Yankees add one to their already bloated payroll
Matt
given permission from Major League Baseball to put 10 men on the field
defensivly during the 2009 playoffs. The tenth player will wear a
umpire's uniform and concentrate on calling balls that were two feet
fair as foul for no apparent reason. Normally, when a Major League
player hits a double, he gets to go to second base. Under the new
plan, his double will merely be called a strike, and he will return to
the plate.
"We feel that the Yankees need an extra edge," said commissioner Bud
Selig. "It's hard for them to compete in this marketplace. Did you
know there are actually TWO teams in New York? It doesn't seem fair,
does it? So we made the decision that we'd even the playing field by
allowing them a member of the umpiring staff."
Selig also added that the home plate umpire was not on the New York
payroll, but was rather just a douchebag with an incosistant
strikezone that only appeared to be biased against young Nick
Blackburn.
"No, believe it or not, we did not fix that part of the game," he told
reporters. "I can see where someone might think such a thing. Clearly,
Burnett and Blackburn were working with two different zones, but that
was not a part of the plan. We are looking into fixing that aspect of
the game in the future, however. These poor Yankees need every break
they can get."
Corey
Yawn. Joe Nathan's meltdown, and the Twins inability to score any
runs with the bases loaded and no out in the 11th cost them the game.
Jeesh.
G
"Matt" <aces...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc57b4ec-6eec-49d0...@v6g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
Darin Heinz
Thanks for clearing that up.
On the one hand, that's freaking funny.
On the other, it's a damn shame.
Darin Heinz
Melbourne, Florida USA
VIKE
fair ball. Only way they can win is by cheating. Great effort on the
twins part, which should have been there win.
Likely Story
>Yawn. Joe Nathan's meltdown, and the Twins inability to score any
>runs with the bases loaded and no out in the 11th cost them the game.
>Jeesh.
Exactly. That's why I didn't get too upset about the blown call when Inge
got hit with the bases loaded. The Tigers should have scored at least three
other times in that game.
Same with the Twins last night. Nathan does his job and the Twins win. The
twins get a reasonably deep fly ball and they score a run in the 11th. Bases
loaded, nobody out, no score. That was the real killer.
TM
"VIKE" <why...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6789-4AD0...@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net...
> How much did the yankees pay the umps to miss a call that was clearly a
> fair ball. Only way they can win is by cheating. Great effort on the
> twins part, which should have been there win.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gomez was deked and tagged out rounding second, nullifying a run, (2) Nathan
had a meltdown, and (3) Twins couldn't score with the bases loaded and
nobody out.
There chances were many but there effort was lacking.
whatitis
In other news the Yankees generated 43% of all of baseball
revenues...news at 11
The twins were less than 00000000000000.1%
Likely Story
powrwrap
> NEW YORK--In a shocking development, the New York Yankees have been
> given permission from Major League Baseball to put 10 men on the field
> defensivly during the 2009 playoffs. The tenth player will wear a
> umpire's uniform and concentrate on calling balls that were two feet
> fair as foul for no apparent reason. Normally, when a Major League
> player hits a double, he gets to go to second base. Under the new
> plan, his double will merely be called a strike, and he will return to
> the plate.
LOL. Good post.
It's not why the Twins lost the game but it was a couple of many
factors. Umpires should not be a factor, it's a shame.
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
No doubt Nathan's troubles and the batters' inability to score with
RISP were major troubles last might. But can you explain how they are
what cost them the game, and not the obviously bad call from the
umpire who appeared, for all the world, to be staring at the ball as
it landed fair? After all, we have the benefit of seeing how it all
played out, so we know that the Twins in fact would have gotten a hit
with a runner in scoring postition (had the umpire allowed him to be
in scoring position), and they would have been ahead by a run at the
end of the inning. We know that. If you have the time, you might want
to check and see how often a team that goes ahead in the top half of
the inning, in an extra inning game, ends up winning the game. Report
back, if you like.
brianj
Jack Shown
sour grapes
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
How so? Do you want to explain how the ump's call was correct, or how
it didn't matter? Your choice.
brianj
atjar
So if that happened and the run scored, Texeira would not have hit a
home run to tie the game in the bottom of the inning, according to
your logic. Absurd.
atjar
If the ump had made the right call, Mauer would have been on second
instead of on first. And if we grant you a run because of this, than
we would have had a tie game after Texeira's homer. So how is it the
Twins would have won that game?
Corey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Becuase it is impossible to know for sure what Kubel, Cuddyer, et al
would have done after Mauer's double, becuase the circumstances, pitch
sequence, etc would be different. They could have driven in a run,
but to assume they would have is naive, because they could've flown
out, ground out, or Mauer could've been thrown out running home on a
base hit.
Corey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ignorant fans are just showing their weakness in being overly-
prideful, in that when their team loses, it's someone else's fault,
and not due to anybody on the team's performance. Like the 2003
Cubs. Moises Alou being a spaz and getting his teammates rattled did
more to make the Cubs lose than a fan catching a foul ball.
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
It would indeed be absurd, to make that claim, which is why I didn't.
You made that part up. I was simply saying that to insist that the
umpire's call was unrelated to the Twins' loss was, well, kind of
dumb.
brianj
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who said the Twins would have won the game? We have no way of knowing
who would have won the game. But you have to admit that if the umpire
had made the correct call the Twins' chances would have improved.
Don't you?
brianj
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. We cannot know these things. Your scenario is a possibility.
It is also possible that the pitcher would have been rattled by having
Mauer on second, and would have given up even more hits. We also
cannot know that, had the Twins scored a run, Nathan would have
pitched the same way in the bottom of the inning, or even that Nathan
would have been in the game. I never made the claim that the Twins
would have won but for the call. But you'd have to say that a correct
call would have improved their chances.
brianj
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't imagine how this situation has any similarities to Alou and
the '03 Cubs. What I am sure of is that there was a blown call that
seriously diminished the chances that the Twins would be able to
overcome their earlier failures of the evening.
Bad calls happen, and I am not losing sleep over this one. As has
been pointed out, the Twins had their chances and did not take
advantage of them. In game 163, it looks like (though I can't say for
sure) Brandon Inge's jersey got grazed by a pitch. Had that call gone
for the Tigers, it would have meant a run scored for the Tigers. Bad
calls happen.
The thing about this call that I can't figure out is: How in the world
did the umpire miss it? He was standing right there, apparently
looking down the line. The ball landed at least (I think) 8 inches
fair--maybe more like 10. What was he looking at? I imagine this is
the impetus behind Matt's original post.
brianj
atjar
A correct call could have improved the Twins chances. It also, as
Mauer said afterward to the media, might have hurt the Twins chances
because the next hit was right up the middle, and if he had been
standing on second, and not on first, the infielders would have been
playing him closer and would have had a much better chance of fielding
that grounder.
After all, these scenarios are all conjecture.
powrwrap
>
> A correct call could have improved the Twins chances. It also, as
> Mauer said afterward to the media, might have hurt the Twins chances
> because the next hit was right up the middle, and if he had been
> standing on second, and not on first, the infielders would have been
> playing him closer and would have had a much better chance of fielding
> that grounder.
That depends. Kubel was up, so it would have been Jeter that would
have been shading toward 2nd base, keeping watch on Mauer. Kubel's
single was to the right field side of 2nd base, so Cano wouldn't have
handled it anyway. Now there would be Mauer on third, Kubel on first,
forcing the Yankees to play the infield in.
> After all, these scenarios are all conjecture.
But it's a sure thing that Mauer would have scored. The umpire
definitely changed the ballgame. Changed the outcome of the ballgame?
Could be.
John Poutre
news:33cf0aac-7e2c-40be...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------
That could be the worst call I have ever seen by an Ump. EVER. The ball
was what, about 3 feet fair. Not 3 inches, 3 feet. And the ump was only
about 20 or 30 feet away. Amazing.
atjar
> "brianj" <firstp...@turtlecreek.net> wrote in message
Bottom line is the Twins are 0-10 against the Yankees this year. If
that isn't dominance; a sign that one team is that much better than
the other, I don't know what is.
AJ
Scott Smith
>Bottom line is the Twins are 0-10 against the Yankees this year. If
>that isn't dominance; a sign that one team is that much better than
>the other, I don't know what is.
I agree 100%. The Yankees this season are much better than
the Twins this season.
Of course, the Twins don't have the luxury of an unlimited payroll and
the best players money can buy in professional baseball. So, the
fact that they got to same level as the Yankees to win their division
and even have a shot at the them is enough for me...this season.
The Yankees are everything that is wrong with professional baseball, IMO.
The MLB needs a salary cap.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
atjar
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:10:41 -0700 (PDT), atjar <a_jar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Bottom line is the Twins are 0-10 against the Yankees this year. If
> >that isn't dominance; a sign that one team is that much better than
> >the other, I don't know what is.
>
> I agree 100%. The Yankees this season are much better than
> the Twins this season.
>
> Of course, the Twins don't have the luxury of an unlimited payroll and
> the best players money can buy in professional baseball. So, the
> fact that they got to same level as the Yankees to win their division
> and even have a shot at the them is enough for me...this season.
>
> The Yankees are everything that is wrong with professional baseball, IMO.
>
> The MLB needs a salary cap.
>
> .
> .
>
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
Last I checked the Pohlad family had much more money than
Steinbrenner. He spends it; the Twins don't.
How about a salary ceiling under which a team can't go under, so the
Royals and Pirates of this world don't take the Yankees revenue
sharing checks and instead of investing it on players, bank it for
other uses.
Sheesh.
AJ
TM
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:3j85d556hg466olcd...@4ax.com...
Lots of luck with that one. There's a little group called the MLBPA (with
their cadre of lawyers) you'll have to sneak it by. And they have legal
precedent--not to mention case law--on their side.
atjar
> >Bottom line is the Twins are 0-10 against the Yankees this year. If
> >that isn't dominance; a sign that one team is that much better than
> >the other, I don't know what is.
>
> I agree 100%. The Yankees this season are much better than
> the Twins this season.
>
> Of course, the Twins don't have the luxury of an unlimited payroll and
> the best players money can buy in professional baseball. So, the
> fact that they got to same level as the Yankees to win their division
> and even have a shot at the them is enough for me...this season.
>
> The Yankees are everything that is wrong with professional baseball, IMO.
>
> The MLB needs a salary cap.
>
> .
> .
>
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
BTW: Did you notice what your manager Ron Gardenhire said about
payroll, and high salaries and the Yankees having it and paying their
players big money? Something about they deserve it.
Here's the quote, from the mouth of babes:
"I know a lot of things get said about their payroll and all that
stuff, but the bottom line is they are just great baseball players,"
Gardenhire said. "And, aside from all the other stuff, they are very,
very talented. That’s why they make a lot of money, because they
deserve it, because they have played the game for a long time and they
get it done. And they know how to get it done and they play with
class."
Darin Heinz
<snip>
> Here's the quote, from the mouth of babes:
>
>
> "I know a lot of things get said about their payroll and all that
> stuff, but the bottom line is they are just great baseball players,"
> Gardenhire said. "And, aside from all the other stuff, they are very,
> very talented. That�s why they make a lot of money, because they
> deserve it, because they have played the game for a long time and they
> get it done. And they know how to get it done and they play with
> class."
There is a difference between personal sentiment and discretionary use of
diplomacy.
If by "class" he means "arrogance," well then, he hit the nail on the head.
In my experience, I concede that I have actually seen, from time to time,
Yankees players hitting and fielding impressively. I have also seen them,
with higher frequency than players of other teams, in the wake of a great
play or a crushing homer, gloating and taunting the opposing team's dugout,
something I believe to be very unsportsmanlike, no matter who does it.
When I was 9 or 10, I went to a Yankees/Orioles game; after it was over and
the stadium nearly deserted, surprise! I found myself face to face with
Bucky Dent. I offered my glove and a pen so he could sign it. He extended
his hand, and gently nudged me out of the way. I think, for me, that
encounter pretty much established who they were, and much of what I've seen
since then simply reinforced it. I can't deny that they're a good team. They
are, without a doubt, the best team that money can buy.
Darin Heinz
Melbourne, Florida USA
atjar
wrote:
Except by "class" he didn't mean arrogance. You assume you can read
his mind/divine his interpretation of class, and from there go on to
excoriate Yankees as unsportsmanlike. Most open minded readers would
have read the last sentence as nothing but complimentary, said by a
manager who also exhibits class.
AJ
Fort Myers, FL
Darin Heinz
> Except by "class" he didn't mean arrogance. You assume you can read
> his mind/divine his interpretation of class, and from there go on to
> excoriate Yankees as unsportsmanlike. Most open minded readers would
> have read the last sentence as nothing but complimentary, said by a
> manager who also exhibits class.
>
> AJ
> Fort Myers, FL
The comment I made about unsportsmanlike conduct was from my own
observation, not by my interpretation of Mr. Gardenhire's statement.
And by the way, nice contradiction. If someone is "open minded," then they
can't interpret a sentence as "nothing but" something.
D.
Scott Smith
I think Gardenhire's comment is a bit like what you say at work about
a manager or co-worker you can't stand. At work you have to say good
things about them if you hope to advance in your career. But what you
say and think about them privately is a different thing entirely. It was like
that when I was in the military as well...never talk poorly about your
officers or platoon leaders in front of the other troops, even though
you may be thinking something else personally.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
Matt
>
> "I know a lot of things get said about their payroll and all that
> stuff, but the bottom line is they are just great baseball players,"
> Gardenhire said. "And, aside from all the other stuff, they are very,
> very talented. That’s why they make a lot of money, because they
> deserve it, because they have played the game for a long time and they
> get it done. And they know how to get it done and they play with
Nobody denies most of that. But here's the thing. When I was in
elementary school, every day at recess, we'd all go out to the
playground to play football. And you know, all of the best athletes
always had to be on the same team, and they'd play the guys who were
less physically gifted. It was a clicque thing. But the end result was
that you put all of the best players on one side against a bunch of
guys who liked to just play.
I suppose it was all well and good for the jocks, but it was never a
level playing field. A level playing field is exactly what makes the
NFL so great. The Kansas City Chiefs or Denver Broncos or Minnesota
Vikings or whomever have exactly the same resources at their disposal
as the New York Giants or Jets. Everybody starts out even. The lack of
a similar level playing field is what has made many fans tune out of
MLB.
No matter who you root for, driving out a fanbase is not a good thing.
Matt
Matt
>
> and they have always been better than the twinkies.
Somebody doesn't have a firm grasp of the definition of "always"
Matt
atjar
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
Or maybe Gardenhire meant what he said, not to have others interpret
it differently. He has consistently said throughtou t this playoffs
the Yankees are class and hard workers and professionals, and that's
why the team has gotten its winning results against the Twins.
If you want to read Gardenhire's mind for hidden meaning, where black
really makes white, why don't you email him and ask him what he
really meant.
atjar
And your point being? The Twins can spend more; they are getting a
new stadium to spend more on players. It's up to ownership to step
up to the plate to make sure that fanbase isn't being driven away.
There's talking out of both sides of Twins fans mouths here on this
subject. A few years ago, when Bud Selig wanted to contract a few
teams out of existence, including the Twins, the Twins community
was apoplectic, saying Minnesota isn't some small market. It's a big
city in a big market with a big fan base. but now, boohoo, we are
this small Midwestern burg with a club that just can't compete with
the big dogs because they are big urban areas with tons of money to
throw at players.
Pick one characterization for your franchise, and not only stick with
it, but act accordingly. Accept you are like the cheapo markets Kansas
City's and Pirates of MLB and quit your bellyaching, or spend the
bucks like other big cities and don't let the Johan Santana's and
Torii Hunters of this world go play elsewhere.
AJ.
Scott Smith
>Or maybe Gardenhire meant what he said, not to have others interpret
>it differently. He has consistently said throughtou t this playoffs
>the Yankees are class and hard workers and professionals, and that's
>why the team has gotten its winning results against the Twins.
I don't think anyone disputes that the Yankees players are good,
or that they work hard. They should, they get paid enough to do it.
I think the revenue and payroll inequities are what turn most people
off about the Yankees. Well, that and their arrogance.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
atjar
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
You call it arrogance; Gardenhire calls it class.
AJ
Scott Smith
>You call it arrogance; Gardenhire calls it class.
I think the managers and coaches of the Yankee's probably exhibit
some "class" in dealing with other teams managers and coaches.
I think some of the Yankee's players (Jeter, A-Rod, etc.) exhibit
arrogance when dealing with the media and other teams.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
powrwrap
> And your point being? The Twins can spend more; they are getting a
> new stadium to spend more on players. It's up to ownership to step
> up to the plate to make sure that fanbase isn't being driven away.
> There's talking out of both sides of Twins fans mouths here on this
> subject. A few years ago, when Bud Selig wanted to contract a few
> teams out of existence, including the Twins, the Twins community
> was apoplectic, saying Minnesota isn't some small market. It's a big
> city in a big market with a big fan base. but now, boohoo, we are
> this small Midwestern burg with a club that just can't compete with
> the big dogs because they are big urban areas with tons of money to
> throw at players.
> Quit your bellyaching, or spend the
> bucks like other big cities and don't let the Johan Santana's and
> Torii Hunters of this world go play elsewhere.
> AJ.
You're missing a fundamental axiom of business--you are in business to
turn a profit. To do so you spend a certain percent of revenues on
payroll. Payroll is usually the largest expense of any enterprise.
The Yankees have gobs of revenue. Therefore they have gobs of payroll.
The Yankees control the broadcasting rights of their franchise. They
own their own stadium. They are in the largest US media market so they
can charge more for TV commercials. etc. etc.
I'm often shocked at the naivete of people that say things like
"Pohlad has lots of money, why doesn't he spend it." Expecting an
owner to continually pour his own fortune into a business where he
doesn't really control all the revenue streams is foolish thinking.
AJ, do us all a favor--go and find out how much the Yankees annual
revenues amount to and then express payroll as a percent of those
revenues. I suspect you will find that the Twins and Yankees spent a
comparable percentage of revenue on payroll. In the Twins case it is
pegged at 55% of revenues or less. So when the Twins play in Target
Field next year the estimates are that it will add $40M to $50M to
revenues. Take 55% of that amount and you have Joe Mauer's new
contract covered.
I'll bet if the Yankees had $140M in revenues (like the Twins) they
wouldn't be spending $200M on payroll. They'd be in the neighborhood
of $75M - $80M or so.
atjar
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You obviously don't know what you are talking about and hypothesizing.
Even the Red Sox, who can't stand us, have nothing but good to say
about Derek Jeter, and what a class act he is, and how they can't
stand him but wish he was a Red Sox.
Ever hear Jeter do an interview? One of the most accessible, and
humble, interviewees among ball players you can find. That's why he's
team captain. I have listened to him talk in public since 1995. The
definition of class ballplayer.
AJ
atjar
No contradiction at all. If you are open minded, you don't go out of
your way to find interpretation in words that are straight-forward,
like class. To spin class into some negative connotation, guess you
just haven't consulted a dictionary lately.
AJ
Darin Heinz
> your way to find interpretation in words that are straight-forward,
> like class. To spin class into some negative connotation, guess you
> just haven't consulted a dictionary lately.
> AJ
>
>
The point, apparently, is a lot like the first baseball game the Yankees
ever played. You've missed both. First of all, open-mindedness is an ability
to accept, or at the very least, comprehend multiple, if not opposing,
viewpoints of the same statement.
Second, I never "spun" the word into something negative; I was making an
analogy. Even if I had, the word "class" is a loose synonym of "social
rank", which can be either low ("low-class") or high ("high-class"),
although in speech, it is generally accepted to be the latter. If you should
be so kind as to reread my post, you will find that I wasn't interpreting
Mr. Gardenhire's statement at all. I could have just as easily said "if by
'class' he means 'pinstripes on their uniforms'" which would have been
equally true.
Really, I don't know why you're being so defensive about all this. Just like
I don't know why I'm feeding the troll.
D.
atjar
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's all a matter of degree. According to Forbes, the Twins had $165
million in revenue and were ranked near the top, 6th, in operating
income. The Yanks topped everybody in revenue, $375 million, and yet
are one of two teams to actually post an operating loss. Why? Because
the team spends money to build a state of the art stadium and to pay
top salary for the best players in MLB.
The Twins were ranked 24th of 30th in spending on salaries; markets
like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati and guess what, Kansas City, had
higher payrolls yet, except for Cleveland, seen as smaller markets.
It's not that the Twins have to spend like the Yankees; it's just they
can spend more, considerably more if management only wanted to.
AJ
atjar
This is what you said:
If by "class" he means "arrogance," well then, he hit the nail on the
head.
But that's not what he meant. It's what you intended to say.
Gardenhire said the Yankees are a class outfit in numerous interviews
and no objective person would spin it as a negative from Gardenhire.
Instead, you used an example of a possible interpretation of what he
said to inject your own beliefs about the yankees. And that's fine.
Just say so the first time.
AJ
P.S. Not a troll. Just a Yankee fan born in NYC who also lived in
Duluth for years, so have an allegiance to both.
Darin Heinz
;-)
D.
powrwrap
>
> It's all a matter of degree. According to Forbes, the Twins had $165
> million in revenue and were ranked near the top, 6th, in operating
> income. The Yanks topped everybody in revenue, $375 million, and yet
> are one of two teams to actually post an operating loss. Why?
Creative bookkeeping.
Oh, and thanks for proving my point, which you totally ignored. The
Yankees revenues were $375M and their payroll was $201M. Let's see,
that puts payroll at 53.6% of revenues, right where I predicted.
> The Twins were ranked 24th of 30th in spending on salaries; markets
> like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati and guess what, Kansas City, had
> higher payrolls yet, except for Cleveland, seen as smaller markets.
The Twins had an usually low payroll this year because they no longer
needed to pay Torii Hunter and Johan Santana. Had they accepted the
Twins offers Twins payroll would have been about $35M more, easily
besting all of those other teams you mentioned.
> It's not that the Twins have to spend like the Yankees; it's just they
> can spend more, considerably more if management only wanted to.
Well sure, if owners want to write checks out of their personal
fortune to finance a high-priced free agent. In essence they could
loan their own company personal money without ever expecting to get
paid back. But that's just plain stupid business practice.
Again, the amount spent on payroll is tied to revenues. Yankees have
highest revenues; Yankees have highest payroll.
atjar
You can buy me a beer at a Twins game, or God forbid, a Red Sox game
at City of Palms Park!
AJ
atjar
Guess it doesn't bother you the Royals spent more on salaries than
the Twins.
And you are right; if they had paid about $35 million more to keep
Hunter and Santana, they'd have a salary budget in the range of $90
million, just about right for a market its size. But pay attention to
this point, the opted not to, and won't with Mauer either, trying to
lowball him with the home town discount, we'll give you double coupons
for shopping in Target pitch to pay Mauer less than what he's worth
and what the market for the best catcher in baseball says he should
be paid. I know people like that: champagne taste, six pack budgets.
They impress people in the community with a supposedly expensive offer
that's like you and me going to the grocery story and trying to buy a
$1 item for 80 cents. In for a dime, in for a dollar, goes the
saying. The Twins are not, and as a result Hunter, Santana, and others
have gone because the team is to cheap to spend.
AJ
Scott Smith
>Again, the amount spent on payroll is tied to revenues. Yankees have
>highest revenues; Yankees have highest payroll.
And there should be a salary cap in professional baseball...there is
in every other professional sport. It just makes sense.
Per Wikipedia:
"Some teams, notably the Boston Red Sox and the Milwaukee Brewers have called for the
introduction of a salary cap, but the opposition of the powerful MLB players' union
and the New York Yankees' ownership group (who have threatened legal action) makes
implementation of a cap highly unlikely at this point in time. Although some saw the
success of NHL owners in their 2004-05 lockout as an opportunity for MLB to reform
its collective bargaining agreement, baseball owners agreed to a new five-year deal
in October 2006 that did not include a salary cap."
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
atjar
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:01:17 -0700 (PDT), powrwrap <powrw...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Again, the amount spent on payroll is tied to revenues. Yankees have
> >highest revenues; Yankees have highest payroll.
>
> And there should be a salary cap in professional baseball...there is
> in every other professional sport. It just makes sense.
>
> Per Wikipedia:
>
> "Some teams, notably the Boston Red Sox and the Milwaukee Brewers have called for the
> introduction of a salary cap, but the opposition of the powerful MLB players' union
> and the New York Yankees' ownership group (who have threatened legal action) makes
> implementation of a cap highly unlikely at this point in time. Although some saw the
> success of NHL owners in their 2004-05 lockout as an opportunity for MLB to reform
> its collective bargaining agreement, baseball owners agreed to a new five-year deal
> in October 2006 that did not include a salary cap."
>
> .
> .
>
> MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
There is opposition from the union, and rightly so, for a salary cap
because it isn't combined with a salary ceiling/minimum. So teams keep
a lid on salaries but no corresponding requirement to spend the
savings on salary, not refurbishing the teams corporate offices.
And you think the NFL's salary structure is so great? They toss out
all these salaries, but except for the signing bonuses, which counts
towards the cap, the rest of these multi-year contracts are good
basically only for the first year they are written unless another
team wants to assume them. Great for management, not so great for
labor/the players.
AJ
powrwrap
> Guess it doesn't bother you the Royals spent more on salaries than
> the Twins.
Absolutely not. But I would hope that Royal's fans would be pissed.
> And you are right; if they had paid about $35 million more to keep
> Hunter and Santana, they'd have a salary budget in the range of $90
> million, just about right for a market its size.
You realize that you have just changed your argument. The Twins no
longer have to pay more and more money, just enough to fit their
market size. That's pretty much my point. The Twins had budgeted to
spend about $75M this year.
> But pay attention to this point, they opted not to,
More like there wasn't anyone available, or if there was they weren't
interested in playing here.
> and won't with Mauer either, trying to lowball him with the home
town discount, we'll give you double coupons
> for shopping in Target pitch to pay Mauer less than what he's worth
> and what the market for the best catcher in baseball says he should
> be paid. >
The Twins will pay Mauer the market rate. There is no way they can
afford not to. I suspect we are talking around $20M to $22M a year.
> I know people like that: champagne taste, six pack budgets.
> They impress people in the community with a supposedly expensive offer
> that's like you and me going to the grocery story and trying to buy a
> $1 item for 80 cents. In for a dime, in for a dollar, goes the
> saying. The Twins are not, and as a result Hunter, Santana, and others
> have gone because the team is to cheap to spend.
You say "too cheap to spend". I say they don't have sufficient
revenues to pay that kind of payroll. You just said a team payroll of
$90M was "about right" for the Twins. If the Twins had retained Hunter
and Santana they would be committing $41M to those two players. Is
that smart?
The Twins offered Torii Hunter $15M for 3 years. I thought that was a
decent offer. The Angels blew everybody away with a contract averaging
$18M FOR FIVE YEARS. Do you know how many other outfielders have made,
or are making more money than Torii Hunter? Two. Manny and Andruw
Jones. And Jones just fell off the list. That leaves one outfielder
making more money than Torii. Although I miss him, I think the Twins
made the right economic move on Torii.
Johan Santana wanted a six year deal. The Twins NEVER sign a pitcher
for that long. He signed for an average salary of $23M a year. Once
again, the Twins made the correct economic decision
Heck, the Yankees paid Mike Mussina $19M a year for a couple of years.
Was that an equitable arrangement?
atjar
Why are you concerned about the Twins making the right economic
decision? Do you own the team? Do you really believe I'm pissed
because Sabathia probably could have been had for a tad less than the
$160 or so million we are paying him? All I care about is that the
yankees get the players; if they overpay, it's their money, not mine.
The Twins might have made the right "economic decision" but not the
right baseball/fan/competitive decision.
The Twins will always be a nice story, ekeing out wins in a feeble
central division and then their weaknesses manifested by a dearth of
big ticket free agent signings will result in early playoff exits.
Nice story; as a fan, it would get tedious after awhile.
BTW: If the Twins had budgeted $75 million for this year, they only
spent $65 million. $10 million sure could have gotten you one or two
really big bats so Mauer didn't have to carry most of the load.
Finally, the last year of Mussina's contract, at $19 million, got 20
wins. Not bad.
AJ
powrwrap
> Why are you concerned about the Twins making the right economic
> decision?
I want to go to some games rather than watch them all on TV. The
minimum seating position I would accept in Yankee stadium is a $95
ticket. I don't want that in my town.
> Do you really believe I'm pissed
> because Sabathia probably could have been had for a tad less than the
> $160 or so million we are paying him?
Did I ask? Do I care?
> if they overpay, it's their money, not mine.
I take it you don't attend many games.
> BTW: If the Twins had budgeted $75 million for this year, they only
> spent $65 million. $10 million sure could have gotten you one or two
> really big bats so Mauer didn't have to carry most of the load.
LOL. One or two really big bats for $10M? Name one. The only guy I can
think of offhand was Abreu.
> Finally, the last year of Mussina's contract, at $19 million, got 20
> wins. Not bad.
No, he was paid $16M in 2004 (12-9), $19M in 2005 (13-8) and $19M in
2006 (15-7). That's $54M for 40 wins and a 4.14 ERA. His last year he
was paid "only" $11M.
> AJ
atjar
You could have had Abreu for $5 million, Adam Dunn for $10 million.
Both had 100 rbi years and would have greatly helped your anemic
lineup. And Orlando Hudson at 2nd base could have been had for $3.8
million (your are paying Nick Punto, for crying out loud, $4.25
million a year!
You have had nice teams for years. You haven't been in the World
Series for 18 years now and running. That should tell you something.
You have to invest more and better if you are ever going to return.
Otherwise this pattern will stand an excellent chance of repeating
itself.
Have a good week.
AJ
powrwrap
> You could have had Abreu for $5 million, Adam Dunn for $10 million.
> Both had 100 rbi years and would have greatly helped your anemic
> lineup.
IIRC, Dunn wanted to play the field, not be a DH. The Twins have an
MVP first baseman, so Dunn was a no-go. Abreu would have been nice but
the Twins are infautated with K-K Gomez in the OF.
And the "anemic" offense you cite was 4th in the AL in runs scored,
5th in MLB.
atjar
Dunn, until Washington traded Nick Johnson, was an outfielder, only
becoming a fulltime 1st baseman after Johnson was traded. He wanted
to play the outfield.
powrwrap
> Dunn, until Washington traded Nick Johnson, was an outfielder, only
> becoming a fulltime 1st baseman after Johnson was traded. He wanted
> to play the outfield.
Well that would have been a problem seeing how the Twins already had
four outfielders.
Orlando Hudson would have been nice, but his price tag was NOT $3.8M.
Do you know how much Hudson made this year? Under a very creative
incentive-laden contract, Orlando Hudson made $7.61M this year, double
the figure you offered. With 631 PA's, he came within one (1) plate
appearance of maxing out every single incentive in his contract. His
contract had him getting paid $10,000 for *every* PA from #576 through
#632.
http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/02/26/orlando-hudsons-creative-contract/
brianj
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mauer would carry a good chunk of the load on any team, no matter who
else played, unless you are going to find a bunch of guys who hit .365
with 28 homeruns. As for your condemnation of the Twins offense
generally, you might want to check out the numbers before you open
your mouth.
brianj
atjar
>
> http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hudsoor01.shtml
But you paid over $4 million for NICK PUNTO! And you have him next
year as well!
It's the symptom of not wanting to pay top dollar for an all-star and
then realizing you are overpaying for a .220 hitter as a result of
being penny wise and pound foolish.
AJ
brianj
> On Oct 11, 11:00 pm, "John Poutre" <mehates...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "brianj" <firstp...@turtlecreek.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:33cf0aac-7e2c-40be...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 10, 4:12 pm, Jack Shown <jacksh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 9, 9:07 pm, Matt <aceswi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > NEW YORK--In a shocking development, the New York Yankees have been
> > > > given permission from Major League Baseball to put 10 men on the field
> > > > defensivly during the 2009 playoffs. The tenth player will wear a
> > > > umpire's uniform and concentrate on calling balls that were two feet
> > > > fair as foul for no apparent reason. Normally, when a Major League
> > > > player hits a double, he gets to go to second base. Under the new
> > > > plan, his double will merely be called a strike, and he will return to
> > > > the plate.
>
> > > > "We feel that the Yankees need an extra edge," said commissioner Bud
> > > > Selig. "It's hard for them to compete in this marketplace. Did you
> > > > know there are actually TWO teams in New York? It doesn't seem fair,
> > > > does it? So we made the decision that we'd even the playing field by
> > > > allowing them a member of the umpiring staff."
>
> > > > Selig also added that the home plate umpire was not on the New York
> > > > payroll, but was rather just a douchebag with an incosistant
> > > > strikezone that only appeared to be biased against young Nick
> > > > Blackburn.
>
> > > > "No, believe it or not, we did not fix that part of the game," he told
> > > > reporters. "I can see where someone might think such a thing. Clearly,
> > > > Burnett and Blackburn were working with two different zones, but that
> > > > was not a part of the plan. We are looking into fixing that aspect of
> > > > the game in the future, however. These poor Yankees need every break
> > > > they can get."
>
> > > sour grapes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > it didn't matter? Your choice.
>
> > ----------------------------
>
> > That could be the worst call I have ever seen by an Ump. EVER. The ball
> > was what, about 3 feet fair. Not 3 inches, 3 feet. And the ump was only
> > about 20 or 30 feet away. Amazing.
>
> Bottom line is the Twins are 0-10 against the Yankees this year. If
> that isn't dominance; a sign that one team is that much better than
> the other, I don't know what is.
> AJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's about the third time in 3 days you have completely changed your
argument in the face of someone saying something that made sense. If
that isn't dominance, I don't know what is.
Were you under the impression that everybody here thought the Yankees
and the Twins were teams of equal ability, and that you had to
straighten us out about that?
brianj