100 Years of the New York Yankees (1 Viewer)

[Eric Paddon]

"No, sorry Eric, but what you're spewing about the NBA is rubbish. Basketball is in no way a proper comparison."

It's fair game to me. I look at the NBA and I see a sport that has zero competetive balance and has had more doormat franchises for decades (LA Clippers) then baseball even with this oh-so-horrible financial structure can ever be accused of. When you add a joke of a playoff system that is needed because the regular season is so meaningless in the first place with one team dominating year after year, I see a sport with far more flaws then baseball can ever be accused of.


"The point is that they were able to acquire or keep said talent long enough to put together a complete team of talented, seasoned players."

If the cheapskate owners that get money off revenue sharing and luxury taxes would have the sense to put the money back into the team rather than their own pockets to cover operating losses, they'd be in a lot better position to keep their young talent too.

"In those days they weren't compelled to let good players go before the team was fully assembled. Today only a select few teams have this opportunity."

You're also talking about an era when there was still such a thing called the Reserve Clause which made that possible, and FYI the Yankees dominated just as much during that era too and the same old complaints were levied about how unfair it was when they dominated in this era of an equal playing field. You can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

"Still, the Yankees in the recent past are always very near the top"

Because their management puts a premium on trying to be competitive and justify the end product for the fans and the ticket prices they must now pay.

"Not to mention that by overpaying some of his players relative to their true worth he sets the market for others which further deepens the problem."

Excuse me but let's have a reality check. George Steinbrenner has *never* raised the bar in salaries with any big-named free-agent prospect. You really should be directing your complaints at Fox for the money they overpaid to get Kevin Brown, which more then any other contract is what threw the salary structure for pitchers out of whack. And as for position player contracts, all I've got to say is A-Rod, and he wasn't given his contract by George Steinbrenner either. This is exactly the problem I have with anti-Yankee fans who keep wanting to blame Steinbrenner for the supposed ills of baseball, and I maintain that it's the other owners who are to blame for any problems that exist in the first place. The fact that they've botched the last four national TV contracts baseball has had ever since their foolish CBS deal in 1990 and helped reduce the national exposure of baseball as a consequence is again an ill you can't blame George Steinbrenner for.

"1. Yes, Atlanta has been and is a "big market" in MLB because they can and have spent a lot more money than the majority of MLB teams can."

In 1990, Atlanta was a doormat of baseball. They had the Superstation back then and were America's joke. They do not become a "big market" just because they've been able to sustain excellence it's because they have ultimately smart management and the know-how to spend what they have wisely.

"It's absolutely ridiculous that this revenue isn't shared equitably."

Uh, let me get this straight. New York Yankee fans should be forced to pay higher ticket prices to provide funds for incompetent owners in Kansas City and Pittsburgh, who when push comes to shove, *never* take any of the extra money they get under existing revenue plans and put them back into the ballclubs? This has been the centerpiece of what Steinbrenner has objected to for years. He isn't averse to revenue sharing if he has to, but he wants guarantees that these owners are going to stop their shenanigans of heisting money from big market teams to cover their operating losses and cover up their incompetent management decisions, and he is absolutely right about that. Until there's an iron clad guarantee that such money should go to salaries only, I don't blame him for opposing such plans. And of course, there's the fact that if we had a salary cap like the other sports, and if the Players Union weren't comprised of greedy men who are never interested in compromising on that score, you might see better results. But the courts have dictated that the open market must prevail, and in the interests of trying to be competitive, George Steinbrenner has every right to do what he wants with money that is his, fair and square and not be forced to give it up to owners who would not use it to make their ballclubs better.

"They were very shrewd and had the good fortune to bring along and sign to long-term deals a bunch of very good young talent simulaneously at just the right time when opening their new park."

Which only proves my point that it is possible for any team to be able to compete and win a championship today in baseball if they have good management, no matter what their salary structure is.

"along with a good-sized population area to draw from"

Which never came out to the ballpark before. Cleveland was a doormat before they got smart management and that was the key to their turnaround. Just like the key to the Yankees ending a 15 year pennant drought was an improvement in management.


"But that doesn't make the system fair or right."

