Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Talk about the world of sports here. And also a sub-forum to talk about anything else.

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby digger » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:11 am

Hinsa wrote:Markwald - you still haven't addressed my main issue of competitive balance. Do you think baseball will continue to be a viable major sports league if a small handful of teams continue to outspend everyone else and win championships?


Step away from the ledge. Baseball is going to be just fine. Let's take a stroll through baseball history:
1915-1924: Yankees win 1 championship: '23
1925-1934: Yankees win 3 championships: '27, '28, '32
1935-1944: Yankees win 6 championships: '36, '37, '38, '39, '41, '43
1945-1954: Yankees win 6 championships: '47, '49, '50, '51, '52, '53
1955-1964: Yankees win 4 championships: '56, '58, '61, '62
1965-1974: Yankees win 0 championships:
1975-1984: Yankees win 2 championships: '77, '78
1985-1994: Yankees win 0 championships:
1995-2004: Yankees win 4 championships: '96, '98, '99, 2000
2005-present: Yankees win 1 championship: 2009
On top of this, they have played for the championship and lost, another 13 times.

The Yankee dominance of professional baseball is remarkable. (I say this as a lifelong Cardinal fan, raised on stories of Stan Musial and the firm belief that Bob Gibson is the best big game pitcher in the history of the game). The Yankees have always been the Goliath among major league teams, and as the noted philosopher Wilt Chamberlin once said, "Nobody likes Goliath." People either love the Yankees or hate the Yankees, always have.
We've had 8 different World Series champions in the 2000's (how are you supposed to refer to this decade, the naughts?) 13 different teams have filled the 20 slots in the World Series during that time. Teams like the Twins, Rockies, Astros, Cardinals, Devil Rays, D'backs, Brewers, have all made the playoffs. The Twins have been a model franchise for remaining competitive on a modest budget. Beautiful new ballparks have popped up all over in the last 15 years or so, including cities like Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Cleveland, and next year finally Minneapolis. The industry of major league baseball is actually in good shape financially, there was a 6%-7% decrease in attendance this season, but given the economic fallout that was anticipated.

The revenue stream that the Yankees generate gives them an advantage over every other team, a big advantage over some, smaller advantage over others. They can use money to cover up mistakes, and this gives them a larger margin of error. Not every franchise starts from the same place, that's fine, the owners know what they're in for, come up with a plan to be competitive. It is much harder for the smaller guys to be competitive on a regular basis, what area of life isn't that the case?

I think having the Yankees good is good for baseball. I've actually come to admire their drive (all within the rules mind you) to win championships.
digger
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:16 am

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Hinsa » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:15 am

Good point. There would also have to be a rookie bonus/salary structure in place. That's something that most teams want anyway so they don't have to pay those huge signing bonuses to top draft picks.
Twins and Vikings Forever!
User avatar
Hinsa
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:53 am
Location: THE Red River Valley Conference

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby theman » Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:56 pm

digger wrote:
Hinsa wrote:Markwald - you still haven't addressed my main issue of competitive balance. Do you think baseball will continue to be a viable major sports league if a small handful of teams continue to outspend everyone else and win championships?



The revenue stream that the Yankees generate gives them an advantage over every other team, a big advantage over some, smaller advantage over others. They can use money to cover up mistakes, and this gives them a larger margin of error. Not every franchise starts from the same place, that's fine, the owners know what they're in for, come up with a plan to be competitive. It is much harder for the smaller guys to be competitive on a regular basis, what area of life isn't that the case?

I think having the Yankees good is good for baseball. I've actually come to admire their drive (all within the rules mind you) to win championships.

Are you referring to the money used to pay umps to cover up their bad pitching mistakes? (As in a ball that was fair by 2 feet)
[url]northdakotarunner.blogspot.com[/url]
theman
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby baseball » Wed Nov 11, 2009 7:40 pm

theman wrote:
digger wrote:
Hinsa wrote:Markwald - you still haven't addressed my main issue of competitive balance. Do you think baseball will continue to be a viable major sports league if a small handful of teams continue to outspend everyone else and win championships?



The revenue stream that the Yankees generate gives them an advantage over every other team, a big advantage over some, smaller advantage over others. They can use money to cover up mistakes, and this gives them a larger margin of error. Not every franchise starts from the same place, that's fine, the owners know what they're in for, come up with a plan to be competitive. It is much harder for the smaller guys to be competitive on a regular basis, what area of life isn't that the case?

I think having the Yankees good is good for baseball. I've actually come to admire their drive (all within the rules mind you) to win championships.

Are you referring to the money used to pay umps to cover up their bad pitching mistakes? (As in a ball that was fair by 2 feet)


PLUS being touched by the field in fair territory...
Pay Heed, All Who Enter: Beware of "The Phog"
baseball
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 4641
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:53 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:00 pm

All you Yankee Haters need to read the following article.

The Yankees just won another World Series (as you might have heard someplace) -- and we all know what that means:

The crying game is on.

It isn't fair. … We need a salary cap. … The system's broken.

Sound familiar?

Well, the system may be broken, all right. But don't just look at the top.

Anybody checked out the bottom teams lately?


MLB's 40-man roster payrolls
Team Payroll
Yankees $215,080,715
Mets $141,302,331
Cubs $141,007,248
Tigers $138,477,723
Red Sox $137,199,512
Phillies $136,107,962
Dodgers $127,592,034
Angels $120,423,691
Astros $106,424,382
White Sox $104,751,673
Mariners $101,182,454
Cardinals $100,892,097
Braves $99,567,968
Giants $94,086,588
Brewers $87,772,297
Blue Jays $83,838,967
Rockies $83,492,729
Royals $80,588,529
Orioles $78,470,973
Rangers $76,524,452
Indians $75,512,530
Diamondbacks $73,495,966
Reds $72,146,812
Twins $71,903,577
Rays $70,682,817
Nationals $68,430,665
A's $60,954,872
Pirates $47,482,564
Padres $41,306,652
Marlins $36,803,494
Source: Major League Baseball. Includes salaries, bonuses paid, escalator clauses and buyouts for 40-man roster payrolls through Aug. 31.

If you live in Pittsburgh or South Florida, you've probably gotten so used to blaming The System for all your team's problems, there's an excellent chance you never noticed something every fan of these two "small-market" operations should know:

Your team collected more money this season -- before it ever sold one ticket -- than it spent on its entire major league payroll. In fact, it collected more than it spent on its major league payroll and its player-development system combined.

But it isn't just the Pirates and Marlins who are cashing checks larger than their payrolls before the ticket offices open. By some estimates, a third of the teams in the sport are doing exactly the same thing.

So how big an issue is that for baseball? We've spent the week exploring that topic with people who work in virtually every aspect of baseball management. We'll let you judge for yourself.

Nobody wants you to know, of course, exactly how many dollars each team takes in from a humongous pot that includes revenue sharing, TV-radio money, merchandising, sponsorships, etc. And, depending on which side of the sport you reside on, estimates of those amounts vary. But after numerous conversations, we now have a pretty fair idea. So here goes.

Our first conclusion: Scott Boras flunked math class.

Before we get into documenting all of this, we need to start with the man who lit the match on this issue.

Just a few days ago, everybody's favorite agent threw baseball's pooh-bahs into a serious froth. All it took was Boras telling the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo that some teams are collecting $80 million to $90 million from Major League Baseball just in revenue sharing and central-fund welfare -- and essentially stuffing much of it in their mattresses. Well, not quite.

Not that there weren't some shreds of truth in there someplace. But we've run those figures past all sorts of people who ought to know. None of them thinks that particular number adds up. However …

Boras would have been a lot closer to the actual facts if he'd just included teams' local TV and radio payouts, which are heftier than you might think. So we did that. And that led us to …

Our second conclusion: If you add in that local TV-radio money -- and if you add only that money -- you'd be astounded by how many clubs seem to be running up higher revenues than payrolls before they print a ticket. We've added up all the revenue streams. And here's what we found:

If we just use the raw numbers, it appears that at least 10 teams collected $90 million-plus this year before they opened their ticket windows, let one car into their parking lots or sold one slice of pizza.

