Post-Gazette beat writers Dejan Kovacevic and Chuck Finder blog about the Pittsburgh Baseball Club.
Join the Pirates forum for more conversation.
Register to comment Guide to commenting
Congratulations to Major League Baseball, its players' union and 29 complicit teams on the New York Yankees' $200 million championship.
I'll second that!
Now that the World Series is over, we can get down to the important Hot Stove league stuff! It is nice the Pirates got a jump on other teams.
Only 57 days until the new year. Once that arrives, SPRING TRAINING is not far away :)
Re: Yankees. They won 26 championships in the 20th century. Hopefully they won't win more than 15 this century.
Before I even opened up this thread and read your comment Dejan, I was going to ask this question of the Aslyum members here.
Question of the Day:
Are salary caps in professional sports anti/un American?
Discuss.
DK, I found myself wondering, as they danced around the infield, if they got the same lift in their emotions as other teams that win it and can't spend as much money to have the Sabathia's, A-Rods and Burnett's of the world on their team.
Perhaps a strange thought ... found myself comparing it to a fraternity party (Yankees) as opposed to a regular stoner party.
If it was just as fulfilling for the rich kids, then who was it that said "Can't Buy Me Love?"
@Bay, others: Bob Smizik has a post on this topic up on his blog. community.post-gazette.com/.../money-talks-and-yankees-win.aspx
Below is a comment I placed under it ...
Without having watched the broadcast, I wonder, Bob, how often the announcers referred to the Yankees' payroll as opposed to their "mystique."
No, the Yankees had not won since 2000, but the system allowed them a legitimate chance to do so in every year since then, with the exception of one in which injuries were a huge factor, as memory serves. That, in and of itself, underscores a systemic difference that is looking increasingly inexplicable in the world of professional sports.
Think about it: Everyone harps on baseball to attach asterisks to the names of athletes judged to have had an unfair advantage.
What about the teams?
The days of the "Moneyball" clever guys outsmarting the big spenders are gone. The Yankees, Red Sox, Angels and others are run by smart people and have no less an edge in the draft, Latin America and other areas than the Athletics, Twins, Rays or anyone else. Thus, the money becomes the separator.
Make a lousy trade in which Ross Ohlendorf goes to Pittsburgh for Xavier Nady?
No big deal. Just sign CC Sabathia. No one remembers the trade, and no damage done.
And allowing all this to go on is an enormously complicit national media that glorifies the pinstripes without ever addressing why the Yankees and other big-spending teams are there year after year. All these faux controversies -- umpires suddenly missing calls, catchers visiting the mound -- get stirred up, and everyone misses the elephant in the living room when all four league championship series teams are spending $100 million plus.
Nothing against the Yankees here. They compete intensely, including at the ownership level, within the system that is in place. The same cannot be said of the Pirates in a definitive sense over the past 17 years, and be sure that most of what has ailed them has been self-inflicted.
But the system is looking increasingly preposterous.
@emoney: If salary caps are un-American, so are monopolies. Major League Baseball has an antitrust exemption, so viewing its economics through the prism of a pure open market probably should be held within that context.
Bay -
- Re: Yankees....i dont blame them for taking advantage of the system and spending a gazillion dollars to win. I assume theyre as happy as the Royals would be. i dont know if this is Dejan's point, but MINE would be: Blame the REST of baseball...MLB officials, union, other teams for being compicit. Dont blame the yankees for making the most of the system to win. That's like blaming someone for using a legitimate, legal loophole for lowering their taxes. it's the REST of baseball who like suckling pigs took the SHORT term revenue share from the increased TV ratings and LOST THEIR SOULS, and maybe their game forever, who should be blamed. I used to call the yankees the evil empire. i was WRONG. in fact, i now believe solely blaming the yankees exacerbates the problem and MISSES THE POINT. Blame the complicit ones, who are trying to suck every last dime by riding the yankee's coattails to take the short term revenue share.
- Just found your email...sent a reply
Droooo
Dejan - i posted my reply to Bay before i saw your second (and third...wow, somebody is worked up) post. In your second, you said nothing against the Yankees. Right. Absolutely right. I think it misses the point to blame the Yankees. It's not THEIR fault that the rest of baseball allows this to happen for the other teams' short term gain and long term demise. When a child is spoiled, stop spoiling him...BUT BLAME THE PARENTS, not the child, for allowing him to be spoiled. in this case, MLB, the union and the other teams allowed this to happen.