Sorry, but that is just sour grapes galore IMO. Yankee fans have had to put up with these carping complaints during the days when there was an "equal" playing field by your definition, and it just seems to me that what I'm seeing once again is the same kind of double standard that is reserved only to run down the New York Yankees while a free pass is given to all the dynasties in all other forms of professional sports.

"The NFL is eating MLB's lunch and their success is not just because more people like football better than baseball -- it's also largely because NFL fans (except maybe in Cincinnati ) feel that their team has just as good a chance as the others if they get good management and players."

Except what is so laughable about this is that *more* teams have a shot at winning the World Series every year then teams have a shot at winning the Super Bowl. In the last decade we saw teams like Florida, Arizona and Anaheim succeed and this year we see more teams in competition for postseason in September then ever before. There are presently 13 teams with a legit shot at winning it all: Yankees, Red Sox, Mariners, A's, White Sox, Twins, Braves, Marlins, Astros, Cubs, Giants, Dodgers and Phillies. That's nearly half the teams in baseball which is a better ratio in basketball or hockey, and IMO ultimately better than football.

"but you don't end up with the Steelers constantly having to let their better players go to be signed by the Jets."

I already saw Phil Simms' career forced to a premature end because of that system, which for me says it all as to what I think about it.

"The NFL is also different in that there is no minor league organization."

Yeah, it draws from the increasingly crooked ranks of college football and you see these outrageous salaries and bonuses given to players who are skipping out of school to enter the draft, whereas baseball players have to be willing to take the hard knocks of the minor leagues and traveling on buses for less than $10,000 a year if they want to have a shot at the bigs.

"Cheapskate small-market owners. I'll agree they do exist. But you're dreaming if you think that's the problem "more than anything else.""

See my above comments on the curious practice of what cheapskate owners like to do with the extra money they get under existing revenue sharing and luxury tax plans. If you think they're going to change their ways by forcing socialist solutions on the Yankees, think again. They're just going to pocket it to cover losses and not give a damn about whether the fans end up with a winning team.


"Where do you propose these owners get the money to pay what the Yankees can without the revenue streams?"

#1-Sell their teams to owners who are willing to take a crack at putting more effort into the ballclub.

#2-Hire competent management.

#3-Put ALL money from existing revenue sharing and luxury tax plans into team salaries and nothing else.

#4-Start coming up with some sensible solutions to increase baseball's national exposure and visibility by (1) putting the postseason games at earlier start times (2) get baseball back on two networks, not one (it is no coincidence that baseball's most prosperous decade was when they were on both ABC and NBC) (3) and stop letting the NFL and college football dictate network start times.

And there are more solutions, all of which will allow these bad franchises to get a few more bucks, but the net result is just going to be the same level playing field of nearly 50% of all teams having legit pennant aspirations as is presently the case.

"But those of us in the real world know the truth"

The problem is what you are calling the "truth" has rested on some dubious premises to begin with, particularly the untruth about Steinbrenner setting the market rate on player salaries, and smacks of nothing more than sour grapes galore. They do not play from a stacked deck except in the vivid imagination of those teams that just want to look for a convenient excuse to cover-up the incompetence in their own management ranks (much in the same way that certain Red Sox fans find it more convenient to believe in "curses of the Bambino" instead of taking a long hard look at their franchise history in the mirror)

 

[GlennH]

Eric, suffice it to say that IMO your views are largely incorrect and skewed. You create your own reality to justify the status quo, which obviously works just fine for Yankees fans. Some comments:

1. You keep harping on the fact that cheapskate owners don't put revenue sharing money back into their teams, as if you know this for a fact. In fact you know nothing about it. I'd like you to show me hard evidence that this is actually a fact on any widespread basis. George complains about it, so it must be so, huh? Many of these owners must go into debt to even field the team in the first place. If they don't use any revenue to pay off said debt their negative bottom line will quickly force them out of business. They'd love to use that money to sign some top free agent, but the reality is they have to pay their bills first just to survive. You act like the revenue sharing and luxury taxes are actually significant. Get a clue. Have you actually seen how much money we're talking about? Certainly not enough to really change anything in the grand scheme of things. Finally, your solution to sell the teams to somebody who will run them in what you consider the "correct" way sounds good -- except there are no such prospective owners. Any good businessman looking at MLB would have to conclude that it's just not a money-making proposition with the current arrangement in the majority of markets.

