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.

[rician blast]

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?

I agree that trade helped the Phillies...as this type of trade has helped the Marlins and countless other teams in the past. My point was that with NO LIMIT and ONE TEAM willing and able to spend $200M+ per year, that team will have a huge advantage in acquiring players, particularly in free agency and in the case of trading deadline trades, over all other teams.

It makes sense for the dumping team...and apparently it doesn't phase the Yanks...but other teams do not have that luxury.

Mind you I am not complaining nor am I crying poor mouth for the Sox. I suppose you could say I'm reminding everyone not to get too emotionally hung up on their team's effort in trying to win a title, as the odds are not in their favor but in the favor of the Yanks.

That's just just the way it is...somethings will never change.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

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?
Although I concede that the Yanks, Sox, and a few other large market teams will still find a way to dominate in a cap environment, bringing the NFL, more specifically the Redskins is a bad choice. They have implemented the Forty Niners financial playbook meaning mortgaging the future. It killed the Niners for years ( and still will ), the Skins are just starting to feel the repercussions. The Yanks and Sox are too smart for that.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

Although I concede that the Yanks, Sox, and a few other large market teams will still find a way to dominate in a cap environment, bringing the NFL, more specifically the Redskins is a bad choice. They have implemented the Forty Niners financial playbook meaning mortgaging the future. It killed the Niners for years ( and still will ), the Skins are just starting to feel the repercussions. The Yanks and Sox are to smart for that.

How are the skins feeling the repurcussions? They have been pushing money to the future for years and it hasn't caught up to them yet. Every year sports writers say this is the year that it all comes crashing down for them, and nothing happens. All they did this year was spend a ton of money in Free Agency on marginal players, and parted ways with one backup LB in Lavar Arrington. They re-structured all of their high salary players, instead paying out the money to them in bonuses so that the players did not end up losing any money at all. They also hired a OC for head coach money, and gave their DC head coach money as well, since that does not count against the cap. The Redskins truly are masters at manipulating the cap and working the system, and it would be crazy to think that the Yankees and Sox would not do the same.

[rician blast]

Although I concede that the Yanks, Sox, and a few other large market teams will still find a way to dominate in a cap environment,

Let's just be sure its understood that under the current system the Yankees have a much greater advantage than any other team...and not characterize this as though the Sox and Yanks and other large market teams are on an equal playing field. The Yankees advantage over the second highest salaried team is approx 4 times that of the Sox over the next three teams:

Yankees $200m+
Sox $120m
WHite Sox $103m
Mets $101m
Dodgers $100m

[Sox Fan on Cape]

Let's just be sure its understood that under the current system the Yankees have a much greater advantage than any other team...and not characterize this as though the Sox and Yanks and other large market teams are on an equal playing field. The Yankees advantage over the second highest salaried team is approx 4 times that of the Sox over the next three teams:

Yankees $200m+
Sox $120m
WHite Sox $103m
Mets $101m
Dodgers $100m

I was taking about under a salary cap ( as I stated ). Also, you math and numbers are wrong. But who really cares, you're comparing apples and oranges, while talking about choice meats.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

How are the skins feeling the repurcussions? They have been pushing money to the future for years and it hasn't caught up to them yet. Every year sports writers say this is the year that it all comes crashing down for them, and nothing happens. All they did this year was spend a ton of money in Free Agency on marginal players, and parted ways with one backup LB in Lavar Arrington. They re-structured all of their high salary players, instead paying out the money to them in bonuses so that the players did not end up losing any money at all. They also hired a OC for head coach money, and gave their DC head coach money as well, since that does not count against the cap. The Redskins truly are masters at manipulating the cap and working the system, and it would be crazy to think that the Yankees and Sox would not do the same.
We agree on the Sox and Yanks. As far as the Skins go, I'll give you a little advice, you can't borrow your way out of debt. You can restructure all you want, but the debt is still there.

[CrespoBlows]

How are the skins feeling the repurcussions? They have been pushing money to the future for years and it hasn't caught up to them yet. Every year sports writers say this is the year that it all comes crashing down for them, and nothing happens. All they did this year was spend a ton of money in Free Agency on marginal players, and parted ways with one backup LB in Lavar Arrington. They re-structured all of their high salary players, instead paying out the money to them in bonuses so that the players did not end up losing any money at all. They also hired a OC for head coach money, and gave their DC head coach money as well, since that does not count against the cap. The Redskins truly are masters at manipulating the cap and working the system, and it would be crazy to think that the Yankees and Sox would not do the same.

