Links for Monday…
- The MLBTR Forums are rocking with over 3,600 members. Join the discussion today! Just added a prospects section; we've also got areas to discuss trade rumors, free agents, the draft, general baseball, fantasy baseball, and every team.
- Tom Krasovic tweets that the Twins have a scout at tonight's Padres-Giants game, but it's just a routine visit. He adds that Heath Bell remains on Minnesota's radar, but the two sides haven't talked since Spring Training.
- The Giants have no interest in Jermaine Dye, tweets Henry Schulman of The San Francisco Chronicle. The reasons are the same as they've been all winter: defense and asking price.
- More changes could be coming to the Dodgers' bullpen, says Dylan Hernandez of The Los Angeles Times. Russ Ortiz was designated for assignment yesterday, and Hernandez thinks Ramon Ortiz could be next.
- Talking to MLBTR's Ben Nicholson-Smith, I learned that teams can now safely promote minor leaguers for their MLB debuts with no chance of the player amassing 172 days of service in 2010. By promoting '08 first-rounder Ike Davis today, the Mets ensured that he will be under team control through 2016 instead of 2015. In contrast, the Braves have Jason Heyward through '15.
- On that same topic, agent Scott Boras told MLB.com's Peter Gammons that Stephen Strasburg starting in the minors "had nothing to do with money."
- Joe Posnanski digs into Forbes' team revenue numbers, noting that the Yankees made $173MM more than any other team.
- MLB.com's Jenifer Langosch tells us Hayden Penn has accepted the Pirates' Triple A assignment in lieu of electing free agency.
- In a statement, Cal Ripken said he looks forward to continued talks with the Orioles about a position in the organization.
i like ike!
i like Ike!
i like ike!
I AM HERE
Wait a second. The Yankees made $173m MORE than every other team. That’s the MINIMUM gap.
So when the Yankees spend $200m+ on payroll and the Brewers spend $80m in payroll it isn’t just because the Brewers ownership are greedy bastards? Does this article suggest that the Yankees actually spend more simply because they make more than everyone else? Shocking.
I’m bookmarking this article. The link will be posted whenever Yankee fans start in with “our owners just want to win more that’s why they outspend everyone” argument.
You also gonna post the link whenever someone tries to say the Yankees buy championships?
That’s the whole point of the article. The Yankees ARE buying championships. They are playing with such an unfair advantage that it is simply absurd.
The analogy of fighting someone with one hand tied behind your back is quite literal in this case. A team like the Brewers WILL NEVER, EVER be able to compete with the Yankees. Sure they might be a better team over a short period of time, but when you stack the deck so heavily in your favor odds are that you will win despite making bad decisions.
Bring in a cap and bring in a floor. Boost revenue sharing so each team can afford the floor. Players make the same amount of money, they just all won’t be residing in NY. I can’t honestly see how a cap/floor system would be bad for baseball.
make a hard cap in the draft and a maximum salary for players based off of the league average salary.
make a hard cap in the draft and a maximum salary for players based off of the league average salary.
I’ve never claimed that owners that spend less money are “greedy bastards” but if the Yankees didn’t spend that extra 173MM dollars (or at least a portion of it) wouldn’t that make their ownership greedy? I get that it isn’t exactly fair that the Yankees bring in that much more than everybody else, but is it really them making it unfair? Semantically your analogy can’t be “literal” because we’re not talking about a fight, but to try to argue the analogy you used I’d ask is it the Yankees that are tying the Brewers hand behind their backs? Or is it perhaps the fact that the NY market is so much bigger than the market in Milwaukee? I just don’t think it’s particularly fair to blame the Yankees for bringing in and spending more money then other teams. It be like getting mad at your neighbor for buying a 50K boat because his job pays him twice as much as your job does and you can only afford a 25K boat.
Maybe a cap and floor system would be good for the competitive spirit of baseball, but I don’t really see the point in advocating for such a system because I very highly doubt the MLBPA would ever allow such a system to be put in place.
