On the Yankees beat

Well, I'd certainly like to see Santana in a late-season matchup with Beckett. I hate Beckett.

The Yankees are also really kind of cautious with pitchers who seem to get gassed late in the season. Mussina had some time off last year. Mariano took September off a couple of years ago. If Santana was on the Yankees, and he started looking shopworn by August, he'd get some time off to recharge.

I wonder if the guy Kat interviewed had a good point about Santana losing a little something after his team was eliminated or at least out of contention, combined with the fact that the team gave up and traded his buddy Luis Castillo, maybe the guy is right.

Reading that article has swung me back to the other side of the fence. I want him....badly.

I'm going to the mall to knock some kids off Santa's knee and I'm going to have a seat and beg for Johan Santana for Christmas.

Hughes speaks on the possibility of being traded http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2007/11/29/2007-11-29_phil_hughes_wouldnt_trade_yankee_life-1.html

Murray Chass's column today in the NYT is on the Twins and money. Some interesting stuff.

Not only is Pohlad the richest baseball owner at #114 on the Forbes 400 list, Ilyitch of the Tigers is second at #297, while Steinbrenner is tied for third with Tom Hicks of the Rangers, practically sliding off the 400 at #380.

Meantime the Twins pick up $20 mil in revenue sharing, and spend only $16 mil of that on player salaries.

I think we could safely say they're cheaper than they're poor.

Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/sports/baseball/29chass.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I've read Wallace Matthews and Kate this AM on the related stories about Santana and the implications of his trade. I guess as a long time Yankee fan as far back as the middle 50's. It has been more evident the trades or FA signings that have gone bad. I just hope if this trade becomes reality that the Yankees pay a fair price and not overpay just to keep him out of the hands of Boston. I would prefer being second fiddle for a year or two than selling the house and keeping the garage.

I would love to see these young guys develope into a core which could win for a long time. One thing that I know I would not do is give up Joba or Cano they are two possible future HOF candidates in my eyes.

While we're on the media summary, here's a link to the Feinsand blog in which he passes on word that 'Game of Shadows' movie rights have been purchased and Ron Shelton (Bull Durham) will direct the Bonds/Balco flick.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/yankees/

No offense, but anonymous quotes are worthless.

whoa,

Not quite. Scouts usually speak anonymously. How much you trust the report depends on how much you trust the reporter to be selective about sources. Kat has shown herself to be quite an observant and objective journo. Never a trace of unfounded sensationalism or invented brouhaha.

Not as good as publicly attributed quotes, of course, but those are often not available, and a reporter must then choose between reporting nothing and using an unnamed source.

Ed,

We know that happened under Torre/Guidry.

We can hope it will also be done under Girardi/Eilman.

Whoa:

A scout (or GM) has to remain anonymous when discussing a player not in their organization as it could be a violation of the rules regarding tampering. Additionally, he could get fired for advocating a competing team trade for a player that would make the team better.

One thing on Santana - forget about the Zito comparisons, I've got one that scares me even more. Mike Hampton. Same build, same stuff, same delivery. He was considered a horse, injury free, and at the time he signed with the Rockies he was the same age Johan is now - we've all seen how his body has broken down since.

But if a trade is to be made for Santana, maybe the Yankees could involve a 3rd team to cut down on their prospect losses. For example:

Twins get Melky, Kennedy, Scott Rolen
Cards get Hideki Matsui, Mike Mussina and Alberto Gonzalez
Yankees get Santana and Chris Duncan and pick up a big chunk of the tab owed to Rolen.

The Twins would get the 3b they need without having to pay him as well as a CF to put between Young and Cuddyer and a good arm in Kennedy.

St. Louis gets a lefty bat to compliment Pujols and can have Mussina on the cheap (compared to the other starters) in the rotation where they are desperate for help (assuming Mussina would accept a deal)

Yankees would have to find a CF or move Damon back there and play Duncan in LF, but I think he would be a better 1B and the rotation would be Santana, Wang, Andy, Joba, Hughes with a lineup of:

Damon - CF
Jeter - SS
Abreu - RF
Alex - 3b
Posada - C
Cano - 2b
Duncan - LF
Giambi - DH
Phillips/Betemit/Shelley - 1B

On that note, I'm tired of talking about Santana - so here's something from the NY Post on the Yankee bullpen situation.