That number, once again, was $90 million-plus. By at least 10 teams.

But not everyone in baseball thinks that's a valid figure. Some argue that $10 million of that $90 million-plus shouldn't count -- because each team is required to pay $5 million into a pension fund and another $5 million into an MLB operations fund.

OK, so fine. Make it $80 million-plus.

Whichever it is, we're convinced our estimate is on target. Do the math yourself.

• Central fund (includes national TV, radio, Internet, licensing, merchandising, marketing, MLB International money): Each team, from the Marlins to the Yankees, gets the same central-fund payout. And that check comes to slightly over $30 million per team if you deduct the $10 million in pension and operations fees, or just over $40 million if you don't.

• Revenue sharing: Only income-challenged teams get a revenue-sharing check. But you should never forget that those checks are a lot larger than your average rebate check from Target. This sport shared $400 million in revenue this year -- more than the gross national product of Western Samoa. Now every club's payout is different. But the five neediest teams -- which we believe to be the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Blue Jays and Royals -- averaged somewhere in the vicinity of $35 million in revenue-sharing handouts per team. And that still left over $200 million -- more than $20 million a club -- for the rest of the "payees" to divvy up.

• Local TV/radio/cable: Good luck getting these exact figures. But we know that 29 of the 30 teams make at least $15 million a year in local broadcast money, and no team rakes in under $12 million. Obviously, some clubs collect much, much more than that. Or own their networks. Or both.


Mike & Mike in the Morning
ESPN.com senior MLB writer Jayson Stark says agent Scott Boras is right about teams who are taking in revenue-sharing money and not spending it to improve their teams. Stark offers a proposal that would punish teams that drop below a minimum payroll.

More Podcasts »

So everybody have your calculators out?

Add $30 million, plus $35 million, plus $15 million, and what do you get? That would be $80 million. At least. Before these teams spin their turnstiles once.

OK, now let's head back to the payroll list. We count a minimum of a dozen teams, depending on how you define "total payroll," that aren't spending that same number -- $80 million -- on their major league payroll. So it isn't just Scott Boras who has the right to ask: What's up with that?

Our third conclusion: It's getting ugly out there.

We raise this issue at a time when the relationship between owners and players seems to be growing more contentious than it has been in years.

Even if you ignore the regularly scheduled Boras conspiracy theories, most agents make no secret of the fact that they believe baseball is exaggerating its financial throes in a $6 billion industry.

They see the payroll figures we see. They see a dozen teams that have wiped at least $30 million in salaries off their books (in departing free agents) this winter. So while they recognize that certain teams -- like the Tigers -- have had a rough year, agents everywhere are clearly skeptical that those cries of poverty they're hearing from almost every club are legit.

But when people like us try to separate reality from illusion with actual numbers, what we hear from the powers that be at MLB is that even those numbers are misleading.

Are there teams that collect more money before they sell a ticket than they spend on their major league payroll? MLB's chief labor negotiator, Rob Manfred, doesn't dispute that. What he vociferously disputes is the meaning of those figures.

"When you evaluate a baseball team," Manfred said, "you need to understand that these teams have expenses in addition to the 25-man roster on the field. They have multimillion-dollar benefit costs. They have the cost of paying 15 players on the [40-man] major league roster who are not in the big leagues.

"They have the cost of their player-development system, which averages $15 million [per team] a year. They have the cost of acquiring [amateur] players through the [June] draft and internationally, which averages $9 million [per team] a year. So for anybody to take a club's revenues and say that 60 percent should go to major league payroll, that's just a fundamental misunderstanding of this business."

But the other side asks: Don't teams also have streams of income we haven't discussed here? Parking? Nine-dollar beverages? Sponsorships? In-park souvenir sales? Etc., etc.?

The fingers point. The pulse rates escalate. The Collusion Watch has started over at union headquarters. There's a new labor deal to negotiate in two years. And there are more than 100 free agents looking for work. These are not fun times.

So what do we do about it all? Well, we can't solve all of this. But we do have an idea that has gotten great reviews wherever we've floated it. So …

Our final conclusion: Don't just tax the Yankees.

Let's get back to where this column began. If this sport has problems, they don't begin and end with the Yankees.

At least the Yankees take the revenue they generate and plow it back into their franchise. At least the Yankees finance more than just their own little $215 million baseball team. They also pay $150 million a year (in luxury taxes and revenue sharing) to help finance everybody else's baseball teams, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Those are the rules. That's the system. And that system gives the Yankees a choice -- to roar beyond the payroll threshold and pay an extra 40 percent in luxury taxes for doing it. But if they do, they understand both the upside and the downside of that choice.

So our idea is: Why not extend the same choice to the teams that opt not to spend what other teams spend?


TRIVIALITY
Six active players have had at least five 40-homer seasons. Three of them have never won an MVP award. Can you name them? (Answer later.)

If the Marlins, Pirates or Padres think it's unnecessary to spend $70 million or $80 million -- or even $50 million -- on their big league payroll, hey, no problem.

Just tax them for it. That's all.

A few years back, during a previous labor negotiation, MLB proposed a minimum payroll, which we believe this sport needs. It was the union that rejected it, for philosophical reasons. We think that was a mistake, but nobody asked us.

So why not impose the same sort of tax on teams with payrolls below some minimum threshold, exactly the way baseball taxes teams like the Yankees that spend over the maximum threshold? That's the official proposal of Rumblings and Grumblings.

How would it work? Well, we hear teams argue constantly that sometimes, the only way to get better is to blow up their roster and start over. So we'd allow for that.

First time a team goes under the threshold -- and we'll let the owners and the union figure out whether that "minimum" should be $60 million or $80 million or something in between -- we'd impose no tax. None.

But if a team stayed below that "minimum" for a second year in a row, we'd tax it at 20 percent for every dollar below the threshold. The third straight year, that tax rate would grow to 30 percent. And for every year afterward, it would be 40 percent.

Would we solve all this sport's problems with that tax? Heck, no. There still wouldn't be enough pitching, for one thing. And owners and agents would still find whole new reasons to be suspicious of each other.

But it's one small step toward fixing a broken system. And who knows? Maybe it might even inspire everyone else to take one giant leap toward repairing the rest of it.
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Hinsa » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:31 pm

Who wrote the article and where did it come from?
Twins and Vikings Forever!
User avatar
Hinsa
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:53 am
Location: THE Red River Valley Conference

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:00 pm

Hinsa wrote:Who wrote the article and where did it come from?


Jayson Stark, ESPN.com.
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Hinsa » Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:02 pm

I'm curious to hear more on this from the Commish and from the owners. This story was written with information from Scott Boras, the player agent, who CERTAINLY would never slant facts and figures to benefit his clients.

Regardless, the fact remains that the Yankees have the deepest pockets in baseball and can buy whomever they want to put in pinstripes.

That's why the Yankees still stink. Of Money.
Twins and Vikings Forever!
User avatar
Hinsa
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:53 am
Location: THE Red River Valley Conference

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:23 pm

Hinsa wrote:I'm curious to hear more on this from the Commish and from the owners. This story was written with information from Scott Boras, the player agent, who CERTAINLY would never slant facts and figures to benefit his clients.

Regardless, the fact remains that the Yankees have the deepest pockets in baseball and can buy whomever they want to put in pinstripes.

That's why the Yankees still stink. Of Money.


Read the article! They author CUT DOWN Boras!

"Our first conclusion: Scott Boras flunked math class" In NO WAY was Stark siding with Scott Boras, who is a grade A jerk.

You are correct, the Yankees do buy who ever they want. It is also a fact that other teams/owners POCKET their revenue checks and shared money and don't put it back into their teams. The Yankees pour ALL of their resources into there club. Other teams could as well, but choose to pocket their money. And no, I'm not saying that the Twins/Pirates, etc have the same revenue potential as the Yankees, no way. What I am saying is that why is if fair for small market teams to chop payroll, make millions and revenue, and pocket the money that they recieve from the Yankees in order to fatten their own personal bank account and not fatten the success of their respective franchise?? A minimum payroll should be discussed. Again, read the article.
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Hinsa » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:08 pm

I agree that a minimum payroll would be a good thing. So would a maximum payroll. I am all for a cap on both ends.

But the Yankees still stink and will continue to do so until the playing field is leveled.
Twins and Vikings Forever!
User avatar
Hinsa
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:53 am
Location: THE Red River Valley Conference

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:30 pm

Hinsa wrote:I agree that a minimum payroll would be a good thing. So would a maximum payroll. I am all for a cap on both ends.

But the Yankees still stink and will continue to do so until the playing field is leveled.


Agreed, a two way cap is the way to go. But don't say the Yankees "stink" (yes, I read what you've said about stinking of money) because they win while buying players. They aren't breaking any rules. In fact, they are helping finance your team. Instead find fault with your team and ownership, who's payroll is just south of 72 million but could easily be bumped up to $100 million when considering not only the central fund, revenue sharing, and local TV contracts(80 million alone), but ticket sales, concessions, apparel sales, parking profits, etc.....
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby digger » Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:26 pm

Hinsa wrote:That's why the Yankees still stink. Of Money.

Hinsa wrote:But the Yankees still stink and will continue to do so until the playing field is leveled.


You have some strong feelings about the Yankees in particular, and from what I can gather, about what you view as the lack of competitive balance in baseball in general. I'm curious, do you feel this way about other franchises/teams?

Take for instance Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas in college basketball. Or USC, Texas, Florida in college football. I don't have the figures readily available but I think I can reasonably assume that they have more resources at their disposal than most of their competitors. Oregon with Phil Knight and Oklahoma State with T. Boone Pickens have financial benefactors for their athletic programs that most universities can only dream of.

Do the Lakers "stink"? The Patriots? Is it the money, the dominance or a combination of both that you find so distasteful? If it's the money, heck just a few years ago Peter Angelos was trying to spend his way to a World Series with the Orioles. We all know how that turned out. Same with the Mets. Did they "stink" as well? (I know their product on the field did!)

I love baseball. Out of the professional sports, there is not even a remotely close second for my attention and affection. I grew up in the era when baseball was the undisputed king of professional sports in America, for me it has always held a bit of child hood wonder. There was a time some years ago when I too was fed up with the financial issues surrounding the game, it took away some of the joy. To regain the joy I stopped listening. We are bombarded by the financial details of teams and players out of the mouths of the ESPN talking heads, over which we have absolutely no control.

I don't care what the Cubs payroll is when they are playing the Cardinals, I only care that they are playing. I don't care that Albert Pujols makes $15 million, or for that matter that Derek Jeter makes $20 million a year, I only care that when I watch them play I am reminded of all the reasons I love the game.
digger
NDPreps All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:16 am

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Hinsa » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:10 pm

I absolutely, positively, cannot stand that the Yankees can go buy any players they want. Peter Angelos was trying to buy his way to a series, but he was consistently outbid by the Yankess. So Angelos was overspending on guys the Yankess didn't need/want.

The Lakers don't stink because they live within the same salary cap that every other team lives with. The playing field is level. It's the Timberwolves own fault that they stink.

As for colleges, I don't consider college athletics to be an apples to apples comparison to professional sports. I get that there are schools with more resources and that will never change. College sports, and professional sports as well, are popular because everybody has a horse in the race. There are colleges around every corner and professional sports teams in every region of the country. How popular was the NHL when it was still the original 6? Now that there are teams all over the place the NHL is considered a major sport. What the pro sports owners in most sports have figured out is that it is a good idea to keep all of the teams competitive for the good of their sport. Or at least give them an equal starting point.

As for Major League Baseball, they are the only major sports league in America without a hard cap on both ends. It's the only league where every year at least half the teams have NO CHANCE of winning a championship.

The Pohlads have deep pockets, yes. They choose to break even with their baseball operations. They choose not to run at a deficit, which is what they would have to do if they were going to keep their own stars and augment with key free agents. Wherever did you see that the Twins are getting $80M in local TV revenues? I think that is a mistaken amount.

So even though the Twins do a helluva job with the resources they have, I just get extremely frustrated, as I'm sure other fans in other mid to small market areas get, with the present setup in baseball.
Twins and Vikings Forever!
User avatar
Hinsa
NDPreps Legend
 
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:53 am
Location: THE Red River Valley Conference

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:11 pm

Hinsa wrote:I absolutely, positively, cannot stand that the Yankees can go buy any players they want. Peter Angelos was trying to buy his way to a series, but he was consistently outbid by the Yankess. So Angelos was overspending on guys the Yankess didn't need/want.

The Lakers don't stink because they live within the same salary cap that every other team lives with. The playing field is level. It's the Timberwolves own fault that they stink.

As for colleges, I don't consider college athletics to be an apples to apples comparison to professional sports. I get that there are schools with more resources and that will never change. College sports, and professional sports as well, are popular because everybody has a horse in the race. There are colleges around every corner and professional sports teams in every region of the country. How popular was the NHL when it was still the original 6? Now that there are teams all over the place the NHL is considered a major sport. What the pro sports owners in most sports have figured out is that it is a good idea to keep all of the teams competitive for the good of their sport. Or at least give them an equal starting point.

As for Major League Baseball, they are the only major sports league in America without a hard cap on both ends. It's the only league where every year at least half the teams have NO CHANCE of winning a championship.

The Pohlads have deep pockets, yes. They choose to break even with their baseball operations. They choose not to run at a deficit, which is what they would have to do if they were going to keep their own stars and augment with key free agents. Wherever did you see that the Twins are getting $80M in local TV revenues? I think that is a mistaken amount.

So even though the Twins do a helluva job with the resources they have, I just get extremely frustrated, as I'm sure other fans in other mid to small market areas get, with the present setup in baseball.



Hinsa, READ THE ARTICLE, or at least the exerpt below!

• Central fund (includes national TV, radio, Internet, licensing, merchandising, marketing, MLB International money): Each team, from the Marlins to the Yankees, gets the same central-fund payout. And that check comes to slightly over $30 million per team if you deduct the $10 million in pension and operations fees, or just over $40 million if you don't.

• Revenue sharing: Only income-challenged teams get a revenue-sharing check. But you should never forget that those checks are a lot larger than your average rebate check from Target. This sport shared $400 million in revenue this year -- more than the gross national product of Western Samoa. Now every club's payout is different. But the five neediest teams -- which we believe to be the Marlins, Pirates, Rays, Blue Jays and Royals -- averaged somewhere in the vicinity of $35 million in revenue-sharing handouts per team. And that still left over $200 million -- more than $20 million a club -- for the rest of the "payees" to divvy up.

• Local TV/radio/cable: Good luck getting these exact figures. But we know that 29 of the 30 teams make at least $15 million a year in local broadcast money, and no team rakes in under $12 million. Obviously, some clubs collect much, much more than that. Or own their networks. Or both.

You misunderstood what I said Hinsa, I said that the Central Fun, Reveune Sharing, and Local tv contract equals 80 millions...AGAIN, READ THE ARTICLE!
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:15 pm

Incidentely, in regards to Baltimore, they had a HIGHER payroll than NY in both 1996 and 1998, years the Yankees also won the world series.
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Yankees-2009 World Series Champions?

Postby Flying Wallenda » Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:18 pm

"As for Major League Baseball, they are the only major sports league in America without a hard cap on both ends."

NOT TRUE:
"Unlike the NFL and NHL, the NBA features a so-called soft cap, meaning that there are several significant exceptions that allow teams to exceed the salary cap to sign players. This is done to allow teams to keep their own players, which, in theory, fosters fan support in each individual city. By contrast, the NFL and NHL caps are considered hard, meaning that they offer relatively few (if any) circumstances under which teams can exceed the salary cap."
Flying Wallenda
NDPreps All-State
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 2:39 pm

Previous

Return to Open Topics - Sports and other things

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests