Interesting take on the Yankees from foxsports.com

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Time to tip our caps to the Yankees

Randy Hill / Special to FOXSports.com
Posted: 16 hours ago

They've been credited with ruining baseball, but have no direct affiliation with Bud Selig, Scott Boras, Victor Conte or Chris Berman.

They're the alleged architects of a lopsided playing field, but have failed to win the World Series since Al Gore finally realized he no longer had a shot at the White House.

Their players are believed to be self-absorbed, but have been the focus of fewer egomaniacal publishing efforts than fans of the Boston Red Sox.

So, back in the crosshairs by popular demand, we now tip our caps to the New York Yankees.

Yeah, even though we can't seem to live with 'em or get away with settin' 'em on fire, the Yankees remain crucial to the success of Major League Baseball.

Sure, you may have had it up to your eyeballs with the Yankees, but MLB would be in lousy shape if Selig — finally sick of a little prosperity — decided to contract George Steinbrenner's team.

Let's begin this celebration of the Yankees' existence by thanking them for goosing an otherwise lackluster trading-deadline countdown. In case you were busy paying attention to the Washington National's clumsy auction of Alfonso Soriano, the Yankees were able to pry Bobby Abreu — and his mighty contract — from the Philadelphia Phillies.

Yankees GM Brian Cashman surrendered an allegedly-pedestrian prospect list (that failed to include hotshot pitcher Phillip Hughes) in exchange for Abreu and pitcher Cory Lidle.

According to critics who expect a lot from a multi-millionaire, Abreu quite possibly is even more overrated than Paris Hilton. When the trade was made, "Sock it to 'Em" Bobby wasn't exactly providing much sock, ranking 107th among National League hitters in slugging percentage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5834882

[ORS]

I fail to see the accuracy of his claim that they aren't driving the train that is disrupting the competitive balance. Nor do I get the relevance of his idea that it would be a bad idea to contract the Yankees -- has that ever been proposed? That is one completely devoid of content fluff piece.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

The guy never contends that they arent ruining the competitive balance. He basically just gives other reasons why what they do is good for baseball in some ways.

[ORS]

The guy never contends that they arent ruining the competitive balance. He basically just gives other reasons why what they do is good for baseball in some ways.

In other words, Fluff.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

If that's what you want to call it, sure. It's not meant to be taken real seriously or anything, but there are some decent points in it. Teams definitely benefit from the luxury tax that the Yankees pay, they benefit from ticket sales when they come to town, and they benefit by being able to dump large salaries. If the small teams didn't have these benefits, they would be even less competitive than they are.

Those are just some of the points he makes...

[ORS]

If that's what you want to call it, sure. It's not meant to be taken real seriously or anything, but there are some decent points in it. Teams definitely benefit from the luxury tax that the Yankees pay, they benefit from ticket sales when they come to town, and they benefit by being able to dump large salaries. If the small teams didn't have these benefits, they would be even less competitive than they are.

Those are just some of the points he makes...

And, he's an idiot -- no offense, so are you if you buy it. Sure, revenue sharing and the luxury tax help those teams out, as does the increased gate and concessions (Yankees get 1/2 the gate, BTW). But the current system is extemely inequitable and the Yankees are driving the train. Those funds are table scraps at the MLB revenue table.

The fact that the Yankees (first to do it, several have followed in order to keep up) own the network that broadcasts their games enables them to shelter substantial portions of their revenue stream from revenue sharing. Their broadcast packages (the major source of revenue) draw in more dollars than anyone else's -- some pundits have opined that broadcast funds should be shared with the visiting team like the gate $, this I agree with.

Baseball will never be fair or equitable until there is a salary cap.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

And, he's an idiot -- no offense, so are you if you buy it. Sure, revenue sharing and the luxury tax help those teams out, as does the increased gate and concessions (Yankees get 1/2 the gate, BTW). But the current system is extemely inequitable and the Yankees are driving the train. Those funds are table scraps at the MLB revenue table.

The fact that the Yankees (first to do it, several have followed in order to keep up) own the network that broadcasts their games enables them to shelter substantial portions of their revenue stream from revenue sharing. Their broadcast packages (the major source of revenue) draw in more dollars than anyone else's -- some pundits have opined that broadcast funds should be shared with the visiting team like the gate $, this I agree with.

Baseball will never be fair or equitable until there is a salary cap.

