For letting us end this fricking series so people can start sleeping again.
Printable View
For letting us end this fricking series so people can start sleeping again.
Congratulations to the Marlins, they kicked our asses!!! :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
What a post-season!!! :rock: :rock: :rock: After the Yankees' series with the Red Sox I'm almost surprised the Yankees even put up a fight against the Marlins! :offtheair:
Go anyone that ever beats the Yankee's ever. It happened to be the Marlins this year. Its sad that I have to be happy for anyone that beats them but an inordinant amount of money being spent by ownership and a city with the people and money of New York takes me to this level.
:rock: :rock: :rock:
It would have been so much nicer if only the A's, bo sox or cubs could have made it. Instead a huge baseball fan didn't watch the world series this year because 2 of the 3 teams in the playoffs that I didn't want to see make the world series made it, oh well, there is always next year :donno:
Scott
What the fukk you talkin about Scott?Quote:
an inordinant amount of money being spent by ownership and a city with the people and money of New York takes me to this level.
Yeah Steinbrenner spends the money...because he wants to win! Blame the other owners who just want to make more fukkin money!!! Steinbrenner's not breakin any rules, he's just putting every dollar that the team makes back into the team. He also spends much more money in taxes than all the other owners put together, and the Yankees are the biggest road draw in baseball, so in fact he puts buku money into the other teams...who THEN PUT IT IN THEIR FUKKIN POCKETS!!!
Ask Chief about the Cubs and the Tribune Company...you know he just wishes he had an owner like Steinbrenner! You want to make baseball better? Give the teams to owners like Steinbrenner WHO CARE MORE ABOUT INVESTING IN THEIR TEAMS THAN GETTING RICH OFF OF THEM!!! Take a good look at what MLB is doing to the EXPOS RIGHT NOW and then complain to me again about Steinbrenner!!!
As foryou can kiss my ass twice! :moon: :moon: We New Yorkers are tired of being the whipping boys for the rest of the damm country! Complaining about our singing "God Bless America" a little bit longer than everybody else...FUKK YOU!!! You know when we'll make it shorter? WHEN THOSE 2 BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS AND THE 3000 PEOPLE IN THEM STAND BACK UP THAT'S WHEN!!!Quote:
a city with the people and money of New York
And just what is wrong with the people and just where is all this fukkin money that you're talkin about? Have you ever even been to or ever even met anybody from New York??? Or are you just hatin us because it's the fashionable thing to do!!!
I'VE GOT YOU IN MY SIGHTS BOY SO YOU BETTER NOT BREATHE TOO FUKKIN HARD!!! :frek:
Oh, and once again...welcome to the forum Scott!!! :flipoff: :flipoff: :flipoff:
Gearing up for next year....
http://www.pmdawnonline.com/albums/C...7_09_05_03.jpg
If you really want to make baseball better--implement salary caps and better revenue sharing for ALL teams involved! MLB and the NHL both better wake up and smell the waning enthusiasm. The smaller market teams aren't going to be able to compete financially at the rate they are going now. Paying stupid money for salaries and allowing certain market teams to spend WAY more than the others is a trend that will ruin the league by forcing smaller market teams to bow out (the NFL & NBA already solved this problem). Do you want to watch a pro league that has 6 teams in it? That's where we're headed.
Louis
I grew up on baseball that had 24 teams, and much better quality to boot. If your city can't support a team then it shouldn't have 1!
The Yankees have ALWAYS outspent the other teams...except when they were owned by CBS who just wanted to make money. That's when I grew up watching them and THEY SUCKED!!!
Steinbrenner bought the team not to make money, but to make a winner!
As far as I'm concerned football sucks right now because there is no true team cohesiveness, and basketball isn't much better.
That's what it seems like to me too Coz. Every player could care less which team they're on as long as they make the most money... :sad:
I see have have stirred up a little emotion here, I feel unjustly, but I guess I will explain my thoughts and rationale.
As far as spending money to be a winner you are correct, if I insinuated differently, I apologize. The Yankee's outspend other teams to have the best team. The Dodgers and Mets spend a lot of money too and they usually suck. What the Yankee's do is neither illegal nor a bad bisiness practice.
Furthermore, the teams that don't spend money to win and just pocket the surplus are worse than the Yankee's. The question becomes if only one team is both willing to spend the money to have a winner and are capable of producing a winer - does that makes me happy? The answer is no, I thought I clearly showed signs of being jealous of the Yankee's, I might be wrong. I am jealous of the Yankee's success, no matter what means they used getting there. The New York references just showed a good environment to cultivate winning (their $$ from the huge tv contract), not a formality of it, which the Mets prove.