2. You should quit trying to make points to me using basketball and hockey as examples. I am no fan of the NBA or their system and hockey is actually worse than baseball. So what's your point? As to the NFL, this is a league that isn't perfect but has the best system in terms of sustained competitive balance. Can you imagine what franchises like the Green Bay Packers would be like if the NFL had baseball's system? I don't buy your arguments about how many teams in MLB have a real chance. Every year at this time you could just take all the teams in contention for the playoffs and make the same statement. Hey, somebody has to win these divisions and wildcards. But that doesn't mean all those teams are truly equal or capable of winning it all this year or especially year in and year out, even with the best management.

3. I find it laughable that you actually believe that George is interested in doing the right thing for the good of the game. This is total hogwash. He cares about only two things -- winning and generating/keeping as much money as he can. That's fine and dandy, but it isn't what's best for the league as a whole. It isn't George's responsibility to do what's best for the whole league, but it is the owners' as a whole. But thanks to the spineless Bud Selig and his merry men, no meaningful change ever happens.

4. Local broadcasting revenue. Why do you equate what I said about small markets forcing large market owners to share their local TV revenue (via requiring an equal share of the broadcast revenue in exchange for the right to televise games from their parks) to making you pay higher ticket prices? That's not the idea at all. The idea is that George pay a fair amount commensurate with the advertising revenue he takes in. George doesn't raise ticket prices to maintain his huge profit margins. George's profit margins go down and the small market's income goes up. Ticket prices stay the same but all the teams now share revenues in a much more meaningful way. Now the small markets can't complain (as much) if they don't field a competitive team. The money is there. Let's use some arbitrary round numbers here to illustrate (I am not claiming these are accurate, but I believe the relative amounts aren't far off):

Let's say George gets $100 million in local TV revenue to broadcast 100 Yankee games, while the KC Royals get $5 million to broadcast 100 of their games. (I saw some figures a few years ago indicating the Yankees got over $100 million for local TV while the Pirates got $3 million). So okay, George gets $1 million a game, KC gets $50,000 per game. KC (and the rest of the league) should tell George and other large market owners: "Okay George, you give me $500,000 for each game you broadcast from my park, and I'll give you $25,000 for each game I broadcast from Yankee Stadium. Doesn't sound fair? Okay, then forget about it. You don't broadcast from here and I don't from there." Actually, it's entirely fair. Not broadcasting would hurt George a lot more than KC, who relies much less on local TV revenue. The fans and players need not be part of this equation. George just profits less overall and the other owners get a fair share for providing the product on the field that all those viewers are watching. To me, this is the stick that all the small market owners have but have not used to force real economic change. This is not socialism, it is capitalism -- the small market owners demand fair payment for providing their product.

Another way to look at it is that all the owners jointly recognize that they are interdependent on one another and so they will all put every dollar of broadcasting revenue into one large pot and share it and the expenses equally, period. The single biggest success of the NFL system was their handling of this issue, as pushed by Rozelle and the owners of his time. Combine that with the salary cap and no guaranteed contracts and their league flourishes as a result and the players who perform are still millonaires. If Phil Simms can't make the team or gets too expensive, then get out, go to the broadcasting booth, and let somebody else play. Every team has such stories, so don't cry the blues to me about that.

Finally, let me just reiterate that I am not trying to persecute or pick on the Yankees in particular here. I do not consider them evil or anything. I do not intend anything I've said as "sour grapes." As I've said before, I blame all the owners for the state the game is in and for the most part the Yankees are just doing what they can and what others would also likely do under the current system. But it's a system which isn't good for the majority of teams or fans, and harms the overall popularity of the sport.

I don't have the desire, time, or energy to continue this back and forth, because it is ultimately pointless. You aren't convincing me one bit and I'm not convincing you either. So we disagree. Nothing we say will have any effect on the situation anyway. So go ahead and get your final shots in (as I know you must), and then have a nice day.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"You create your own reality to justify the status quo, which obviously works just fine for Yankees fans."

No, in this case it's setting the record straight and noting the double standards that seems to exist only to run down the Yankees alone among sports dynasties.