Ok, i've worked myself into a frenzy and it's about 6 hours past my bedtime.
i can't sleep so i'm counting the Yankees' payroll. Boy am i gonna be up a long time now.
so where IS everybody? it's only 2:30 in the freakin' morning.
Let's all get up and go T.P. Bud Selig's house. He's the head conspirator and waking up to a treeful of wet toilet paper will show him a thing or two.
lightweights.
Good. I hope New Yankee Stadium provides the financial separation the Yankees need over the Sox, Angels, Dodgers etc.
Good. Good. Good.
emoney -
Considering the first salary cap was devised and implemented in the US (NBA 1984) it could never be un-American. In fact, it is a distinctly American development in sports.
Now, if you mean anti-free market...depends. A sports league is an inherent semi-monopoly in which competition is controlled by collusion of separate yet interdependent companies.
In a true free market, if a population segment is not being adequately represented, then any capitalist could begin a competing company to serve that market segment. However, in a sports league, that is not allowed.
For that reason, the New York market, with 20M people, is under-represented with teams. If any capitalist who wanted to start a team could do so, there would likely be 4 to 5 teams in that area.
Since it isn't in the best interest of the league to have teams popping up and folding willy nilly like hamburger joints, a special league policy is necessary to restore the competitive balance that has been tampered with by the creation of the league itself.
Salary caps are not distictively American. One of the things a true union does IS to establish a salary cap, of sorts. Wages and working conditions are negotiated, agreed upon, and bound by contract.
No UAW worker at the River Rouge plant can go to management and negotiate his own wages.
Salary caps exist inherently in many leagues, in the US and abroad. It's determined by the market. Few English football Division Two teams will pay a player 18 million pounds per year - the market won't bear it.
Capitalists ARE free to form as many baseball teams in New York as they wish - they simply cannot form them within MLB. There's nothing wrong with that. You can't just go and open a Burger King or a Ford dealership either; you have to be franchised - just like MLB.
Don't like the product? Field a competitor.
MLB Baseball is extremely succesful. There's a reason for that. People like the product.
As I have said before - what is good for the Yankees IS good for baseball.
Some good answers so far. Dejan, MarkInDallas.... informed, intelligent discussion as usual. Thanks.
CuriousGeorge made a good point over in Bob's blog:
"Only when the Sox, Angels, Dodgers and Cubs start crying foul, will there be changes made."
The questions there are: How much longer must the rest of baseball suffer before this happens? Will there be more teams folding/moving before this happens?
It is quite a predicament for fans in at least two thirds of Major League Baseball markets. On the one hand, the system in place allows just about every team, if not all, to make a profit. On the other hand, only a handful of teams every season have a legitimate chance to win a championship. Not quite a monopoly but a definite hierarchy of power.
How depressing is it that many fans here in Pittsburgh would just be happy with a winning season? I sure know the answer to that and it is depressing.
HEAR YE HEAR YE
Next gathering Special Guest
Lou DePaoli
Executive Vice president and Director of Media Marketing
Date: December 5th.
Complete information to follow
As Coonelly has said, there are enough owners that want a salary cap that it would pass. The problem is not that the owners don't want it. The problem is the players don't want it and all the owners are doing well enough under the revenue sharing agreement that nobody is losing money.
So given that situation, the owners are not going to force a stoppage or season cancellation in order to impose a salary cap.
Practically and philosophically, I think giving the people in the largest cities more of a chance to be in the playoffs is a good thing, because that's where a bigger portion of the money comes from.
However, I would solve that by adding at least another team or two to compete with the Yankees in New York.
Brooklyn could certainly have a team of its own. Place it in the AL East to compete against the Yankees and Red Sox. That would help dilute their talent base and restore a competitive balance to the whole league.
Plus, it would help maximize the New York revenue by placing more games in New York and giving proportionally more playoffs to the city without having one team dominate so terribly.
Morning Links
The Last Play by Play of the 2009 Season
scores.espn.go.com/.../playbyplay
New Pirates second baseman Iwamura hopes longtime losers can win soon
www.google.com/.../ALeqM5gfV6wqCFkm0ISZ_dm6EYAZqgYbgg
Schedule never really works for Major League Baseball
www.newsday.com/.../schedule-never-really-works-for-major-league-baseball-1.1568820
Jerry Micco's sports chat transcript
www.post-gazette.com/.../1010778-139.stm
I agree with DK in that the one giant advantage the Yankees have is if they make a mistake with a trade, they just cover it up by spending more money.