— You may have never claimed it but if you have been on these boards for awhile you certainly have seen it. I can’t count how many times I’ve read Yankee fans write about how the Yanks just want to win it all while other teams just hoard their money and don’t care about the product they put on the field.
— I do want to be clear – I am NOT blaming the Yankees for this problem. They are simply taking advantage of the situation they find themselves in. If I was running the Yankees I would do EXACTLY the same thing. Better that they put that money back into the team with a high salary then to add it to the Steinbrenner’s checking account. The problem isn’t the Yankees, the problem is the system that allows such tremendous disparity.
— A cap and floor could easily be worked out that would guarantee that players still get their payday. While teams like the Yankees would be forced to shed contracts, other teams would be forced to take on a new contracts. I think the effective result is that you would have fewer huge contracts but that those guys that are in the $1-3m range might see pay increases. It benefits the masses while harming the few. Hard to see why MLBPA would be against it.
I’ve never claimed that owners that spend less money are “greedy bastards” but if the Yankees didn’t spend that extra 173MM dollars (or at least a portion of it) wouldn’t that make their ownership greedy? I get that it isn’t exactly fair that the Yankees bring in that much more than everybody else, but is it really them making it unfair? Semantically your analogy can’t be “literal” because we’re not talking about a fight, but to try to argue the analogy you used I’d ask is it the Yankees that are tying the Brewers hand behind their backs? Or is it perhaps the fact that the NY market is so much bigger than the market in Milwaukee? I just don’t think it’s particularly fair to blame the Yankees for bringing in and spending more money then other teams. It be like getting mad at your neighbor for buying a 50K boat because his job pays him twice as much as your job does and you can only afford a 25K boat.
Maybe a cap and floor system would be good for the competitive spirit of baseball, but I don’t really see the point in advocating for such a system because I very highly doubt the MLBPA would ever allow such a system to be put in place.
Your solution helps the small teams, that’s true, but I have to ask you if you have considered this: Why as a Yankee fan will I pay to see other teams competing? Matter of fact is, the Yankees simply have more fans. Period. A floor and cap system with more revenue sharing can end up reducing the overall baseball fanbase.
Fans of the Yankees, the Red Sox and the Dodgers won’t pay huge sums of money to go to the stadium and ensure that the Brewers, Marlins, Pirates and Rays have a fair fighting chance every year, that’s ludicrous.
The more Fans part is simply due to location. They have more people to draw fans from.
It’s not just location. You are assuming that all Yankee fans are New Yorkers. Remember that product placement (jerseys, caps et al.) and TV contracts are just as important as ticket incomes. The YES network has high revenue levels because its broadcasts are asked for not only in America, but in the whole world. The NYY cap logo is one of the most recognizable symbols of the 20th. century, and Yankee fans exist in all of the U.S., Canada, Latin America, Asia and even Europe.
I, as a Yankee fan living outside the U.S., will be discouraged to pay my cable company an extra to have YES or any other MLB service if I know for a fact that the Yankees won’t be as competitive as they’ve been so far or that the money I’m paying is actually helping other teams. Is it unfair? Granted. But a winning legacy of at least one success in nearly all of the last 10 decades is what makes people Yankee fans. If other teams want to have that market value, they have to win and stop whining about unfairness.
The advantage of the Yankees is more than geography (although geography is the dominant factor). Look, you can’t take anything away from the Yankees. My team doesn’t have a history that includes Ruth, Mantle, etc. There is no question that the Yankees are the most important team in baseball from a historical perspective. No matter what my team does over the next 20 years they still cannot supplant the Yankees as the predominant baseball franchise. History is on the side of the Yankees.
However, I bet if you ask most die hard Yankee fans (jersey wearing), they either live in NY (or surrounding areas) OR they LIVED in NY in the past. So, when you look at populations you have to consider not only the population disparity today, but all the people who at one point in time lived in NY. Geography is the most important reason why the Yankees generate the revenues they do.