"You keep harping on the fact that cheapskate owners don't put revenue sharing money back into their teams, as if you know this for a fact."

Sorry, but this *is* a fact, and is exactly what owners in Cincinnati, Montreal (when they had a legit owner) and other teams have done the last several years under currently existing revenue sharing schemes. Trying to duck this point by questioning the truth of it isn't going to work and is a very weak argument.

"Many of these owners must go into debt to even field the team in the first place. If they don't use any revenue to pay off said debt their negative bottom line will quickly force them out of business."

So in other words because of thier incompetent finacial practices, they should get entitled to a freebie bail-out from a more prosperous team which means ultimately that New York Yankee fans must pay higher ticket prices because of incompetent owners in KC, Cincinnati etc. Sorry, but that is just dumb.

"Get a clue. Have you actually seen how much money we're talking about?"

Enough to give each team an extra $10 million in salary which often can mean the difference for an extra quality player or two to make the difference in a season.


"You should quit trying to make points to me using basketball and hockey as examples."

I won't because they underscore why so many of these arguments singling out baseball are so ludicrous, and ignoring them because they don't help your arguments isn't going to change that.

"As to the NFL, this is a league that isn't perfect but has the best system in terms of sustained competitive balance."

Baloney! The New York Jets have been a doormat for 35 years, and we have had plenty of NFL dynasties in the past but frankly, whenever I had to put up with the 49ers and Cowboys dynasties, I didn't want to see forced parity in which teams would often have to give up vital components year after year and reduce its ability to build a long-term stable core of players, I wanted to see the teams win on the playing field without having to rig the system in an artificial way.

"I don't buy your arguments about how many teams in MLB have a real chance."

Well sorry but it's a fact that 13 teams are presently in contention with a legit shot and no amount of trying to deny that to justify a sour grapes anti-Yankee bias is going to change that fact.

"But that doesn't mean all those teams are truly equal or capable of winning it all this year"

Because in baseball in short series, the playing field is *always* equal and any team in the postseason has a legit shot which is not the case with the NFL or NBA or NHL playoff systems.

"I find it laughable that you actually believe that George is interested in doing the right thing for the good of the game."

Hey, I only go by the *results* of what he's brought to Yankee fans which is six championships during his ownership and the most successful track record of any owner in baseball in the last half century. Unlike the cheapskate Calvin Griffiths, or the country-club racists like Tom Yawkey, his bottom line is to give Yankee fans a reason to cheer and while he's been outrageous in the past and can be crude, most fans would take an owner willing to do what's necessary to win in a heartbeat.

"But thanks to the spineless Bud Selig and his merry men, no meaningful change ever happens."

Is it George's fault that the Expos have no owner when there are several cities that have wanted a team for years? No. Is it George's fault that owners didn't compromise on the Reserve Clause in the first place which led to unrestricted free agency? No. Is it George's fault that baseball's network TV exposure has been slashed over the last decade? No. The bottom line is these problems existed long before the Yankees started winning again in 1996 and the Yankees winning since then has nothing to do with the more serious problems that have affected the game's popularity.

"Local broadcasting revenue. Why do you equate what I said about small markets forcing large market owners to share their local TV revenue (via requiring an equal share of the broadcast revenue in exchange for the right to televise games from their parks) to making you pay higher ticket prices? That's not the idea at all."

You also have the matter of people in the big markets having to pay higher cable rates so the cable companies can afford those deals with the teams, and then that money has to be used to bail out incompetent owners in small markets to cover business losses then make their teams better. Sorry, that argument doesn't cut it either way. In the end people in New York get screwed in higher ticket prices or higher cable rates just because the ownership in Cincinnati or Kansas City doesn't know how to run a ballclub.


"Okay George, you give me $500,000 for each game you broadcast from my park, and I'll give you $25,000 for each game I broadcast from Yankee Stadium. Doesn't sound fair? Okay, then forget about it. You don't broadcast from here and I don't from there.""

Oh in other words, fans in New York should be penalized from being able to follow their own teams becaue the other team is incompetent in their management. This suggestion is so asinine, little wonder that you don't get any sympathy from those of us who think you should stick to trying to win on the playing field instead.


"This is not socialism, it is capitalism -- the small market owners demand fair payment for providing their product."

