Yankees lose! Thaaaaaaa, Yankees LOSE!

[Brutus1]

3) As is his perrogative as owner. You see it in the NBA as well, notably the Clippers.

The NBA has a minimum cap that teams need to reach. It keeps drones like Donald Sterling from keeping all the money for himself. Maybe that would be a great idea for baseball. It would weed out the owners that are in it for the money only, not to compete or win championships.
The min/max seems to have worked great for the NHL too. Maybe MLB can get out from under their rock and realize that, maybe not.



I don't buy this "harder to fill out" business. I just don't. Cincy is a big enough place, and Northern KY is also big enough, and close enough, that if the Reds marketed better, and had a owner who wanted to "win at all costs" as it were, they'd fill up GAB every home date. If they wanted to sell TV rights, they'd do just fine.

NYC is the biggest tv market in the country. Advertising and rights are infinitely higher in NYC than in Cinci, Cleve, Minn, Pittsburgh. I don't think home attendance is an issue. Allot of teams draw nearly as well as the Yankees (not on the road though).

The local tv is what separates the Yanks from the rest. As much as I don't like them though, there is no way they should have to share that money.



Sorry for that size issue.!!!!

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

Your analysis assumes that every person living there is a Yankee fan, for one thing.... LEts not forget, NYC has 2 teams. Boston and Philly are also very close... and steal fans from NYC.

everybody that lives there is a yankee fan....when they are winning :p

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Minneapolis Population (2000 census):
2,968,806

Boston:
Population: 600,000

Small market, indeed.

That's a skewed statistic. That is as defined by actual city limits. When surrounding metropolitan areas (easy access to Boston thanks to mass transit) are included, I believe Boston is significantly larger than Minneapolis.
Boston Metropolitan area: 4,000,000+
Twin-Cities Metropolitan area: 3,000,000+

Minneapolis itself had a population of 382,618 in the 2000 census.

EDIT: Damn, I'm slow! Like 17 people got in ahead of me !

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

NYC is the biggest tv market in the country. Advertising and rights are infinitely higher in NYC than in Cinci, Cleve, Minn, Pittsburgh. I don't think home attendance is an issue. Allot of teams draw nearly as well as the Yankees (not on the road though).

The local tv is what separates the Yanks from the rest. As much as I don't like them though, there is no way they should have to share that money.



Sorry for that size issue.!!!!

I wholly conceed that Baseball could/should be run better. The league has historically had it's head up its own ass. There is no real reason it's immune from Anti-trust laws, for example. The system in place may have been fine and dandy when it was arranged back in the day, and when baseball was the "only game in town" as it were.

They need to revampt the whole thing if they want to encourage long term parity.

With regard to the TV thing, in today's day and age, there is no reason why you can't sell the Yankees to people in Mililani Hawaii if you think that'll work. Obviously, it's easier to sell TV to local areas, and you'll get more local interest than you will in Hawaii (for the Yankees, anyway) but there really is no reason - other than marketing - that in the modern world, a team can't sell TV all over the place. Hell, if I'm seattle, I make a big ass deal with Japan to broadcast Mariners games. Why? Cause they'd all tune in to see Ichiro.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That's a skewed statistic. That is as defined by actual city limits. When surrounding metropolitan areas (easy access to Boston thanks to mass transit) are included, I believe Boston is significantly larger than Minneapolis.
Boston Metropolitan area: 4,000,000+
Twin-Cities Metropolitan area: 3,000,000+

Minneapolis itself had a population of 382,618 in the 2000 census.

EDIT: Damn, I'm slow! Like 17 people got in ahead of me !

I just googled it quick, I didn't go looking for numbers that confirmed my suspicion. (And I admit, I thought the Boston Populaton looked a little thin) Minneapolis may well be only 382,618 but since St. Paul is the same city, you have to add those numbers in as well. I don't know if you have ever been to the Twin Cities, but they are literally the same place.

 

[jwinslow]

BKB, here's my point. In baseball, you have to be a success at marketing just to have a chance of making the playoffs, let alone making the world series. In football, the football team has success somewhat independent of the marketing of the team. There are always areas where the team will have lots of support, like Green Bay, Washington, etc. It shouldn't require $ from fans in order to compete in the game. The home field advantage should be directly related to the fans. But should USC be given a bigger advantage for the next few years b/c they are earning mroe in marketing dollars? No, b/c they are already at the top. There is nothing wrong with them building better facilities, but they shouldn't have more ability to land the top players. There is nothing wrong with them being the most popular (like how players will cut salaries to play for the pats) team.

That's where my beef comes in. Exactly how 27 put it, every sport is a business, and I do not deny that. But when it looks much more like monopolies in business than excellent sports teams, taht is where I have a problem with it.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, here's my point. In baseball, you have to be a success at marketing just to have a chance of making the playoffs, let alone making the world series. In football, the football team has success somewhat independent of the marketing of the team. There are always areas where the team will have lots of support, like Green Bay, Washington, etc. It shouldn't require $ from fans in order to compete in the game. The home field advantage should be directly related to the fans. But should USC be given a bigger advantage for the next few years b/c they are earning mroe in marketing dollars? No, b/c they are already at the top. There is nothing wrong with them building better facilities, but they shouldn't have more ability to land the top players. There is nothing wrong with them being the most popular (like how players will cut salaries to play for the pats) team.