The Redskins are not masters at dominating the cap. No one is. In fact, the only true way to manipulate the cap is to cheat. Much like the Denver Broncos did during their run. What the Redskins are doing is perfectly legal. They avoid paying large salary bonuses to players. By avoiding that, they can release the players in the middle of their contract, and can avoid a massive hit to their salary caps. Ask yourself this though, in this day of NFL contracts, would you sign without a large bonus?

Manipulating the cap still doesn't seem to be working. The Redskins haven't had a winning season since 1999 (save for '06). Remember the Bruce Smith, and Deion Sanders disasters? That probably inhibited the Redskins to get back up to the top during those years. Besides, even now the Redskins aren't adding top-flight football players. Unless you consider Randle-El, and Brandon Lloyd to be top-flight.

[26 Reasons to Hate Us]

The Redskins are not masters at dominating the cap. No one is. In fact, the only true way to manipulate the cap is to cheat. Much like the Denver Broncos did during their run. What the Redskins are doing is perfectly legal. They avoid paying large salary bonuses to players. By avoiding that, they can release the players in the middle of their contract, and can avoid a massive hit to their salary caps. Ask yourself this though, in this day of NFL contracts, would you sign without a large bonus?

Manipulating the cap still doesn't seem to be working. The Redskins haven't had a winning season since 1999 (save for '06). Remember the Bruce Smith, and Deion Sanders disasters? That probably inhibited the Redskins to get back up to the top during those years. Besides, even now the Redskins aren't adding top-flight football players. Unless you consider Randle-El, and Brandon Lloyd to be top-flight.

Whether or not it's working is irrelevant (although it seems to be now). Buying championships isn't easy, just ask Snyder and Steinbrenner.

The Bruce Smith/Deion Sanders years were when Snyder was running the team. He has now handed control to Gibbs and is doing exactly what Gibbs wants him to do as far as personnel. While you are right in that the skins aren't adding top-flite football players, they are adding the best free agent players available at the position, and paying them like even better players than they are. That's exactly what the Yankees do. They pay a little more than any other team would be willing to, even for only the guys who are the best available.

Would you give a guy like Adam Archuleta a 6yr 30 million dollar deal? That's the same deal that Roy Williams got, and they are hardly the same player. They gave Randle El 7 years and 31 mil. Burress, a #1 WR, not a #3 like Randle El, got 6 and 25.

[MC Hammer]

I couldn't agree with ORS more. A blowjob article.

[Optimist]

It has been reported that Sheffield — a former shortstop and third baseman who has tested positive for EGO — may be asked to spend a little quality time at first base.

:lol:

[rician blast]

I was taking about under a salary cap ( as I stated ). Also, you math and numbers are wrong. But who really cares, you're comparing apples and oranges, while talking about choice meats.

You stated that under a cap environment the large market teams would still dominate...and I drew the important distinction that not all large market teams are on a level playing field....and that the Yanks advantage is much greater over all of the other so-called "large market teams"...the apples to oranges comparison was performed by you...not I. Your focus on meat is an entirely different, and slightly scary, issue.

As for the numbers, they come from the USA Today Salaries Database and while I was working off memory I was incredibly close...double checking, here is what they report for the top 5 (this was prepared in early 2006, so some changes would probably have taken place, but the numbers should be a damn good baseline):

Yankees $194.663m (plus '06 in-season moves which have them topping $200m)
Red Sox $120.099m
Angels $103.472m
White Sox $102.751m
Mets $101.085m

so if the numbers are off nominally...and we agree that these are pretty damn accurate...let's check the math, which you say is flawed:

The Yankees advantage over the Sox is approx....... $80m
The Sox advantage over the next three teams is approx..... $20m

Isn't $80m 4 TIMES MORE than $20M, as I stated?

[CrespoBlows]

Whether or not it's working is irrelevant (although it seems to be now). Buying championships isn't easy, just ask Snyder and Steinbrenner.

Having money to spend gives you a leg up on your competitors. Surely you're not denying that.



Would you give a guy like Adam Archuleta a 6yr 30 million dollar deal? That's the same deal that Roy Williams got, and they are hardly the same player. They gave Randle El 7 years and 31 mil. Burress, a #1 WR, not a #3 like Randle El, got 6 and 25.

Signing bonus wasn't as high as the contracr Roy Williams signed. If any of those players survive the length of their contracts, I'll be shocked.

Brian Griese got 6 and 30. Do you really expect this guy to last that long? He's more fragile then my grandfather, and he has osteoporosis.