You’re probably right that Yankees, Red Sox, or Dodgers fans wouldn’t pay as much to see the other teams compete. But, that’s only 3 teams represented. What about the other 27? It’s hard for them to go to the ballpark to know the Yankees and Red Sox win all the time, and there is nothing they can do about it. I don’t know the percentages, but the other 27 clubs’ fans numbers > than Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers fans probably. You have to consider the league as a whole.
I have no doubt that attendance would drop in NY if the Yankees became just another team. However, if you can make the game more competitively balanced then any shortcomings in NY will be MADE UP FOR by attendance/revenue gains in other markets.
As a whole, baseball wins. Parity and competitive balance is great for everyone. For what it’s worth, my team is definitely a big spender that has benefited from having smaller market clubs in their division. My point is being made at the cost of my personal team. But even then, I recognize that for the good of baseball greater parity needs to be introduced.
Your solution helps the small teams, that’s true, but I have to ask you if you have considered this: Why as a Yankee fan will I pay to see other teams competing? Matter of fact is, the Yankees simply have more fans. Period. A floor and cap system with more revenue sharing can end up reducing the overall baseball fanbase.
Fans of the Yankees, the Red Sox and the Dodgers won’t pay huge sums of money to go to the stadium and ensure that the Brewers, Marlins, Pirates and Rays have a fair fighting chance every year, that’s ludicrous.
so basically what you are saying is reward failure and punish success???? since the yanks make more money that should be punished because why…jealousy, envy???
their success is tied into their location. Other teams can’t choose where they are located the teams are positioned somehwere by the league.
Its not truly due to success per se but they market they are in.
The Mets are in the same MARKET and haven’t had nearly the success the Yankees have had. Yet the money is CERTAINLY still there.
They have the means and the money to be successful, they just continually make horrible decisions
I’d like to tell you a story about another sport. Soccer. Specifically, Spanish soccer. In Spain, the biggest soccer teams are Real Madrid and Barcelona. Both teams have over 100 years of age, both teams are the most successful of the country and are rivals. Over 50 years ago there was a problem between both clubs involving the transfer off a player that was instrumental in Madrid’s first 5 European Cups (that being the most important trophy of European soccer) and it took many years for Barcelona to win their first one, in 1992. Any of this sounds familiar? The appeal of a team is built on its history, not on market-size. Having historic players with the team over the course of many years also helps on that regard.
Also, the third team on Spain is Atlético de Madrid, who are considered a “blue-collar” alternative for the Madrid-native in comparison to the “rich and high horse” Real. I think some of that applies to the Mets.
Off course, I’m not saying that the market is a non-factor, but with all the history already written for the big teams and the introduction of international markets… if you want to create a fair league, then you’ll need the help of Dr. Emmet Brown.
This isn’t soccer/euro-football. I don’t disagree with all of what you are saying but I’m telling you it is entirely not possible without out that market and everything attached to it (media etc etc etc).
Look at two of the teams that left NYC,the Giants and the Dodgers. The Dodgers went to a larger high profile market and the Giants went to a not as large one. It makes a world of difference.
If you stick the Yankees or Redsox in Demoines I can bet you there will not be a fraction of the fanbase in just a few years. Less people will care about the history in a short amount of time.
Are you blind to the fact that the Yankees are at a huge advantage over other teams because they play IN New York? How could you possibly expect teams like the Brewers or Royals to “succeed” like the Yankees in terms of attendance, revenue, or on the field with such a disconnect in market sizes? Not only could few teams conceivibly draw as many fans to the ballpark as the Yankees, but even fewer could fathom charging as much as the Yankees do for sky boxes and front row seats around the infield.
There is completely unreasonable to fault smaller market teams for not “succeeding” like the Yankees. It is simply not possible.
But how do you make someone “like” teams? I mean, come on. Look at the Marlins. They’ve won 2 World Series in the last 14 years (which is a high win density… at least if you ask a Red Sox or Cubs fan xD) and yet, no one goes to their stadium. If a World Series is not enough reason to go, would a floor and cap system make the people in Florida go to the Stadium? It seems very unlikely. Would a floor and cap system make people like Dayton Moore or Dave Littlefild competitive GMs? Definitely no.