No sir, that is socialism in sayinig that profits legitimately earned by one club must be spread out to bail out those who haven't been able to hack it in the market place. What would really help is contracting two teams that never should have been added in the first place to get rid of some of the diluted talent that creates permanent doormats in the first place and which cannot sustain fan interest.

"If Phil Simms can't make the team or gets too expensive, then get out, go to the broadcasting booth, and let somebody else play. Every team has such stories, so don't cry the blues to me about that."

I thought what happened to Simms, who had two or three years left to offer the Giants was a disgrace. Give me baseball where those kinds of artificial barriers to a player's ability to continue his career don't have to be there any day of the week.

"But it's a system which isn't good for the majority of teams or fans, and harms the overall popularity of the sport."

Then how come baseball's attendance is always up at the ballpark, and how come half the teams still have a shot at a championship in September? Right now, the majority of fans who have gone to the ballpark this year still have something to cheer about, and no amount of trying to hide behind this point by repeating an untruth about the lack of competitive balance in the game is ever going to change that. It seems to me that people who moan about this in baseball will never be satisfied until every team in baseball is guaranteed an 81-81 record.

What this comes back to has nothing to do with "fairness" in general, it has everything to do with trying to penalize one team, the New York Yankees for the success it legitimately earned under the same system that allowed "small market" teams like Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto, Minnesota, and Oakland to prosper under in the 1980s and early 1990s. Until I see the same thing applied to the NBA and see a gaggle of sportswriters and people start talking about the unfairness of the Michael Jordan Bulls or the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, they will get no sympathy from me whatsoever.

 

[GlennH]

Okay, one more.

I'd like to see what George, Joe Torre, and crew would be able to do if they swapped positions with their counterparts in Detroit or Milwaukee. Then we'd see what geniuses they really are. George's head would explode right off his shoulders. No more unlimited payroll to smoothe over any horrible mistakes or devastating injuries. No more being able to sign a Japanese or Cuban pitcher of questionable age to a multimillion dollar contract and just write it off if he doesn't pan out. Yankee fans like to tout how "smart" their management and organization has been, but the fact is that they can be just as stupid as others but can throw more money at it to make their mistakes go away, so they're soon forgotten. It's true that they have done this more successfully than some other big money teams, but the reality is that they have the most money. Small market teams are hamstrung by similar mistakes for years.

Any system that enables one team to spend three times the average that the rest of the teams spend on player salaries is simply a joke. Don't tell me that all those other owners could just be smarter and spend more. It just isn't true. If I were a NYY fan, I'd be ashamed when they *don't* win every single year.

There would be no need for any "welfare" from the Yankees if there was a hard salary cap plus equal sharing of broadcast revenue, which is not welfare because for a given game it legitimately belongs equally to *both* the teams on the field. You can't watch your precious Yankees if there's no other team to play. They deserve half the profits. You should pay the other team an equal share of what the overall market brings in for televising that game. Every team does the same thing. All will prosper. The Yankees can then try to show everybody that they are the best when the field is more level.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"I'd like to see what George, Joe Torre, and crew would be able to do if they swapped positions with their counterparts in Detroit or Milwaukee."

Detroit is owned by a wealthy pizza baron who is hardly the kind of person starving for cash when it comes to his ability to spend extra on his team. But since Detroit and Milwaukee for that matter were doormats of baseball in 1991-94 during the days when things were supposedly "fairer" this argument is rather dubious. Likewise, the Yankees already started getting bigger TV revenue in 1989 under their 12 year MSG contract, but that somehow didn't stop them from being a joke from 1989-1992.

"No more unlimited payroll to smoothe over any horrible mistakes or devastating injuries. No more being able to sign a Japanese or Cuban pitcher of questionable age to a multimillion dollar contract"

Reality check time once again, please. El Duque was signed at a bargain basement figure of 1.7 million a year when he came to the Yankees, well below the market value for a pitcher of his caliber. But there's one other thing you're leaving out with regard to El Duque, Matsui etc. and that is that they *wanted* to play for the Yankees. Do we now decide that the free agency rules that give players the right to choose who they want to play for should go out the window when it comes to professionals from overseas? No thank you.

"Don't tell me that all those other owners could just be smarter and spend more. It just isn't true."

It *is* true, especially when these same owners end up with sweetheart deals for new stadiums that they manage to gyp the local taxpayer out of, which is one revenue stream the Yankees haven't been able to rely on in all this time.

"If I were a NYY fan, I'd be ashamed when they *don't* win every single year."

Well so sorry to disappoint you and shatter your illusions about what Yankee fans think. We expect to see the team contend and to see management make the effort needed to get the players who can help the team win, and if it comes up short that means we got beat by a superior team. You won't see us be sore losers who feel the need to add a profane middle name to someone who beats us like the Red Sox fans do with Bucky Dent.

"There would be no need for any "welfare" from the Yankees if there was a hard salary cap plus equal sharing of broadcast revenue,"

For the first part, you can blame Marvin Miller and his successors as heads of the Players Union for making sure that's never going to happen. For the second part, any sharing of broadcast revenue should come out of network contracts, and when baseball ends up with bad network deals as they consistently stumbled their way into the last several times starting with their 1990 CBS deal when they took more upfront money at the cost of seeing baseball's network TV exposure reduced from two to one, and then the abandoning of the Saturday Game of the Week, they put themselves in a pickle that they'll never get out of until they start insisting on an expanded network TV presence that'll bring more fans back to watching postseason games and to stop going for the quick buck of primetime TV revenue which damages the long-term health of the game a lot more.

With regard to local TV money, all I can say is, that if the teams want higher fees from local carriers, they should put a winning product on the field and their rates will go up and they'll have more. Simple as that.

"The Yankees can then try to show everybody that they are the best when the field is more level."

The field is already level with 13 teams having a chance to win it all this year. The last two years, other teams took advantage of that opportunity to emerge on top and if the Yankees end up back on top, they will have done so because their men on the field came through and won the game just as it's been played the last century and a half and because of what they did on the field, not off it.

 

[Brian_L_Kleis]

Errrr... Ummmm.... So, anybody here know anything about the actual DVD and the quality therein?

I completely understand the differences of opinion above concerning city size, ownership, free agency requirements and such.... But hey, I just want a really good quality baseball documentary... Sorry, just me...


What would I know about long suffering? I'm a Cubs fan...

 

[GlennH]

because of what they did on the field, not off it

They have to get on the field first before they can win there. Only big market teams can consistently put enough good players on the field to have that shot every year.

Hey, you're not talking to somebody who hasn't benefitted from a "dynasty." The Steelers could have never done what they did in the 1970's in today's NFL setup. No way they could keep all their players. But I recognize that overall the league is more popular than ever now, if not as much fun for the fan of a few great teams. I don't know that it would be that way if many teams were perennial doormats and only the Cowboys, 49ers, and Steelers consistently won championships.

You also ignore the fact that the available revenue in a small market is finite. You can't ever make up the difference by increasing revenues from new stadiums and a temporary winning team. Ad revenue can only go so high when there aren't 15 million potential sets of eyeballs to view it.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"Hey, you're not talking to somebody who hasn't benefitted from a "dynasty." The Steelers could have never done what they did in the 1970's in today's NFL setup."

And frankly I don't think that's good for the long-term history of the sport if you do not have the opportunity for a great team to assemble itself with a great nucleus and have the chance to make it's mark in the annals of NFL history with the dynasties of the past. If this gets to the point where championships rotate among every team over the next 20 years beacuse of "fairness mandates" then that for me makes for a product that has lost all of its mystique. When I see a dynasty lose in the NFL that isn't my team, to me it's good because another team has been able to put a good team of their own together and not because of some "Break up the Steelers" decisions done behind the scenes. Baseball's already surrendered part of its mystique with Interleague play and I have no desire to see them surrender it further under a mandated system designed solely to appease the fans of teams who aren't looking long and hard enough where their real problem is and think they can find an easy way out by focusing on a convenient target like the Yankees.

Bottom line is that there are far more serious problems for baseball to address in terms of the health of the game and coming up with socialist solutions to force "parity" upong us when it already exists on the playing field (when half the teams must lose games, you are going by the simple rule of averages going to have some bad teams unless you want everyone to go 81-81) with half the teams capable of winning championships every year.