I think bringing 9-11 into this argument doesn't accomplish anything. This argument could have, and for me did occur much before that obviously unfortunate and sad event. I didn't complain about 'god bless america' taking long, maybe you are angling some of your anger from other things and people at me? My dad is the biggest Yankee fan and always had been. I have hated the Yankee's since I was really young, even when they sucked. I am not sure what reasons I have, but rooting against his team and liking the Royals (nearest major league team) and the Pirates (my fav. all-time team - even as bad as the have been since '91) growing up lended nicely to disliking the Yankee's when they were good and when they are bad. So I am not being fashionable about this, but since I am sure you hear a bunch of sh!t from a bunch of people along those lines I couldn't blame you for thinking that, however incorrect.
And then the don't breathe too hard threat, ah, deserved or not (I am not sure), it was the classy thing to do. It simply wasn't nice and maybe - surely I am being a puss-e now, but thats my right I guess. Hopefully I have straightened my side out on this - would you agree? Let me know...
Dammit Scott, you're no fukkin fun!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I will take that as a compliment? :donno:
if not :flipoff: :flipoff:
:rock:
Personally, I have a bigger problem with the MLB "allowing" the Yankees to spend the money they do, and "allowing" a single player to get 25 million a year for 10 years, than I do for the Yankees taking advantage of it. If all this stupid stuff comes at the expense of tearing the league apart (slowly) then it's a bad way to run the league period.
As for the so-called lack of cohesiveness in hoops and football, don't fool yourselves about baseball not being the same way, because it is. And if I were a player, I would be concerned about getting the most money for my ability as well. Hell, football players don't tend to hang around too long and their life expectancy is shorter. What baseball is allowing is not a good long term business practice. A little parody makes it very exciting. That's what's cool about the NFL. Every team has a legitimate shot every year. And I love a dynasty when my team's involved only. The playing field should be kept level to a certain degree thru caps and sharing.
Louis
Well, I can't speak much for other teams but most Yankees would and do take less money to play for the Yankees.
Most true Yankee fans hat when George descends into "revolving door" syndrome...it's the main reason why we are not the juggernaut we were just a short few years ago. I would still take Tino Martinez over Jason Giambi...screw the stats and the HRs. We won't even discuss Scott Brosius over Arron Boone or any other 3rd baseman we suffer through now.
I could correct baseball right now! Force every owner to sink 90% of their profits back into their teams...and force teams that find it impossible to turn a profit to either sell, move, or fold up shop.
And destroy the "Old Boy Network" that still runs baseball...and which brought us the recent Expos/Red Sox/Marlins fiasco!
BTW...my 2nd and 3rd favorite teams are the Twins and the A's...small market juggernauts who the old boys would love to get rid of just so they can get their way!
Quote:
I could correct baseball right now! Force every owner to sink 90% of their profits back into their teams...and force teams that find it impossible to turn a profit to either sell, move, or fold up shop.
Some of them aren't even turning a profit (or so they claim!). And you may see more teams disappear than you think over time. Again, do you want a four to six team league?
If you mean in total in the MLB that will never happen. There is a reason that after 3 years nobody has gotten even close to what A-rod got.
How about 8 teams in each league, which would be just fine by me as that was the way it was for the longest...but I doubt that would ever happen either.
Fukk the teams that are losing money...this is a capitalist environment, run your shit right!
Salaries are already dropping drasticly in baseball, now maybe if we did lose a few teams we could get rid of the over abundance of lousy pitching and get back to the real game again.
Here's my dream scenario: A 154 game season. 3 4-team divisions in each league with 3 wildcard winners. The 2 division winners with the best records would get a bye for the 1st round of playoffs (and therefore can set up their pitching), which would be best 3 out of 5. Next round would see the winners against the division winners 3 out of 5, winners of that would play each other 4 out of 7 and then the World Series.
In this way HALF of the teams in baseball would make the playoffs each year...that's parity enough in my book! Once you're in the playoffs anything can happen in baseball, all you need is a hot pitcher or 2 (Mr. Becket anybody? :wink: )
An article for your perusal:
Quote:
Friday, June 20, 2003
The Thinking Fan: Too many teams tip baseball's balance
By LEONARD KOPPETT
SPECIAL TO THE POST-INTELLIGENCER
Baseball club owners complain that "competitive balance" has been damaged by the size of the gap between the resources available to teams in the largest markets and those in smaller ones. They've insisted that baseball needs a "new economic system" and claim that a small step -- too small -- was taken in the right direction in the last labor agreement.
Whether they really believe this (as I think most do) or see it as an effective bargaining ploy, it is a total denial of reality.
