The Best Team Money Could Buy - Page 2 - Talksox

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

No offense, but if you can't quantify the contribution of the Yankees winning four championships during that period to the record setting revenues of today, then I can't give the Yankees credit.

And in all honesty, I feel the Sosa/McGwire home run race and the international expansion of baseball did more for baseball's revenue than the Yankees winning did. The Yankee money comes directly from their deal with the YES network in the richest media market in baseball, as well as having the taxpayers of NYC foot the bill for a new stadium.

I can't quantify, but it's a logical assumption. If you can't see that, then you have the blinders on.

Let me ask you this. If they hadn't had the previous success, do you really think they would have been able to start up the YES Network?

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Is baseball a capitalistic society? If it was, would teams revenue share?

If it was truly capitalistic, all of the small market teams would die out, in particular the Tampas, Floridas, and Kansas Citys of the world.

It's not true capitalism, but it also isn't remotely like football or basketball. All I'm saying is that baseball is a business, and the Yankees are simply taking advantage of the capitalist aspect of it.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:16 PM

Yes. Baseball was gaining in popularity for the exact reasons I mentioned, and they operate in the largest media market in the country.

Hell, the Red Sox had NESN over 20 years ago...in the midst of their World Series drought, in a media market that is maybe top 10 in the country. No doubt the Yankees could have started up the YES network eventually.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankees228

It's not true capitalism, but it also isn't remotely like football or basketball. All I'm saying is that baseball is a business, and the Yankees are simply taking advantage of the capitalist aspect of it.

...which is what Posnsanski is saying in the article, except they do it to such an extent that it's like they aren't even playing the same game.

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Yes. Baseball was gaining in popularity for the exact reasons I mentioned, and they operate in the largest media market in the country.

Hell, the Red Sox had NESN over 20 years ago...in the midst of their World Series drought, in a media market that is maybe top 10 in the country. No doubt the Yankees could have started up the YES network eventually.

If the Yankees success does not have a major impact on their financial advantage, then why aren't the Mets operating at this same advantage?

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

...which is what Posnsanski is saying in the article, except they do it to such an extent that it's like they aren't even playing the same game.

The problem is that, suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:22 PM

$1.3 billion

$100 million

Guess the net worth of George Steinbrenner, and guess the net worth of Fred Wilpon. And you tell me who got fucked by Madoff.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankees228

The problem is that, suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.

They are never playing the same game.

Read the paragraph about "the man behind the curtain" and tell me if it isn't true.

**schillingouttheks** · 11-09-2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankees228

The problem is that, suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.

You understood the point of bringing that up in the article, right? Because this isn't the point he was making. The article refutes this statement by itself.

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

$1.3 billion

$100 million

Guess the net worth of George Steinbrenner, and guess the net worth of Fred Wilpon. And you tell me who got fucked by Madoff.

Right, but you keep making such a big deal about the media market. They're operating within the same media market. Yet the Yankees have been more successful, financially, than the Mets. In my opinion, that is due to their past success. I don't have the numbers to back it up, so you can dismiss the claim if you want, but I view it as a very logical assumption.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:26 PM

Or, maybe it's simply due to the fact that the Yankees have a much larger fanbase due to their history in the largest media market in the country?

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Or, maybe it's simply due to the fact that the Yankees have a much larger fanbase due to their history in the largest media market in the country?

Take it from someone who lives in New York (and if you don't believe me, ask a700), New York is a National League town. The Yankees' success has transcended that.

TheKilo · 11-09-2009, 11:29 PM

So after the Dodgers moved, you're telling me that New Yorkers didn't turn to the Yankees, especially during the height of their dominance (which is saying a lot for a team with 27 championships)?

I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schillingouttheks

You understood the point of bringing that up in the article, right? Because this isn't the point he was making. The article refutes this statement by itself.

Yes, but, on opening day, a decent amount of teams have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Once you get to the playoffs, due to their crapshoot nature, any of the eight teams can win.

By this logic (and yes, it is logical), sixteen of the thirty teams in Major League Baseball are largely unaffected by the Yankees once the season starts. Now, because of the unbalanced schedule, nine of the fourteen teams in the American League aren't greatly affected by the Yankees, because they just have to out and win their own division. Once the season starts, there really are only four teams that are affected by the Yankees financial superiority.

yankees228 · 11-09-2009, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

So after the Dodgers moved, you're telling me that New Yorkers didn't turn to the Yankees, especially during the height of their dominance (which is saying a lot for a team with 27 championships)?

I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

When the Yankees were winning a World Series and three American League championships (1962-64), they weren't as popular as the last place New York Mets.