Now, would fans go if the team was located in Brooklyn? Probably yes. The Marlins, luckily, are a well managed organization. But what about the Royals? Would a bigger market make a losing and poorly managed team without a legacy of success like Kansas* make people go to the Stadium? As baseball fans, what would make anyone of you change your current team for another that just moved in? Market size and monetary capabilities are important, but they are just small parts of the game.
Also, the most important part of all: The New York Yankees have only won 5 World Series in the last 31 years. The Red Sox just 2. While it’s plenty more than most teams, it’s hardly a two sided dispute. Teams CAN win under the current system. Even the Rockies and Rays reached the WS, something that seemed impossible 10 years ago. Maybe they can’t keep as competitive (in number of pennants it’s clear that only 4-5 teams can remain competitive over a large number of years), but it’s possible for a team with a low payroll in any market to win.
*I’m sorry if I sound rude towards their fans, but it’s nothing personal.
so basically what you are saying is reward failure and punish success???? since the yanks make more money that should be punished because why…jealousy, envy???
Didn’t Bud Selig own the Brewers, or at least have a major part in their organization awhile back? That would be ironic, since you would think he would try to implement a salary cap so his team could compete with the bigger markets.
That’s the whole point of the article. The Yankees ARE buying championships. They are playing with such an unfair advantage that it is simply absurd.
The analogy of fighting someone with one hand tied behind your back is quite literal in this case. A team like the Brewers WILL NEVER, EVER be able to compete with the Yankees. Sure they might be a better team over a short period of time, but when you stack the deck so heavily in your favor odds are that you will win despite making bad decisions.
Bring in a cap and bring in a floor. Boost revenue sharing so each team can afford the floor. Players make the same amount of money, they just all won’t be residing in NY. I can’t honestly see how a cap/floor system would be bad for baseball.
Put the twins up versus the Yankees right now, and then give the twins 100 million extra to spend every year on payroll. Anyone think the Yankees win. It’s almost a push right now and the twins lost Joe Nathan and spend half as much. Yankees win with money, pure and simple
You also gonna post the link whenever someone tries to say the Yankees buy championships?
how about this for a thought. The Twins have a solid lineup 1-9, hitters everywhere. Give Twins management an extra 110 million like the Spankees have over the Twins, and we could get a couple aces, a real 3rd basemen, spend millions in international scouting and signing. The Twins would blow the Yankees away if the playing field was remotely even. Sad to say, but this system is why the NFL passed Major League Baseball a very long time ago
Or, do the opposite. Take $100m FROM the Yankees and replace those guys with replacement level players.
How different do the Yankees look sans A-Rod, Jeter, Teixeira, and Sabathia? Now take those guys and sprinkle them throughout the rest of the AL East with a guy like Teixeira going to Tampa (Pena to DH) and A-Rod and Sabathia headed over to Toronto.
Wow, just imagine if the twins had that kind of extra money to spend, hate to be a homer, but an extra 110 million to spend on payroll would be awesome. Find ourselves a real 3rd basemen, a couple sabathia and burnett type starters. Hate to think about how the NFL has become Americas game because of the competitive inbalance in baseball. Most teams spend around 50% of revenues on salaries, but whan your revenues are that much more than everyone else, you could spend that much more on salaries. It’s not that other owners are cheap, like Yankees fans like to think. Not every city in America has 10 million people and millions more within 100 square miles.
Mets promote IKE DAVIS….postponing my plans to jump off the Shea Bridge indefinitely.
For those interested in the Revenue Sharing article make sure you read the whole thing. Also go through the comments. Quite a few interesting points they make.
To make baseball fair you either have to:
1. Restrict the maximum amount of money that teams can spend on payroll/player development, etc OR
2. Provide all teams the opportunity to earn equal revenue. As several posters pointed out, the biggest issue is market. If NY is 5-6 times larger than KC why not have more teams in NY? It’s an interesting argument.
Either of the two solutions listed above would create a more competitive balance that disregards the current natural advantages some teams have simply because of their geographic location.
5-6 Teams from NY. I’m salivating at the thought…
OR AM I?! I can’t decide if that’s a good thing or bad.
That’s really something to think about.
As for additional team(s) in NY, technically the town might be able to sustain at least one more, but with the history of baseball in NY and the attitudes of the NY fans, I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it.
The thing with that its like turning America towards Socialism. Its the owners money let them do what they want with it, its not fair to make someone give up their own money to other people because the owners aren’t going about developing the right way. Look at the Rays they are a small market team and they compete they did it the right way and they aren’t complaining about the Yankees.
The Rays were one of the worst teams in the league for many many years and thus accumulated many high draft picks, the scouting and developing of those picks by the Rays was very well done, but the competition level that they enjoy now is due to the lack of competition level that was the MO of Rays teams for so many years.
Not completely true. The Rays changed ownership & improved the way they do business. it’s not just simply because they were bad. There are teams who’ve been worse for alto longer & are nowhere near what the Rays are. Pirates & Royals quickly come to mind.
also they are getting a big slice of revenue sharing pie.
Not completely true. The Rays changed ownership & improved the way they do business. it’s not just simply because they were bad. There are teams who’ve been worse for alto longer & are nowhere near what the Rays are. Pirates & Royals quickly come to mind.
The Rays were one of the worst teams in the league for many many years and thus accumulated many high draft picks, the scouting and developing of those picks by the Rays was very well done, but the competition level that they enjoy now is due to the lack of competition level that was the MO of Rays teams for so many years.
The current model is very anti-free market. Sure, not having a salary cap gives baseball the appearance of true capitalism. However, think about these other aspects …
1. It’s an exclusive club. Owners have to approve teams moving, new teams coming aboard, new ownership groups buying existing teams, etc, etc. That is an extremely protectionist policy.
2. Teams share pooled money from master agreements secured through MLB.
3. Teams transfer wealth from club to club through revenue sharing (and to some extent – luxury taxes).
In a truly free market society, there would be no limit on baseball teams (theoretically). If demand grows a smart business man starts a new franchise in a market that is under-served. If baseball loses popularity you could see your team move to greener pastures, or just contract. Teams would naturally go where the revenue is. If NY can support 6 teams then there will be 6 teams. If KC can’t support a team then that team leaves or contracts. There would be no salary cap as each team has the same opportunity to earn similar revenues.
Now, I don’t think those scenarios are good for the game necessarily. I just wanted to point out that baseball today is really the antithesis of modern capitalism.
True I think anyone who wants to start and has the funds to do so should be allowed to without approval.
True I think anyone who wants to start and has the funds to do so should be allowed to without approval.
because there is no league to play in if u allow all the small clubs to fail. Unless u want to see the Yanks and Red Sox play 162 times a year
because there is no league to play in if u allow all the small clubs to fail. Unless u want to see the Yanks and Red Sox play 162 times a year
1. Well if your concerned about socialism then teams should be allowed to put their franchises wherever they want and not have to go through the league to get approval. This would mean there could be 5-6 teams in NYC, a bunch more in Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. In other words all teams would be in large markets. I think I’ll pass on that.
2.Yeah, and itt only took the rays a decade of losing seasons and pure mediocrity to do it. The Rays are the exception not the rule.
I was just using them as an example look at the D’Backs, the Marlins. They did things the right way and won a few world series’s
I was just using them as an example look at the D’Backs, the Marlins. They did things the right way and won a few world series’s
Since the Rays were an expansion team, I don’t think 10 years of sucking is that bad.
Since the Rays were an expansion team, I don’t think 10 years of sucking is that bad.
1. Well if your concerned about socialism then teams should be allowed to put their franchises wherever they want and not have to go through the league to get approval. This would mean there could be 5-6 teams in NYC, a bunch more in Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. In other words all teams would be in large markets. I think I’ll pass on that.
2.Yeah, and itt only took the rays a decade of losing seasons and pure mediocrity to do it. The Rays are the exception not the rule.
This forum is not for Yankee “fans”. It is Ike Davis time in NYC.