Seeking better revenue-sharing formulas, and slowing the escalation of salaries by some form of salary cap or its equivalent, is futile.
And the success of the Mariners is one example of why.
The simple fact is that having as many as 30 teams makes it impossible -- even theoretically -- to achieve any meaningful "balance."
The whole history of baseball, if they would bother to read it, spells out how and why it is impossible.
The original idea for major league baseball, in 1876, included three basic concepts that have proved their validity for more than 100 years:
* Clubs, not players, must control league business affairs.
* The number of teams, each with exclusive rights in its territory, must be small enough for coherent scheduling, and consensus.
* Each team must be placed in the largest available market to be able to afford and maintain the level of ticket prices needed.
The right number, they found, was eight. They chose New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, Cincinnati and St. Louis -- six of the top eight population centers in the country at that time. A seventh was Louisville, only No. 18, but a major communications center between St. Louis and Cincinnati. The eighth was Hartford, Conn., because an east-west four-four balance was needed and that team had politically and financially influential owners.
For the rest of the 1800s, baseball was in flux, and seldom consistently profitable. The NL had only six teams in 1877 and 1878; a rival eight-team league, based on dropouts Cincinnati and St. Louis, started in 1882; there were three leagues in 1884 and 1890; and finally a single 12-team National League monopoly in 1892-99. Many smaller cities were involved, unable to sustain major league economic standards.
In 1901, an American League challenged the National (which had just reduced itself to eight). In 1903 they made a peace agreement still in force, insuring baseball's prosperity and status as "our national game."
In 1903, the major league roster consisted of:
Three teams in New York.
Two in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and St. Louis.
One in Detroit, Cleveland, Washington, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.
So 14 of the 16 teams were in the top 10 market areas, and Cincinnati and Pittsburgh were not far behind. "Imbalance" of revenue potential was not an issue; modest revenue sharing was acceptable. "Competitive" imbalance, which always existed, reflected difference in competence rather than difference in resources.
From 1953, when the Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee, through 1968, the proportion of top markets remained steady as new cities entered. With San Francisco and Los Angeles added, Milwaukee moving to Atlanta and Kansas City to Oakland, 18 of the 20 existing teams were now in the top 10 metropolitan market areas.
Then they added 10 teams between 1969 and 1998. Obviously -- inevitably -- the newcomers were in smaller markets, since the larger markets were already there. Since 1998, this is the pattern:
Ranking 1 to 5 in market size, nine teams (7 to 21 million each).
Ranking 6 to 11, six teams (4.1 to 6.2 million each).
Ten teams in areas of 2 to 3.8 million each.
Three teams in areas of 1.7 to 2 million each.
Two teams in Canada with dollar exchange problems.
So half the 30 -- instead of nine-tenths of 20 -- are at a serious disadvantage in terms of revenue possibilities.
What counts here is RELATIVE size, not absolute numbers, which are all "large" by bygone standards. Market size reflects television potential as well as ticket and retail sales. A top half can never permanently subsidize a bottom half, no matter how you juggle "sharing" plans.
Now look at Seattle. It's No. 13, behind Atlanta and Miami, with 3.9 million people, ranking 16th in the majors. The formula has always been, rich and smart beats smart but poor and rich but dumb, but not necessarily smart and not TOO poor.
Seattle started out not very smart or well financed. But with new ownership and management, it has been able to flourish in a sufficiently large market. You can't say that about Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh or Denver (or Montreal, for other reasons).
Baseball can't get long-range economic health until and unless it gets down to 24 teams, concentrated in the largest markets.
Hall of Fame writer Leonard Koppett writes a weekly column for the P-I. Contact him at sports@seattlepi.com
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
WTF!!!??? :umm: :umm: :umm:
Hey Scott, next time you're fluffin your duster move away from the keyboard!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
There's a point where the big salaries will start to hurt the game. The same thing was happening in the NBA which is why they put in the stringent caps that they have now. When the salaries exceed the revenue from ticket sales minus expenses, what's gonna happen next? All the respective teams within the NFL, NBA, NHL, & MLB can NOT be viewed as competing companies, that is not the point of their being. (competitive sportswise , but not traditional capitalistic moneymaking competitive.) Each team is part of a cooperative. The leagues will do better and last longer with the sharing and capping. The bottom line is that if we lose the smaller market teams because they can't compete, that will weaken the leagues as a whole. You have to view the league as one "company" cause essentially it is. You wouldn't want to punish the accounting department because the sales department makes more money. A profitable league as a whole shares revenues and gives each city a fair opportunity to compete, which will keep more of the fans coming to the games to see their hometown teams. That is the best scenario for generating the most revenue.Quote:
To Louis you are making good points all along but I think that you conclusions are a little off. Every generation has its record breaking contract. A-rod's is no different than what Ruth was payed back in pre-me days. Those times didn't ruin baseball then - its here now. Overall it is about smart business decisions. The A's are the best example. It is possible to win with much less money than the highest bidder. I know that we hear things like the owners of some teams aren't making money, but in the creative accounting (enron) era who can we trust. If you don't claim that some of the money you bring in is from baseball and attribute it to another business or another area of the team then it will look like you are losing money. Teams do that, its dumb, people are greedy, that's just the way society is set up and run up 'there.' But I feel the same way you do, a limit, which no one will agree to anytime soon, would likely help the game. Whatever that means. Ain't that all were talking about? Equifinality - all of our ideas might work but only one course of action takes place, and our speculation and consternation is likely in vain. :donno:
Just passing the time, glad basketball is back and patiently awaiting next baseball season when my Pirates can again have a shot to win it all! :rock: :rock: :thumup:
I must not be making my point saying the same thing over and over, so this will be my last post on this subject.
You sure do if the accounting department isn't doing it's job! You can their asses and get people in there who will do the job right!Quote:
You wouldn't want to punish the accounting department because the sales department makes more money.
I understand your point completely Louis, I just think that it's wrong. The NBA is in more trouble than ever, the cap didn't help them at all! Even the Nets, who have gone to the championships 2 years in a row are now pondering a move 'cause they can't fill their building.
Salaries are already on their way down dramaticly in baseball...the only thing left to do is to get rid of a few of the idiot owners who refuse to run their ships right!
Still missing my point, Coz. MY point is not even about how creative some owners manage their teams. My point is about even some of the best owners NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPETE, because of skyhigh salaries and not enough revenue to cover them. How the Nets are managed to me is irrelevent to my point.
As for my accounting dept analogy--you can't do without one! You can replace the organization but it's adventageous to have it versus not having it. It is adventageous to share a bit to keep smaller market teams in the whole organization. Are some of them going to do a poor job of managing even with the sharing and capping? Maybe? One or two cities possibly? But when more start to leave, there is a a problem that you have to address.
As for the basketball being in "bad" shape as you say. Maybe there are other factors that are the reason for that. The salaries that were being handed out were getting out of hand there for a minute, i.e. Garnett, Shaq, LJ, Zo and various others. The NBA would be in WORSE shape had they not capped.
Louis
(see you made me post again :cuss: :wink: )
Fine then, we disagree. I have long thought that baseball over extended itself where as obviously you have not.
I still say 24 teams would be ideal...and salary caps are communism!!! :cuss:
What SHOULD be gotten rid of though is arbitration!
louis you recited MLB's argument for salary caps well. That is what they say. It is everyones league, a coop as you pointed out. I agree because without the sheer number of teams needed to keep a league finatially afloat no one makes money. But, in my opinion we are not at that point. Drastic measures would be taking place if we were there, a few teams wouldn't be on the possible chopping block, many would. Is contraction even going to happen? No one knows, and leagues throughout their history always flux when it comes to size. Its unpleasant and natural. In baseball you do not need money to compete - it just helps. Overcoming obstacles and being the team without a chance is what everyone likes to see and usually an underdog gets publicity and ratings. There is not a correlation between how much money you spend and how good your team is. Individual businessmen and women? need to do what they want, they can do what ever they want. If this hurts baseball then that is tough - unfortunate but tough. No one wants that luckily, but the line gets blurred as a person goes for more profits and players profits become increasingly higher. Its tough to see the future and the reprocussions to all of the little and big decisions that are being made right now. That being said, it would be akin to communism to change that. To not allow members of a group to do what they want business-wise for the betterment of us all. America, like it or not is capitalistic, so too should baseball be.
Sorry about the mass repost, the submit button wouldn't work and I obviously pressed it a few times.
Scott
Scott,
And just how long do you wait for teams to start dropping off before you change the cap/sharing rules? Say in the next 3-5 years four teams get in real financial trouble. What do you do then?
Don't let the word Communism get confused with good business practice. Cause one thing this government does (if anything good) is try to insure that everyone competes fairly in the marketplace. And in this "marketplace" of Major League Baseball, which is definitely one big "company" (with a players union and everything), there should be measures taken to make sure every team competes fairly.
Great-day-in-the-morning!!! Is no one listening to me!? I just really need to shut up about this because obviously I am convincing NO ONE!!!
Louis
Actually Louis, I agree on just about everything you have stated...Ive been letting you be my spokesman...:)
My man Chief!!! :rock: :bowdown: :rock: