zippyjuan

More millions being spent by the Yankees to try and humiliate all other teams after blowing the World Series last year. Steinbrenner wants no more excuses for next year. The best team money can buy. I guess this is one reason I am not a huge baseball fan- the rich guys always win and the others never have a chance. http://start.earthlink.net/article/t...01031486080645

__________________
I add new pictures to my photo gallery pretty regularly. You can see them here if you are interested: http://www.pbase.com/jeffryz

GraingerGuy

No! I have to believe that Beltran is going to go back to the 'Stros cause he likes it there!

*crosses fingers*

__________________
potato gun + marshmallow gun = FLAMING MARSHMALLOWS OF DOOM!!!!!
-Welfareloser
4/13/05

Time to switch to AMD now I guess... (just kidding... )
-Darkfury
5/23/05

I don't think this'll stop anything though - the better you idiot-proof a system, the more impressive the idiot becomes.
-ShawnLee
5/30/08

Merlin

Don't know what sport you're watching but baseball has several very compeitive teams that are low payroll. The A's and the Twins are posterchildren for low payroll success. So yes, others do indeed have a chance.

__________________

DarkFury

Having a chance and having the odds in your favor are two considerable differences...

__________________


DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)

Cantacuzene

Another thing being overlooked is that these owners choose not to spend the money. Steinbrenner and Henry want to spend their own money because they see that putting a good team out filled with stars puts people in the seats and games on the TV and thats where money is made. Maybe if the owners of the "small market" teams opened their wallets and looked at payrolls as an investment rather than a black hole they would sell out games too, as well as being competetive.

DarkFury

Well Canta... think about this...

In New York... you have a bunch of fans who are more than willing to shell out a ton of cash to finance the team. Hell... there's probably a big fight to get in on the tickets.

In a small market, the fans probably aren't as "gung ho" to front the cash for the team, hence there are fewer dollars at the start to "play ball".

I can look at Indy and how the Colts and Pacers want big time $$$ but the fans are like... "You gotta be joking"... while in a big city where costs like this are expected they are like "Yeah... we can do that".

More or less, there is no natural level playing field.

Cantacuzene

Most money is made from TV contracts anyway, even if you charge the fans only a slightly above average ticket cost so long as you get a star packed line-up you'll be on tv, which will bring in the big bucks.

Merlin

Be careful DF. I see the point you're trying to make and understand. But remember, most of the money does not come from ticket sales it comes from selling luxury boxes and such to companies. New York has a lot of big time financial firms that shell out the dollars for luxury boxes etc for entertaining clients. Also, a large chunk of the money comes frmo the television contracts. And since the Yankees actually own their own network they rake it in here. In the grand scheme of things the gate revenue is not what drives the ship.

In the last five years you've had 5 different teams win the championship (Yankees, Diamondbacks, Angels, Marlins, and Red Sox) AL 3 and the NL 2

Look at the number of different teams that have made the playoffs. Yes, the Yankees and Braves dominate their divisions but beyond that the field is wide open.

It appears the playing field is pretty level afterall.

DarkFury

I still don't agree here... bigger market still equals bigger $$$

Yes, the small guys can still play... but the odds on favorites still seem to work their way into Championship contention.

The Marlins proved long ago... you CAN buy a title. The Yanks prove it all the time... Nothing is guaranteed, but you can bet that it works consistently in their favor.

Cantacuzene

No one is saying money CANT buy a title, what I'm saying is anyone can spend money. The Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers do not have a cash monopoly. Ted Turner could out spend steinbrenner in a second and make the Braves instant favorites, he just chooses not to.

zenbooty

Don't be so sure. Steinbrenner is a VERY wealthy man. I haven't compared the two's bankrolls, but it wouldn't surprise me if Steinbrenner pulls in more.

BrewMaster

regardless of the bottomline for each man, they have plenty of dough to field a team of big names for big dollars, but Turner chooses not to.

__________________
respect beer.

zenbooty

And note Turner's team had trouble selling out playoff games this past year.

Cantacuzene

Simply because the team failed to energize the city. You have to inspire people to get them to come out to the park. Look at the Indians teams of the mid 90's: exciting, competetive, and star packed. People came out in droves.

Atlanta in 2004 was an average team who got into the playoffs not because they were dominating but because all the rest of the teams in their division were terrible. Add to that Atlanta didn't have any charismatic star power and you just aren't going to interest enough people to sell out a game.

DaFunkyUnit

Atlanta always makes it into the post season.

__________________

zenbooty

Exactly. If Turner threw some money the teams way, they could sign that superstar and fill that stadium and make more money.

This argument's gotten so convoluted, I can't even remember the point I am arguing. Just that sometimes, you gotta spend money to make money. And bigger market teams have a distinct advantage as far as that goes.

zippyjuan

I guess that my complaint is that it seems that the title is more bought by purchasing the best players around instead of using your own system to build and develop your own players. People do not develop as close of ties with a team if they have new players every couple of years. The Padres hired a bunch of big guns and made it to the World Series, but that was just done to boost interest in the new stadium they wanted to build. Once they got it, only about three of those players remained. Guys like Tony Gwynn who spend their entire career (or even most of their career) with one team are so rare these days. People loved Tony and Cal Ripkin because they were always there. They represented their town and their team. The fans do not identify with a particular team since there is no longer any attachment to the players due to the constant switching of teams. If a team wins, people will go, if they are losing, they will stay away because they don't care. There is not an individual (or group of individuals) they get to enjoy watching play on a regular basis. I think that this is what hurts sports- and not just baseball. You need local heros who stay there.

zenbooty

My response would be that there are what, over 30 franchises, and each of them is run as a separate entity with its own business plan. Some teams buy their players off the free agent market. Others focus on development of young talent. Some develop talent solely to sell off the players for money.

Fans judge a team's success based on victory and achievement. Owners judge the success based on profitability. And there are paths towards profitability that don't travel anywhere near victory or achievement. Just the nature of business. And since the owners hold the purse strings, Que sera sera.

sizemic1

I think what's funny is that the Yankees' Luxury Tax levied on them is more than the Devil Rays entire payroll

__________________
[___]
(O lllllll O)
[]==O=[]

bachviet

My Clippers are the best example.

__________________
Dell Dimension 9200 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz) | 4x1GB DDR2 | 256MB nVidia GeForce 8800GT

Dell Studio 17 | Intel Core i7-720QM (1.6GHz) | 2x2GB DDR3 1066MHz | 1GHz ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650

Intel P4-C 3.0GHz | ECS 865PE-A | 3x512MB PC3200 | 128MB PNY GeForce 6600GT

BrewMaster

while they may be profitable for Mr. Sterling, they were also named the worst professional sports team ever for any sport by Sports Illustrated. No matter how profitable they are, that doesn't make Mr. Sterling look good. I can't wait until he dies or sells the team so we can see the Clips be really competitive.

YanksFanRy

Simply put: If you could make your team better and get fans in the stadium at the same time without damaging yourself or your bank account... wouldn't you?

__________________


M-I-Z . . . Z-O-U!

zippyjuan

The consolidation of money and players in just a few teams makes the entire league less competitive and a less desirable product and will sell fewer tickets and products (and advertising $$$) so there will be less total money in the league and hurt it overall. It is good for the few teams, but not the many. At least the NFL teams all have a chance to win at the start of the season and the games are more competitive which keeps the fans more interested. Player still change teams more often than I personally would like, but sharing the wealth and top players helps everybody- the rich and poor teams. It is not the same as Coke vs Pepsi although money is still the objective of it all.

If a small town market does develop a top player, after a few years they can no longer afford to keep him because they do not have enough TVs in their area like Los Angeles or New York to get enough advertising revenue to pay their salary. Without better revenue sharing, Pittsburg, Kansas City, and the like will not be able to produce competetive teams and the entire major league will suffer for it.

Boy, this went deeper than I thought it was going to. All I started out with was complaining how the Yankees always try to buy the best players.

eSDee

Incidentally, the Padres are gonna win it all this year

__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 days ~ Willie Nelson

3 days I dread to see arrive
3 days I hate to be alive
3 days filled with tears and sorrow
yesterday today and tomorrow

bachviet

Stop day dreaming...