I really don’t like the mets at all, but after all the mets fans getting excited about this kid, i’m surprisingly pretty excited to see him play, and i plan on watching tonight.
I really don’t like the mets at all, but after all the mets fans getting excited about this kid, i’m surprisingly pretty excited to see him play, and i plan on watching tonight.
If you ask me holding players down in the minors until a certain date just to retain them is hurting the game. Yes it’s the logical move, just like in the NFL resting your starters when you’ve got your seed locked up is logical, but nobody likes to watch that. Let the kids play.
If you ask me holding players down in the minors until a certain date just to retain them is hurting the game. Yes it’s the logical move, just like in the NFL resting your starters when you’ve got your seed locked up is logical, but nobody likes to watch that. Let the kids play.
Can we please steal Joe Posnanski away? Joe Strauss is atrocious, and Posnanski is a pretty solid writer.
Can we please steal Joe Posnanski away? Joe Strauss is atrocious, and Posnanski is a pretty solid writer.
Leave it to Sabean to declare that a team bereft of right-handed power isn’t interested in a guy who has a .913 OPS against lefties over 2007-2009.
Sure, his defense is questionable at best, which is why you put him in LF instead of RF at AT&T. Can he be any worse than Fred Lewis was in LF? Going with a Dye/Rowand/DeRosa outfield with Bowker and Schierholtz off the bench will do just fine.
As for the money, well, what’s worse? Shelling out another $3.5 million to get into the playoffs, or not doing so and wasting another year’s worth of great pitching?
Does anyone else on that team come close to a .913 OPS against lefties?
Leave it to Sabean to declare that a team bereft of right-handed power isn’t interested in a guy who has a .913 OPS against lefties over 2007-2009.
Sure, his defense is questionable at best, which is why you put him in LF instead of RF at AT&T. Can he be any worse than Fred Lewis was in LF? Going with a Dye/Rowand/DeRosa outfield with Bowker and Schierholtz off the bench will do just fine.
As for the money, well, what’s worse? Shelling out another $3.5 million to get into the playoffs, or not doing so and wasting another year’s worth of great pitching?
Does anyone else on that team come close to a .913 OPS against lefties?
I am not sure Davis really received any kind of treatment. Yes, the Mets control him for 2016, but his being called up around the cutoff date could be coincidence.
I think you guys are incorrect about the service time for Ike Davis. Please explain this: To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. Historically, the cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service.
Why was Jay Bruce brought up on May 27 and Matt Wieters on May 28th? Because that’s 128 service days from the last day of the season. I don’t believe this keeps Ike Davis under control and longer that if they brought him up on opening day. Can you please confirm that because I have a friend that interned for an agent that is telling me this is incorrect and the official date is in approx late May based on off days.
Thank you.
😀
When Tim says “team control”, he is referring to the fact that Ike won’t be elgible for free agency until after the 2016 season. It’s true that he’ll most likely be eligible for arbitration after the 2012 season.
There’s 2 different dates of note.
The first date, is the one Tim mentioned, which allows the team to have the player under control for an extra season. So the Mets will control Ike Davis’s rights until 2016 instead of 2015 because they waited the extra 2 weeks (Although I tend to think it’s coincidence in this case, since the Mets didn’t have any problem putting Jenrry Mejia on the opening day roster).
The second date, is the one you are mentioning, Super 2 status, which means that the player will end up going to arbitration 4 times instead of your standard 3 times. Teams that wait until the end of May are doing so that the player will be cheaper because they didn’t go through arbitration the extra time. But they still have his rights for the same amount of time as the Mets will with Davis.
…or maybe they are calling him up becaues he’s hitting .346 and Omar suddenly realized that Ike > Mike Jacobs. Seriously though, his debut shortly after the magic date is obviously no coincidence.
…or maybe they are calling him up becaues he’s hitting .346 and Omar suddenly realized that Ike > Mike Jacobs. Seriously though, his debut shortly after the magic date is obviously no coincidence.
Do you by chance know where you found that information? Many of our Tribe fans are complaining how our owners are cheap, and I would love to show this to them.
Smelly Selig will be gone soon!