Couple of other thoughts:
-I thought it was funny & interesting how the owner of the Brewers came out this year and complained about big market spending. When his team was winning and going to the playoffs he didn't seem to mind they system. And his team still drew 3 mil fans. Now he has to face the reality of all that hard work in building a good team comes with a small window before free agency looms and big bucks from teams like the yankees comes calling.
-in 08 I was at a Pirate game and there were 2 elderly gentlemen from NYC sitting next to me. When they weren't complaining about having to see the pitcher hit for himself, they were complaining that the Yankees weren't going to make the playoffs--like it was their god given right for that to happen every year!!!!
--look how fast the Mets could be good again if they really wanted to spend
THE OFFICIALLY UNOFFICIAL PBC BLOGS AND MLB LINKS:
WhyGavs--Some Day
whygavs.com/.../some-day.html
Sandlot Swashbucklers--AFL: Tabata’s Hot Streak Continues
mvn.com/.../afl-tabatas-hot-streak-continues.html
Pittsburgh Lumber Company--Could the Pirates surprise in 2010?
mvn.com/.../could-pirates-surprise-in-2010.html
The Green Weenie-Blowback-comments on the Iwamura trade
oldbucs.blogspot.com/.../blowback.html
PBC Home Page--Coonelly addresses offseason needs
pittsburgh.pirates.mlb.com/.../article.jsp
MLB Transaction--several players refused minor league asignments and became FAs
www.cbssports.com/.../transactions
Bucco Fans--Pittsburgh Pirates Top 50 Prospects: 22 - Donald Veal
www.buccofans.com/.../pittsburgh-pirates-top-50-prospects-22.html
Bucco Fans Wiki--A lot of data on roster here
buccofans.wikispaces.com
The "Mc" Effect--The Pittsburgh Pirates, Relevant In November?
eatsleepmlb.mlblogs.com/.../the_pittsburgh_pirates_relevan.html
Inside Pittsburgh Sports-Analysis of the Aki Iwamura Trade (Perrotto returns)
insidepittsburghsports.com/.../18545
Pirate Winter League Stats
mlb.mlb.com/.../org.jsp
Vote--This Year in Baseball Awards
mlb.mlb.com/.../index.jsp
Congratulations to Damaso Marte, who excelled on baseball's biggest stage! Who's happier this AM? Is it Marte, with his WS ring, or Mr. Nutting, with his huge profits?
Congratulations to Major League Baseball, its players' union and 29 complicit teams on the Nutting Pirates 17 consecutive losing seasons, 4 last place finishes in the last 5 years, and $29 million dollar payroll.
DK, you crack me up with your continued snide remarks regarding the NY Yankees. You should be every bit as outraged, if not more so, by the Nutting situation.
You better be careful, Frank might catch wind of the interview you supposedly had with Mark Madden this week. - You will have some 'splainin to do. We wouldn't want that now would we?
.
NuHo---DK didn't say anything in the interview he hasn't reported on and/or said to FC/Neal before regarding anything that has happened during their tenure. And before you ask, the only reason I limited it to their tenure is he did comment on at least one thing prior to their tenure.
Agreed, the Yankees payroll is rediculous, but they are playing by the rules which the owners agreed to.... the Pirates do not. They take the revenue sharing money and "pay down debt, put into the DOmincan or what ever they claim. The money is to be used on the MLB payroll. OUr payroll is 30 million..... pathetic.
We are worse for the game than the Yankees are.
"DK, you crack me up with your continued snide remarks regarding the NY Yankees. "
What snide remarks regarding the Yankees? Looks to me like Dejan's issue is with the system.
Learn to read.
BFD--not sure I agree or disagree with you on which is worse or even your facts, but FC sure didn't clarify the situation in his chat yesterday:
"denimvest: What do you say to the people who think the Pirates pocket money, especially since they receive enough money to make payroll through the luxury tax?
Coonelly: denimvest, it is frustrating to hear those charges, particularly when precisely the opposite is the case. We have invested every dollar that we receive in revenue sharing in the ballclub, including in the Draft where we have spent more money than virtually any other club in the last two years, Latin American in a new academy and in players and in our scouting and development systems. We do not receive any money from the luxury tax that the Yankees pay. Instead, that money goes to fund player benefits and for other central baseball initiatives. The revenue sharing that we receive is well below the dollars that we spend on payroll, let alone all of the dollars we spent on amateur players, the Minor League system and our other baseball investments. Therefore, I say that it is difficult to understand why anyone would think that the Pirates are simply pocketing luxury tax money that we do not receive."