That's where my beef comes in. Exactly how 27 put it, every sport is a business, and I do not deny that. But when it looks much more like monopolies in business than excellent sports teams, taht is where I have a problem with it.

Baseball itself is a Monopoly, individual teams are not. A monopoly is first defined by competition. There is no competition to Major League baseball (that is, there isn't another Major League) and thus it SHOULD be subject to Anti-trust laws (Like every other Pro sports league). Each of the teams IN baseball compete with the others and are NOT a monopolies, both in theory and in reality.

You're talking about a percieved unfair competitive advantage, not monopoly. Tough shit, I say. It's called capitalism. Doesn't Coke have a competitive advantage over RC? So what.

Florida bought the 1997 World Series. That was a calculated risk taken by the ownership to make Marlins baseball intereting in Florida. Then, they had a fire sale.... then they developed talent, won another Series, and now are competitive every year. That's how you do it.

 

[jwinslow]

fair enough. not much reason to like the marlins anymore for what they did. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about buying a world series.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Again, though, I'm not saying you need to like the way Baseball is run, but you have to acknowledge that baseball IS run a certain way, and each team playing within those same rules is allowed to do what the Yankees have done, or even Florida....

If it makes you not like Baseball, that's fine. But don't blame the Yankees. Blame Bud Selig and his predecessors for never addressing what has become such a fucked up system. MLB has allowed this to happen, taking the risk that having this system is good for revenue, and won't drive fans away. Maybe they screwed up on their analysis and, as it turns out, in most places in America (Not the North East) baseball is less popular in part becasue of this.

 

[TraderLee]

BKB, here's my point. In baseball, you have to be a success at marketing just to have a chance of making the playoffs, let alone making the world series.

To add to that, you have to have a deep farm system to keep a small market team having half a chance. Then you watch your best players head off to the big money teams once they are eligible for free agency.

The Oakland A's are a good example of a team that has been for the most part good at operating under this scenario. They've lost a lot of players but have reloaded from the farm system pretty well, at least so far. But every team isn't the A's. Look at Pittsburgh and Kansas City, this system has killed them for years with no hope of getting out of their deep rut.

BKB, you don't want to admit this is a problem and it's just business. I think the current system is killing the sport of baseball, where only 8-12 teams go to spring training with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the series each season, while sports that do it right like the NFL are thriving. I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I just googled it quick, I didn't go looking for numbers that confirmed my suspicion. (And I admit, I thought the Boston Populaton looked a little thin) Minneapolis may well be only 382,618 but since St. Paul is the same city, you have to add those numbers in as well. I don't know if you have ever been to the Twin Cities, but they are literally the same place.

I'm actually agreeing with you in that the metropolitan areas compare fairly well as far as number of people within reasonable travel distance of the stadium.

I just threw that Minneapolis stat in there at the end for comparison, but you're correct that I should have included St. Paul. For 2000, its population was listed at 287,151. This gives the combined city population for the Twin Cities as 669,769, a bit more populated than Boston.

 

[TraderLee]

If it makes you not like Baseball, that's fine. But don't blame the Yankees. Blame Bud Selig and his predecessors for never addressing what has become such a fucked up system. MLB has allowed this to happen, taking the risk that having this system is good for revenue, and won't drive fans away. Maybe they screwed up on their analysis and, as it turns out, in most places in America (Not the North East) baseball is less popular in part becasue of this.

Make no mistake, I do blame Bud Selig and the "brain trust" of baseball for letting this system get out of hand. Their so called luxury tax is a joke.

As you said, you can't blame the Yankees for taking advantage of the system, but you can hold them up as an example of what is wrong with the sport.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, you don't want to admit this is a problem and it's just business. I think the current system is killing the sport of baseball, where only 8-12 teams go to spring training with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the series each season, while sports that do it right like the NFL are thriving. I guess we can agree to disagree.

Trader, if you read my posts you'll plainly see I READILY - and FREQUENTLY - admit this is a problem for the sport.

If you've read my posts as: "In Defense of MLB's organization" then I don't know what to tell ya, cause I think MLB is fucked up, and every sports league should be run like the NFL (Which I've said in this very thread no less than 3 times now.)

I suppose we should agree to agree, then?

 

[jwinslow]

As you said, you can't blame the Yankees for taking advantage of the system, but you can hold them up as an example of what is wrong with the sport.

you're admitting that baseball is to blame, and I don't disagree. However, just b/c other teams can also follow this crappy method of buying wins doesn't change what it is: buying wins. And since I was raised on football as my primary pro sport, that concept is repulsive to me. Therefore the figurehead of buying wins, the yankees, is going to earn my distaste, regardless of whether they are to blame or not. It's no coincidence that the yankees not winning it every year anymore has made baseball much more interesting to me.

 

[TraderLee]

you're admitting that baseball is to blame, and I don't disagree. However, just b/c other teams can also follow this crappy method of buying wins doesn't change what it is: buying wins. And since I was raised on football as my primary pro sport, that concept is repulsive to me. Therefore the figurehead of buying wins, the yankees, is going to earn my distaste, regardless of whether they are to blame or not. It's no coincidence that the yankees not winning it every year anymore has made baseball much more interesting to me.

You're not alone there about finding buying wins distasteful, which is why baseball is taking quite a hit in popularity the past several years.