Voices within the Yankees' system said they believe Mark Melancon, Steven Jackson and J.B. Cox will be ready to help out of the big league bullpen at some time next season. Melancon and Cox missed last year with arm trouble but are expected to be ready for spring training. And Ross Ohlendorf was converted from a starter to reliever late last year and impressed enough to be on the postseason roster. Humberto Sanchez, the key to the Gary Sheffield trade, is coming off elbow surgery and might be ready to work out of the bullpen.

The Yankees have shown interest in free agent lefties Trever Miller and Jeremy Affeldt.

Steinbrenner said, “We will see" in regards to bringing Luis Vizcaino back. Some believe Sean Henn could be as effective as Miller or Affeldt and a lot cheaper. Right-handed free agent David Riske has also drawn interest from the Yankees. The Yankees were interested in Troy Percival, but he is expected to sign with Tampa Bay.

Larry M
I am in total agreement. I have been watching the Yankees since 1974 and I also like to see these youngsters develop.
Wallace Mathews is totaly off base. He is saying we should do whatever it takes to get Santanna & keep him away from the Redsox. He says we would not be able to compete with their 1-2 punch of Santanna & Beckett.
If only 2 of Chamberlain, Hughes or Kennedy become what we think they could become we have the answer. If we trade them away we could be giving the Twins 2 STUDS. Remember how young Beckett was when he beat us in the WS?
The Twins know young talent that is the reason why they want those starters.
We know the three kids are not afraid of pitching in New York, what happens if Santanna can not handle the pressure of New York? Look at CHOKE-ROD, the best player in Baseball crumbles in the October Pressure of New York.

LETS TRY THIS, HOW ABOUT LETTING OUR OWN YOUNG TALENT PLAY!!!!!!

DO WE HAVE TO WIN THIS YEAR AT ALL COST?

LET THE KIDS PLAY!!!!!!

Thanks Diane. I was just taking in air to address the "worthless" anonymous comment post when your response came up. Saved me a moment or two--and very nicely (though more sympathetic than I'd I've been), I might add.

I think Mark Melancon will be in the Santana deal

You're welcome, DC Yank.

Just trying to take Hank's advice. Patience, you know.

Works best early in the day. As the hours roll on, my natural impatience and sarcasm tend to take over... ;-)

MP, you are exactly right. This is the same mistake we always make, give away the farm for the splashiest acquisition. What concerns me about Matthews article is his inside source that is saying we would now include Kennedy & Hughes plus Melky. We have been burned on pitchers so often, that I'm concerned. I'm afraid in the end the Yankee FO will feel like they were burned on Pedro and Beckett and make sure it doesn't happen again. God help us if Santana struggles or gets hurt and there are no arms ready to be brought up. I can't handle another year of watching Chase Wright, Karstens, and Rasner struggle.

One thing, in the interest of fairness, we all know that I am opposed to giving up Phil Hughes. He was rated the #1 young pitcher in baseball by Baseball America going into last year and I believe he will be as special as touted. Here, however, are the previous #1 ranked pitchers from Baseball America from 1990 on:

Steve Avery,
Todd Van Poppell
Brien Taylor,
Jason Bere,
James Baldwin,
B.Pulsipher,
Paul Wilson,
K.Wood,
R.White,
R.Ankiel,
Ryan (Space Needle) Anderson,
J.Beckett,
M.Prior,
J.Foppert,
Edwin Jackson,
F.Hernandez,
Liriano.

It's too early to make a call on Hernandez or Liriano - but other than Beckett, none of those guys ever lived up to anything.

Hey we have a star poster amoungst us .

DC YANK -

I saw your post in another Paper,

Michaelz:

Don't be that concerned - Jon Heyman has an inside source who thinks the Yankees will only have to part with one of them.

The bottom line is that all of these folks from Joel Sherman to Jon Heyman to Buster Olney to Tyler Kempner to Kat have different people telling them different things because people want to sound like they are in the know.

Forgot the baseball part. Why do we all have such short memories when it comes to free agent signings? You'd think no Yankee FA pitcher ever worked out. All we've been hearing about is Brown, Pavano, Wright, etc. First, I'd argue that Mussina hasn't been that bad a deal, certainly not by comparison. Second, I know it was last century, but doesn't anyone remember Jimmy Key, Tommy John, Catfish Hunter? Here's one: Goose Gossage. I'm against giving up the farm for Santana (although Wallace Mathews changed my mind for about five minutes this morning); I'm hoping Cash & Hank are raising the stakes so that Theo gives up Ellsbury and Lester or Bucholz and ties up $130m over the next 7 years in one arm. But this scout--anonymous though he may be--is comparing Santana to Guidry, and you jump at a guy like Guidry. Especially if you play in Yankee Stadium. Sure, Gator only had about five really good years, but Santana's bigger than Gator, and doesn't throw as hard, both of which bode well for his health. The only thing I'd add is that other (usually anonymous) scouts have compared Hughes to Clemens, so I wouldn't give him up in the process. Nor Joba. So I think that's where I stand for the day, or at least for right now.

Speaking of Jon Heyman - he last night reported that if the Red Sox would include Jacoby Ellsbury Santana would be theirs. They are not willing to do it and so he believes the Yankees are still in the driver's seat with Melky Hughes OR Kennedy

Hey, we have an anonymous poster.

Anonymous, I'm new to this. Is that an earnest welcome, or is there a rule against posting in more than one paper's thread at a time?

Diane,

I know this revenue sharing stuff drives you Yankee fans crazy, but as Chip has mentioned many times in the past this is a business. If Minnesota is pocketing 5M of revenue sharing money and they are only making 2M in profits....well that explains why the owner is rich! He doesnt run deficits in his business ventures.

Im sure your not suggesting that he spends more than he takes in just for the sake of satisfying fans of another team, are you?

For those of you who are shaken by Wally's "Inside Source" here is what an "Inside Source" told Mark Feinsand from the NY Daily News:

The Yankees will not part with two of their top arms for Santana, although a lower-level pitcher would likely be added. As good as Santana is, several people inside the organization have reservations about dealing Hughes and Cabrera for him, mostly because of the 900-plus innings the southpaw has logged over the past four years.

Jim A.,

Could you carry my letter to Santa when you go to the mall? No use both of us knocking those kids around.

I found myself in substantial agreement with NSH's post yesterday. Here's the part of his/her post I was struck by:

"I'm an unrepentant Hughes-trader, as long as what we get back is Santana... if it's true that at 22 he's basically a two-pitch wonder, it takes the AL East two innings to catch up. And it takes him a year or two of further development before we have any clue what if any degree of true Ace-ness resides in his future ... (meaning) that he becomes a true dominating stopper that when he comes to the mound you trust that tonight we win. Like Santana and only a small handful of others."

NSH: speak up if I distorted your meaning by shortening it. I know you won't be too 'humble' because you finally made clear to me what those initials mean! As in, 'not so ..."

Nudge:

Pohlad was rich long before he became the owner of the Twins.

I will never tell someone how to spend their money, and there's no way I would have signed Torri Hunter to a $90 mil deal, but given how much they these teams take in through revenue sharing, the fact that the Twins are getting a new stadium at taxpayer expense, and the price of tickets and concessions around the league, it would be nice if an owner would invest some profits back into the team.

For that reason I have always advocated a salary floor - a level (say $40 - $50 million) that all teams must spend on their 40 man roster (including players on the 60 day DL). Between the team's own profits and the money given to them by revenue sharing I don't see that sum as being an outrageous amount to spend on the product on the field.

Chip,

What if your revenues are only 25M? Who pays the excess salary then?

Nudge,

Glad to see you again, nearly everyone is back! Didn't follow your logic there, since there was nothing about running deficits in my post or the column it referred to, but I'm sure it will emerge at some point.

DC Yank,

Don't ever concern yourself about anything posted by any commenter who can't take on even the degree of identification implied by using a consistent moniker! (I SCROLL ON BY all anonymice myself.)

Besides that, there are at least five regulars here who show up on the most crowded Yankee blog site, some with the same handle, some with another one, and some even cross-posting the same message word for word (although I think that may be considered not a completely kosher practice).

From Buster Olney (and I agree with him 100%)

I really wonder if, privately, officials from the Yankees and the Red Sox hope that the other team antes up to pay the full freight for Santana -- the boatload of prospects, plus the six-year, $150 million extension need to convince him to waive his no-trade clause. It's the kind of deal that general managers Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman have steered away from in recent years -- paying a huge price for a player who might be on the downslope of his career in the last years of the contract.

Thats right in todays paper in the sprorts section a post that "DC YANK done on here was in that paper posted as Bloggers response to Santana

Thats right in todays paper in the sprorts section a post that "DC YANK done on here was in that paper posted as Bloggers response to Santana

Nudge:

I have a hard time believing that a team could only generate $25 mil in revenue. Between ticket sales, concessions, television and radio contracts, and the money brought in via revenue sharing (as a poster above mentioned, the Twins got $20 mil in revenue sharing alone).

In the end, if a team isn't still making enough of a profit to make the owner happy - sell the team to someone who will invest some of their own money into it. There are people out there who have expressed interest in buying teams and would sink their own money into them (Mark Cuban) but Bud Selig's preference, as commissioner, is to increase the number of owners like Jeff Loria (who was allowed to buy the Expos, run them into the ground, sell them to MLB when he tired of them and buy the Marlins and do the same thing) David Glass, Drayton McClane, Carl Pohlad et al. This is part of the reason the sale of the Cubs has taken so long - Selig is trying to steer the sale to someone who was a partner of his when he owned the Brewers because he knows that person will tow the fiscal conservative line that Bud has mandated. Your argument at this point should be "but Selig approved Arte Moreno who spends." and the answer is could you imagine the PR nightmare that would come from rejecting a minority owner?

Chip,

How much does your company's owner/owners kick in from their own personal banbank accounts to pay your salary?

The trade rumor Kat referenced seems like one of "Chip's Flyers". No team is gonna give up a major league SP and a RP and not get at least 1 minor league "arm" back. Why these scouts have to remain cloaked in anonymity is ridiculous. You ever seen how they dress at the park? Where they sit begs attention, and that "gun" removes all doubt. The one quoted by Kat must be a Yankee scout told to make his views public by Hank. Then if Santana doesn't perform well with the Yanks, Hank can blame his "baseball people", just like George used to do. That said, this 1 knows his stuff. The Yanks main goal at the Winter Meetings will be to acquire Santana. Anything short of that will make Hank look bad, and he knows it.

no DC Yank i'm actually saying you are a star in a positive way,

There is a blogger named DC YANK who is in todays Daily News in regards to Johan. the actual newspaper

Chip,

What if your revenues are only 25M? Who pays the excess salary then?
===============================================

If that is true then call U-HAUL.

or FOLD!

Diane, interesting on Hughes. Could say much the same about Joba. I'm amazed at how many people who are sure he's going to slide right into the rotation next Spring. I've even caught myself throwing him in there with Hughes and Kennedy. Fact is, we haven't seen him pitch much more than an inning at a time. And on a couple occasions that we did, he got smacked around. We've never seen him a second time through a line-up, much less a second time through the league. I know, I know. This is Yankee sacrilege. I'm a heretic, what can I say? There was a piece on ESPN.com last week putting all of these pitchers (Santana and the rookies) in perspective. I'm fudging, here, but the gist was this: the chances of Santana winning another 100 games are remote at best. But, according to precedent, they blow away the chances of ANY of the three Yankee rookies ever reaching 100 wins.

Chip, seems to me that if you were Minneapolis/St. Paul, you'd want the Twins owner to guarantee a minimum roster salary before you approved a new stadium for him. Unless, of course, he had a gun to your head, or compromising pictures, or was part of an old boys' club with an anti-trust exemption.

Diane,

Business 101..if I have 20 M in liquid assests, whats the best thing to do with it? That requires a ROI analysis. If spending 20 M on salary increases revenues 5 million...then thats a bad ROI( a loss of 15M). If putting it all in the bank nets me 1 million, at least Im ahead relative to the time value of the money. Baseball is hard to do straight forward ROI analysis since 15 invested today may not pay off till 3 years from now....but the analysis CAN be done and is done by any owner who has been a successful businessman. The notion that these teams are toy projects without a real financial approach is wrong.

Nudge:

I've got no way to know the answer to that. However, as I stated, it still shouldn't be a problem for a team to reach a salary floor of $40 - $50 million.

If you look at this link from Forbes which talks about team revenues from the 2006 season you'll see that even the teams generating the LOWEST revenue that year were making over $120 mil (in fact the only team losing money that year was the Yankees)

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/33/07mlb_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html

It should be noted, that I am not certain if this chart takes into account the additional monies brought in via revenue sharing.

DC YANK,

Your not fudging...your Nudging. So Im sure you'll get some sharp rebukes! Good points from my perspective.

Nudge,

It's known as investment.

GS has invested mightily in the Yankees and as a result has 'grown' the company into a worth enormously greater than when he acquired it.

Every enterprise has to attract enough resources to carry out its mission -- even a not-for-profit. What is the mission of an MLB team? I suspect it is just at this point that owners differ.

DC yank -

That is truth about Joba,

He could be a failure or only mediocore as a starter and would have lingering Issues (weight etc.) the man was a beast as a set up guy.

And there was a comment from a Blogger named DC Yank in todays NY daily news and the comment looked like one you posted recently

Chip,

One thing most fans forget is that the ML players salaries are not the only cost to an organization. There is the front office..the entire minor league system...the scouts...the equipment cost...the rent...the electric...the office leases...the medical staff...the advertising....etc etc etc.

dont look at income verses player payroll as the whole picture.

No team, I repeat, no team in major league baseball "loses" money. That is ridiculous. Enron did some bogus "book work" to make it look like they "made" money, the same is done to make it look otherwise. Just look at the "conga line" of very intelligent people and huge corporations that are waiting to buy a Major League team. This "stuff" of teams losing money is insulting the intelligence of everyone.

Diane are you a member of the Kat fan club?

Wow, anonymous. Thanks for heads up! I'd never have known. I didn't even realize they printed these comments. Better watch what I write!

Thanks again! Gotta go find a copy.

Nudge:

Let me ask you something based on what you said in your post to Diane. If my stadium holds 60,000 but the team only averages 12,000 fans yet six home games against the Yankees and Boston bring in over 500,000 due to the prominence of their teams, then whey do I, as an owner of a small market team, advocate rules that penalize those teams and make it harder for them to build a team?

And a second question. If you own two companies, and one of them is not generating as much profit as you would like, wouldn't you want to sell it? Too many owners consider their teams a status symbol, like a Rolls or a trophy wife. If the team isn't generating the profit they would like it to, if they are only owning a team for the sake of saying they own a team and have no interest in making that team competitive, then they should sell it to someone else.

Perhaps it is just me but I believe in 3 truisms:

1. There is not a single pauper owning a professional sports team
2. If you make a better product you're going to generate more revenues over the long term than someone who makes a bad product on the cheap
3. Owning a professional sports team is not an absolute right.

Diane,

Right! But GS had a team that has the market potential for 4 M tickets to be sold. Minnesota has a ceiling somewhere below that. So the ownership always has to be wary of how much to invest to maximize the ticket sale without exceeding the expected cost of obtaining those additional sales. The upside in MN is not the same as the upside in NY. Additionally the TV revenues and the merchandise sale have a lower ceiling.

Nudge,

And from my own past experience running a small company founded entirely on my own initial investment, current degree of profitability was not as big a factor as laying a foundation for growth potential.

Perhaps I am extrapolating too much, but I suspect the same is usually the case with large enterprises as well.

Thanks Nudge. I'll remember the new verb. Always appreciate new words. Nudging's a good one.

Nudge, obviously teams have expenses, there's the rent on the stadium if they don't own it, things like that...However, as shown by that chart I linked you to, teams are generating HUNDREDS of millions in revenue. More teams are also starting their own networks, and have new stadiums (which are uniformly considered cash cows thanks to naming rights, luxury suites, et al) Throw in revenue sharing and you'll have to forgive me if I think $40-$50 million is a small price to pay for a 40 man roster.

Incidentally, a salary floor is not a new concept. The NHL implemented one in their new CBA. The floor is roughly 1/4 of the salary cap and both are linked to the net profits generated by the league. As NHL profits increase the cap and floor rise by equal percentages, if the league loses money, the cap and floor both drop.

Phil,

I didn't know Kat had a fan club. My opinion of her work as a reporter is high. My opinion of her work as a blogger is that she has made very substantial improvement over a period of a few months here, going from 'struggling' to 'pretty good' and still rising.

Roy,

You are confusing the value of an assest with the return on that asset. If I buy a store and expand it every year and it still generates negative income, the asset is worth more but it geneartes no cash flow.

Chip,

Im not getting a point out of the 60000 stadium thing

As for the other point, revenue sharing was the solution to the less profitable one being more profitable...either through allowing more investment or contributing directly to the bottom line.

Nudge asks -- How much does your company's owner/owners kick in from their own personal bank accounts to pay your salary?

Answer -- As much as necessary to sustain the business and/or if it results in further growth of the company. It's called an investment.

A pitcher the caliber of Santana doesn't hit the trade market often, so if the Yanks have a chance to get a bonefide #1 starter who isn't even in his prime yet, they need to do it. I don't believe that the price will be both Hughes and Kennedy, but one of the two will be packaged. As long as Boston is reluctant to include Ellsbury in any deal for Santana, they will not be in the mix.

I guess that this is pretty much a wait-and-see situation.

Diane,

Just for clarification, Minnesota has a payroll of 63M for the 2007 season so all the 20M in revenue sharing IS spent on salary of players.

Nudge:

Problem with the logic of your last post to Diane is that while the Yankees have the potential to take in more revenue than the Twins, MLB penalizes them for that potential in the form of Revenue Sharing. Which gives the Twins an income stream that the Yankees don't have and gives the Yankees an income loss that the Twins don't have. For example, in 2007 the Yankees paid $70 million into revenue sharing.

The real interesting point will come after this coming season. In 2009 there is going to be a dynamic economic shift in baseball because the Mets and Yankees open their new stadiums. As part of the CBA, once those stadiums open the Yankees and Mets (or any team that opens its own stadium) are exempt from paying into the revenue sharing until the stadiums are paid off. So MLB is losing its #1 and #2 targets for revenue sharing. That's part of the reason the Twins are so desperate to sign Santana and why other teams have been feverishly locking up young players to long term deals - Once a team like the Yankees doesn't have to give $70 mil to MLB what do you think they are going to do with that money - not sit on it, that's for sure, it has never been the Yankee way to do that. They will flood the market going after guys like Sabathia and Teixeira. Teams like Boston, the Cubs, and Dodgers will take an additional hit in revenue sharing to try and make up for the loss of money coming out of NY and teams that get revenue sharing dollars now and pocket them will either have to have their owners spend some of their own money or they will drop their payrolls even lower.

Great discussion this morning but must leave to take care of some of that much-maligned 'business'. See you later.

YF,

Again...only if there is a ROI. You would be hard pressed to find owners using their own resources to meet payroll though. At least they wouldnt be owners for long.

Nudge,

the point in the stadium question was: If one main source of revenue for a team is ticket sales, and my team on its own doesn't generate enough fan interest to sell out the stadium, BUT good teams like the Yankees and Red Sox pack the stadium each time they come to play us - why would I, as an owner, want to make it more difficult for the Yankees and Red Sox to build teams that fans who buy my tickets will want to come and see?

It's part of the reason that Interleague Play was established. Sure the public line is that it gave fans in NL towns a chance to see AL players - but what goes unsaid is that it also lets every team profit, at least a little, from the traveling money trains that are the Yankees and Red Sox. Every owner knows, that barring horrific weather, the days that the Yankees and Red Sox come to their stadiums, no matter how bad the home team is, the stadium will be at or near capacity. So why burn that golden goose? Why try to limit the amount of money they have to spend?

Chip,

You use terms like 'penalizes". Its the rules of the game. If the Steinbrenners dont like it send in the U-Hauls. The rules were decided by ALL of baseball, owners and players. Now the Yanks may have been a dissenting vote but thats what happens in a cooperative. It is a league not a Yankee Autocracy. You cant be the richest guy and still cry about money and if you think you can survive without other teams....who are you going to play?

Chip,

How is Minnesota making it more difficult for the Yanks to have a good team?

Nudge -

if a team is seeing a investment of 25m in todays market then it is a bad deal unless AS THE SMART BUSINESSMAN, or better yet immediate profit accepter then items like luxary tax helps immediate gains.

Now an INVESTOR or Progress Mgmt. would build to Succeed meaning they will invest with determination on the Success of the club and franchise.

Im not seeing the limitation on the Yankees. Hasn't their payroll doubled since revenue sharing has come along. And there payroll has no effect on revenue sharing anyway, so whats your point again.

Nudge:

I'm not sure your post to YF is true. Look I have no idea what you do for a living, but in the industry I'm in, I can tell you that there is not a single person running a successful business (in this industry) who has not sunk not just his revenues, but his personal savings as well, into the company (at least early on) to make the company a success. There are plenty of company owners who tell stories about how they lived off of Ramen noodles because they weren't taking salaries from their companies for months on end so that they could put every dime into manufacturing or advertising.

I can't imagine that this sort of thing is limited to strictly this industry. Nor am I expecting Carl Pohlad to live off of Ramen noodles. But if a multi-billionaire is asked to invest $5 million of his own money to offset a potential loss, that would be akin to me paying an extra ten cents a month in rent.

I'm not saying it penalizes the Yankees - it obviously doesn't - but it was the intent of both revenue sharing (and the luxury tax) to curb owner (read Steinbrenner) spending. The end result obviously did not meet the intent of the commissioner's office.

But just to clarify first for Nudge --

the amount that a team spends for salary does not reveal how much of their revenue sharing income went into it. If it did, a team that was spending $20 mil on salary before revenue sharing and continued spending that amount after receiving $20 mil in revenue sharing could claim that all the revenue sharing funds went to salary.

You really should read the article that I gave the link to before making these pronouncements. It makes clear that the comparison is based on salary expenditures before and after revenue sharing was instituted.

Must, must run...

As for my point, it is why even try to penalize them. If the intent was to curb Yankee or Red Sox spending, and it had worked, how does that help me, as the owner of the Royals, make money?

The Yankees do not cry about money ... get it right!

The high contracts are created by these "small teams " the yankee pacts were to Keep it's "Dynasty" intact... again INVESTMENT! Kansas CIty and Minn and CLev all at one point were major influences in FA market and in baseball Buisness their failures came in part of bad movement or greedy stand stills.

the Angels were once a small market team owned by the Autries then Disney who did more to it's theme park than team but did invest some then sold it to a man who is making it his business to have this team in contention.

Also interleague play had nothing to do with bringing the Yankees on a tour of America(very narcisistic thinking). It was to promote Regional Rivalries that would enhance ticket sales. Like Duh Chicago vs Chicago, Ny vs NY, La vs Anaheim, SF vs Oakland. Natural rivalries that only played out when occassionaly the two teams made the WS together. That has been a resounding success and it has nothing to do with the league gifting the other cities with the Yankee prescence.

Nudge says -- Again...only if there is a ROI. You would be hard pressed to find owners using their own resources to meet payroll though. At least they wouldnt be owners for long.

Answer -- If there is no ROI or potential ROI, then you sell the business. If your business does not profit and there is no potential for profit, you sell it. However, if private funds are needed to sustain the business, you do so in the hopes of increasing your ROI.