Blah,blah, balh, and he takes the cheap shot that the poster didn't know that the "luxury tax" isn't given to the other clubs, when he knew the poster meant any money's received from MLB--revenue sharing, MLB TV contract, etc.
BFD - for what it's worth, here's a Q&A from FC's chat yesterday...
denimvest: What do you say to the people who think the Pirates pocket money, especially since they receive enough money to make payroll through the luxury tax?
Coonelly: denimvest, it is frustrating to hear those charges, particularly when precisely the opposite is the case. We have invested every dollar that we receive in revenue sharing in the ballclub, including in the Draft where we have spent more money than virtually any other club in the last two years, Latin American in a new academy and in players and in our scouting and development systems. We do not receive any money from the luxury tax that the Yankees pay. Instead, that money goes to fund player benefits and for other central baseball initiatives. The revenue sharing that we receive is well below the dollars that we spend on payroll, let alone all of the dollars we spent on amateur players, the Minor League system and our other baseball investments. Therefore, I say that it is difficult to understand why anyone would think that the Pirates are simply pocketing luxury tax money that we do not receive.
I personally don't whole-heartedly believe anything they say.
"The money is to be used on the MLB payroll. "
BFD,
That's not what it says in the CBA.
Arriba,
" We have invested every dollar that we receive in revenue sharing in the ballclub"
What's not clarified?
The money is to be used on the MLB payroll.
======================
Could be, but just has to be put back into operations, not necessarily on player salaries. There are many other expenses for a baseball team other than player salaries. Just because we cannot see where the money is being spent, doesn't mean they are just filling their pockets. I know you'll cry BS on my response, but I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Buster Olney just reported on Mike and Mike that there could be 100 players non tendered because of arbitration.
The big boys will pick all the top players and leave all the scrap behind.
Srsly.
DK on MM the other day even mentioned that the Bucs have a much sweeter deal with FSN than many teams tv contracts. This is a misconception with many that he clarified.
FC can say they aren't pocketing the money all he wants..... I can say I look like Brad Pitt all I want too, but saying it doesn't make it so........
If he is so saddened by these allegations, then he can open the books.
Thanks for the info though Arriba
This is a waste of a post considering what i'm proposal is NEVER gonna happen, but here goes:
- increase revenue sharing. Do it incrementally over 20 years, with no change for 5 years, to protect / mollify interests of largest teams who purchased those teams without expectation of more sharing...but announce it from beginning
- THEN introduce salary cap AS WELL AS salary minimum. If no minimum, no cap. Greater revenue sharing financially supports minimum for small revenue teams. The cap/minimum start after 5 years as the share does, and they get closer (minimum higher) on same time schedule as incremental increase in sharing. The cap and minimum can still end up with a reasonable gap, but NOTHING like today.
- Understand that the players will NOT go along with this. It WILL lead to the loss of a season and WS. So announce the goal ahead of time, and the reason - the good of the game reason - the cap minimum not just maximum - so the writers aren't writing stories that owners are just closing game to put $ in their pockets. Well, this is America...they can and will write whatever they want. But there will be a greater understanding.
- Option: Allow a PARTIAL Larry Bird rule where a team can go over the cap to resign it's own player...but not with an NBA financial advantage to do so. Add a provision that in this and only this situation a team can go over cap...BUT THEY THEN PAY A 100% PENALTY on the dollars into additional revenue sharing.
I apologize to my insanity-mates for wasting everyone's time writing out this never-happen pipe dream.
" I can say I look like Brad Pitt all I want too, but saying it doesn't make it so........"
The Pirates books are audited annually. MLB and the Players' Union receives the audit.
BFD, don't you think they'd be risking too much if they're lying about not "pocketing profits?"
Robert -
I respect that you give them the benifit of the doubt, but they haven't earned this from me yet..... I distrus them
21st -I thought it was, matter of fact DK (if I am not mistaken ) confirmed this on the MM interview the other day.
DK - did I misunderstand your response?
@BFD: they are playing by the rules which the owners agreed to.... the Pirates do not.
The Pirates are playing by the rules. The money has to be spent on "baseball operations". That includes the MLB roster and the minors, the Dominican Academy, etc. You may not like the rules, but they are following them.
DK on MM the other day even mentioned that the Bucs have a much sweeter deal with FSN than many teams tv contracts.
===========================
They still don't own it.
The YES Network is the problem with baseball!!!
"21st -I thought it was, matter of fact DK (if I am not mistaken ) confirmed this on the MM interview the other day."
You're referring to revenue sharing having to go to payroll? I don't know what DK said on MM but it doesn't.
21--please enlighten me on what the purpose of the following statement was:
"Therefore, I say that it is difficult to understand why anyone would think that the Pirates are simply pocketing luxury tax money that we do not receive."
Part of the FSN comment was that if the Brewers can spend 80 million on payroll so can the Pirates.
My point is that "you" can't blame the Yankees for all that is evil in baseball when the Pirates are doing what they do.....
----
@21st -
honestly not really. I think if MLB would "call out" the Pirates it would be bad PR for the game, and the Yankees are going to ruffel any feathers about how the money is being spent because then teams such as the Bucs may vote in a cap......
I think there is much "turning a blind eye" that is occuring to allow this behavior.
By the way.... no comments on the new Mullet avatar?
I think he forgot "Nah, nah, nah, so There!"
Good morning inmates near and far.
DK, great comments, but I'm surprised your editors/publishers give you the liberty to make the comments
What I don't understand about pro sports ownership, particuarly MLB, is how and why an owner/group would want to compete in an unfair marketplace? And why would you put the time and money into an awful team that has no chance of winning. Look at the NFL, for years they promoted parity, 25% of that league this year is awful. How can the owners of the Clippers, Pirates, Lions, Raiders con tinue to produce such miserable teams other than they still turn a profit, and their ego.
"21--please enlighten me on what the purpose of the following statement was:"
If you read the entirety of what he said including that statement, he's saying they don't "pocket" revenue sharing or luxury tax money.
They've said for the past several years that this ownership group has never paid dividends (i.e., not pocketed anything). Whether or not they're lying, I have no idea. I just think that they have too much at stake to be caught lying.
*** CLARIFICATION ALERT ***
(Can anyone make that Nuclear Plant Explosion Foghorn sound? Good. Do it now.)
There was discussion yesterday - and i didnt see an answer, i apologize if i missed it - re: the different #s thrown out re: PBC 2010 payroll. Is it $24M? 28? 32?
CLARIFICATION: Many are talking about two DIFFERENT things.
- When Dejan wrote a few weeks ago that the current team, with expected increases, is $28, he was referring to ACTUAL EXPENSE (some have posted that this # should be 29M, but let's not quibble. This is still an EXPENSE). Both of these numbers exclude Iwwy Pop.
- Others have posted that Frank said their payroll may be $32M. If he said that (1st, shame on him, but that's not my point)...this is the BUDGET.
- Budget does NOT = current payroll. It is usually higher to allow for offseason acquisitions and mid year flexibility. Usually a team does NOT start the season using its full Budget in it's initial Payroll.
- All these #s, 28/29M or 34M, were discussed BEFORE Mr Pop so probably both are being adjusted.
" think if MLB would "call out" the Pirates it would be bad PR for the game, and the Yankees are going to ruffel any feathers about how the money is being spent because then teams such as the Bucs may vote in a cap......"
I don't recall MLB ever really calling out any team and I wouldn't think they ever would. And the Yankees have complained about revenue sharing in the past.
I heard Hank Steinbrenner say last night about all the small market teams crying about money, that they can give the revenue sharing money back.
Nothing is going to change anytime soon.
========================
I was gonna ask if that was you or Joe Dirt :)
What makes any of you think that the Yanks or any of the other big spenders would not be in favor of a salary cap?
Use some common sense. If a cap was in place teams that currently spend beyond it would be able to retain money that would have previously been spent on payroll and retain it as profit.
It is the small market teams like that don't spend that would be concerned about the salary cap. A salary cap would need to come with a floor which would force some teams to become unprofitable. Look at Phoenix in the NHL.
A cap and in relation a floor would hurt the small market teams who can't generate revenues to maintain the payroll floor.
Radio - morning. I would assume that a blog comment, even by a beat writer, is not treated as nearly the same thing as an article or even the lead comments of a blog threat. One is official, one is not.