Again, this guy (and myself) never contended that the system was fair. Just that there are a couple good things about what the Yankees do. Honestly, I don't know if a salary cap would help. Good owners with tons of money find ways around it and manage to circumvent cap restrictions (see Dan Snyder). Certainly the Yankees would still have an advantage even with a cap, albeit a smaller one.

[ORS]

But the Yankees don't do them, they are part of the rules. The luxury tax, revenue sharing, and split gate are rules agreed upon by the owners. I don't have the voting records, but I can assure that Big Stein didn't vote for either the luxury tax or revenue sharing, but he has to do them because the majority voted against him.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

But the Yankees don't do them, they are part of the rules... ...but he has to do them because the majority voted against him.

So they are forced to do them, how does that mean they don't do them? Surely the Yankees don't want to pay all that money, they would be stupid to want to give away all that cash. The Yankees are held to the same rules that every other team is, I'm not sure what your argument is here..

[ORS]

Because, the way you phrase it, it's like you think the Yankees deserve some credit for doing something they have no choice about. They follow the rules. Big deal. That's why this article is fluff. There's nothing to this story other than patting the Yankees on the back for doing what they are supposed to do.

[rician blast]

Again, this guy (and myself) never contended that the system was fair. Just that there are a couple good things about what the Yankees do. Honestly, I don't know if a salary cap would help. Good owners with tons of money find ways around it and manage to circumvent cap restrictions (see Dan Snyder). Certainly the Yankees would still have an advantage even with a cap, albeit a smaller one.

I'm not sure how a cap would play out in MLB, but its worked in football, that's for sure.

The current system allows deals like the Phillies recent salary dump...Abreu to the Yanks for virtually nothing in return, except getting them out from under that contract...despite a situation where no other team was able or willing to strap themselves with the contract.

In other words, the Yankees resources allow them to make moves that other teams can't or won't because of their financial constraints.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

I'm not sure how a cap would play out in MLB, but its worked in football, that's for sure.

The current system allows deals like the Phillies recent salary dump...Abreu to the Yanks for virtually nothing in return, except getting them out from under that contract...despite a situation where no other team was able or willing to strap themselves with the contract.

In other words, the Yankees resources allow them to make moves that other teams can't or won't because of their financial constraints.

Not to mention, that the Yankees have exceeded the luxury tax since its existence.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

In other words, the Yankees resources allow them to make moves that other teams can't or won't because of their financial constraints.

Right, but the same thing happens in cap systems too. Look at the NFL. The Redskins have been in 'salary cap hell' for years supposedly, but every year Snyder is able to throw money at the problem by restructuring contracts and paying the players in ways that don't count as much against the cap. Cash creates cap in the NFL, and the same would be true in MLB. Sure, the Yankees do what they can to circumvent the rules and have an unfair advantage right now, but they would find a way to do it with a cap too.

But also rician, as far as your Abreu comment, the writer mentions how the Yankees being able to take on that contract actually helps a team like the Phils. They can use the money they saved to rebuild and add 2-3 quality guys for the money they were paying one guy in Abreu. Do you think the Rangers would be as good of a team now (although they're not great) had they not been able to dump A-Rod's contract?

[ORS]

Right, but the same thing happens in cap systems too. Look at the NFL. The Redskins have been in 'salary cap hell' for years supposedly, but every year Snyder is able to throw money at the problem by restructuring contracts and paying the players in ways that don't count as much against the cap. Cash creates cap in the NFL, and the same would be true in MLB. Sure, the Yankees do what they can to circumvent the rules and have an unfair advantage right now, but they would find a way to do it with a cap too.

A cap won't happen without a floor. A floor won't happen until there is complete revenue sharing -- which would have to come with some accountability in regards to how much the team charges the network that is under the same ownership. If both of those things happen, the Yankees spending power, despite circumvention of the rules, won't be as substantially larger than everyone else's. KC, Minnesota, Oakland, Tampa, Florida, and several others won't be the upper-upper minors for the big market clubs that they are now.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

A cap won't happen without a floor. A floor won't happen until there is complete revenue sharing -- which would have to come with some accountability in regards to how much the team charges the network that is under the same ownership. If both of those things happen, the Yankees spending power, despite circumvention of the rules, won't be as substantially larger than everyone else's. KC, Minnesota, Oakland, Tampa, Florida, and several others won't be the upper-upper minors for the big market clubs that they are now.

I agree. As I said earlier, a cap would make the competition more balanced, but teams like the Yankees would still have a (smaller) advantage.