder interests.
Lastly, in terms of forest for trees, you would have to see way in excess for several years before a cap that was more Yankee punitive. in particular you would have to see market price busting per position and ability contracts before there would be action.
Why?
The top teams draw the most attendance. By a huge margin. As long as teams dont see one team setting much higher FA price/value marks and some percentage within the next five teams it's not likely to turn into a problem. no one can complain about the payroll of home grown talent second contracts.
so for example, while I dont advocate it, if they moved Ellsbury and someday Stanton, that's demonstrated cost containment.
it's a deep forest
Could be. In a 32 team league by definition 8 owners made bad investments and 16 made below average investments and 90% of all humans blame others as the reason they dont make more money.
Doubt owners like the Wilpons, as one example, are very self reflective.
Granted its a bounded capability. As most financial assets are bounded by market realities and stakeholder interests.
Lastly, in terms of forest for trees, you would have to see way in excess for several years before a cap that was more Yankee punitive. in particular you would have to see market price busting per position and ability contracts before there would be action.
Why?
The top teams draw the most attendance. By a huge margin. As long as teams dont see one team setting much higher FA price/value marks and some percentage within the next five teams it's not likely to turn into a problem. no one can complain about the payroll of home grown talent second contracts.
so for example, while I dont advocate it, if they moved Ellsbury and someday Stanton, that's demonstrated cost containment.
it's a deep forest
I wasn't specifically pointing at you, I just used your post to be the link point. The real culprit in my mind is the group at RAB, who really should know better. They have recognized that punitive measures the last several CBAs have placed on the Yanks and how in some cases, the Yanks were the specific target of the punitive measures.
In light of that, they should recognize the consequences of the position they are taking. If they are going to criticize the Yanks for only spending something like 30$ of revenue on the payroll, they should also acknowledge the consequences of the Yanks fully using their financial resources- namely, a hard spending cap AND full revenue sharing (i.e. the NFL and NBA).
Neither of those outcomes are in the Yanks short or long term interests. Thus, if the Yanks are being run as a business, it should (and does appear to be) their plan to use their financial strength only in specific cases and to take steps to minimize the impact elsewhere. This is both for PR and sound business reasons.
While I have no hard evidence to point to to support the belief, I strongly suspect that the move to play near the luxury tax line is a public strategy by the Yanks to signal to the small market teams that the Yanks are at least trying to play by the rules imposed by those teams. This gives the Yanks the high ground if and when the small markets come back hat in hand during the next CBA negotiations.
Furthermore, something to payroll numbers do NOT account for is the spending that the Yanks put into the rest of the product, such as minor league facilities, paying the best coaches, analytics, physical trainers, and other side spending that improves the minor and major league outcomes.
The Yanks spending in these areas has lead to an outcome where they can improve a pitcher's velocity and results- which in turn has produced a number of relievers and several SP in recent years. The hitters have been a little harder to develop, but they have had success in developing ML ready hitters in Judge, Sanchez, and Andujar. They also "fixed" Didi's bat- he was all glove, no hit when the Yanks traded for him. Same story with Hicks- who couldn't do much of anything in Minnesota with the bat.
These are hidden figures that do not show up in the payroll numbers, but are costs that the team invests in the product, with BIG impacts in the on-field results.
With that said, if the Yanks went "all in" on payroll, and the small market clubs (who are a majority of the owners) decided to curb the Yanks and force revenue sharing, the Yanks would have to cut back on these investments to focus on ML payroll simply because the unseen numbers that have been invested before would instead be shared with the other 29 teams and not be there anymore.
The bottom line, when you criticize the Yanks for spending a low percentage of their revenues on payroll, stop for a minute and think through the logical consequences of the Yanks spending the equivalent percentage of their revenues that other clubs spend- and how those clubs would react. Short sighted thinking often leads to negative outcomes- and the short sighted calls for the Yanks to maximize their payroll spending will lead directly to a hard cap and full revenue sharing.
RAB should know better than to fighting this strawman and should be ashamed of their posts on this subject.
I fully agree with the last sentence in your post and wonder why some fans get themselves so tied up in knots over this.
However, as to the hard cap and revenue sharing, this is much easier than people realize. The next CBA negotiations are going to be MUCH more contentious than many realize. The union now sees that it negotiated a VERY bad deal in the last CBA.
Veteran players are getting less and less money, fewer long term guaranteed deals, and the average that players get went down for the first time in years. The stars will always get paid, but the majority of the vets are being hurt.
Furthermore, the gaming going on with call-ups for young players to delay their FA by a year, or hold off their arbitration eligibility in hurting the younger players. Many do not get to the majors until they are 23 or older. If their team games their call-up to have them basically play for 7 years of team control instead of 6, taken together with the growing trend of over 30 players getting few guaranteed multi-year contracts, reduces the future salary growth for these players.
In short, the union is going to have to take a hard line in the next CBA. The owners like how the new system is going, and are very likely to push for even more gains.
There is a possibility that there is another labor stoppage in the next CBA. Remember that the last time there was a major stoppage, the owners locked out the players and cancelled the season in their attempt to get a cap imposed. This time, it could be even more draconian.
The owners COULD decide to just implement their last offer to the union, who would then go on strike. The owners will likely gamble that the union will crumble- mostly for the reasons outlined above- with fewer veterans having long term guaranteed deals, they will feel a lot of financial pressure when their contracts end. Remember how the NFL players caved years ago?
Sure, the union can go to court and seek an injuction like they did years ago- but will it be in time and will it resolve the longer term issues like vet pay? Not sure.
Furthermore, the issue of revenue sharing is even easier for the owners- if they as a group, decide that is the direction they will go, I believe that they have a rule that an owners can't sue other owners to stop a policy. In other words, since the small and mid-market teams form a majority of the league owners, they could decide to make a rule that all revenue- TV, ticket sales, merchandise revenues that go to the teams (not the player percentage), etc. will be put into a pool and shared equally among the teams.
In short, that would take away a vast portion of the Yanks revenue- and if I am right that the Yanks can't stop the other owners from doing this by rule- their financial advantage goes away.
In other words, this isn't as far fetched as some might think.
My guess is that a downturn makes several owners think that way. For baseball, it would be part of the path to second tier American sport.
Its an expensive sport. Hopefully they acknowledge the PT Barnum rule about entertainment dollars which went something like: "People pay full circus prices to see the Elephants and the rest of the time we are holding them long enough to sell lots of peanuts and candy"
So the hedges on this risk is investment in coaching, analytics, video learning, international and minor league players
A player strike of 30-90 days would kill their franchise value and their profits. It almost relegated the sport to second tier status once before.
If I was a long term ( 50 years) hold investor/operator that was interested in a sport, I would not invest in either football or baseball. Football has medical risk and baseball has the risks of the rise of the mediocre owner that come when you over extend.