I once asked him re: opinions he posted because i was genuinely surprised. He posted back to me (i'm gonna accidentally butcher this) that a beat writer can make an observational opinion even in a story (his example of what's ok was: JR's game strategy clearly didnt work tonight), but not take it to conclusional opinion (his example of un-kosher conclusion was: therefore JR should be fired...which he said falls in realm of columnists.)
I think his comments early this AM fall into the observational opinion category. He DIDN'T say let's go T.P. Bud Selig's front yard (as one idjit whose initials are d.r.e.w. posted), which would be conclusional.
Roberto -
No... not me.... I haven't been able to sport something like that since highschool.....
BFD - i noticed the avatar but - meaning no disrespect or sarcasm - i thought it was a picture of a little girl which takes it out of the realm of mullet. Who is it?
@Dongy: "A cap and in relation a floor would hurt the small market teams who can't generate revenues to maintain the payroll floor."
...UNLESS...there is a corresponding increase in revenue sharing.
Well said, Dejan.
With that argument in mind, can anyone here really be too upset at the Pirates ownership?
Unless Nutting is as wealthy or wealthier than Steinbrenner. I doubt that.
21--I'm sure there's a way to support what they are saying in some accounting or other sense. It is hard to see from a, shall we say, macro standpoint, that with all the savings since they've been here through trades of higher priced players, that, at least on the surface, far offset the spending on Latin America, etc., that the money is being spent on "baseball operations." We agree that we don't have the numbers, but disagree as to whether we should on that basis agree or disagree with their bland protestations that they aren't making some kind of profit with the use of that money. A trick response at the end of his answer doesn't bolster my belief in his credibility on that point. It does increase my suspicions that they are playing some kind of word games.
Hank Steinbrenner is a bigger donkey's ass than his dad George. How can Hank and the Yankees really get any wholesome, deep-down enjoyment out of winning (I mean buying) the World Series?
It's like going fishing in a pond pre-stocked with tons of fish and feeling great when you catch a few dozen....
That's fair Arriba. Except that I didn't see that as a trick answer.
Agreed that they've had savings. But everyone seems to forget that up until around 2003-04, it's possible that they lost tons of money. So although they might be socking away cash the past few years, what I always wanted to know is how much they have accumulated in net profits/losses since they bought the team in 1996.
Drew -
Just some random kid fromm an email of mullets I recieved from a buddy..... I thought it was too funny.
By the way.... a girl with a mullet is a SHEmullet....
I am happy for Damaso Marte. But I don't buy into the notion that keeping him on the Bucs would have made any difference what so ever .
Regarding the team's deal with FSN: I think they may have good radio deal, but their TV is pretty standard. Plus the tv ratings for pirate games are actually pretty good- considering.
I heard Michael Kaye on Mike & MiKe this morning and they were talking about ARod and his legacy now that he's won a world series.
To me this makes absolutely no difference. He is a great player but I would have a ton more respect for him if he won a WS with Seattle or Texas.
This is what made me finally turn off the TV last night:
Hearing Johnny Damon say that he and Eric Hinske were the only 2 guys to win World Series championships with the Red Sox and Yankees.
Nice.
"A cap and in relation a floor would hurt the small market teams who can't generate revenues to maintain the payroll floor."
Dongta,
You won't have a cap (and a floor) without expanded revenue sharing.
@Drew:
In every other sport a majority of the revenue sharing money comes from national television, clothing, gaming rights...
Although I can watch WGN, YES, and TBS, I do not think that they would qualify as national television as for the most part they only broadcast local teams (I know TBS has changed this recently).
This being said, the contract for the playoffs, ESPN, and the weekend games on FOX are not nearly as lucrative as the NFL.
The NBA although it has more exposure than baseball right now on a national televison stage is a great example of what happens when regional television contracts and facilities make a city become uncompetitive. 3 teams move in the last 10 years.
TO ALL HERE TEAMS IN CITIES WITH LARGE POPULATIONS ALWAYS MAKE MORE MONEY THAN TEAMS IN CITIES WITH LOWER POPULATIONS.
EVERY SPORT
EVERY YEAR
EVERY TIME
What I find funny is that Joe Girardi actually gave Brian Cashman (that's an app. last name for the Yanks GM...hehheheehehe) credit for putting that roster together.
Cashman in his office....
"C.C. or A.J?.....
C.C. or A.J.....
wait a minute....
I know.....
C.C. AND A.J.!.......
O, almost forgot....
AND TEX!!!!"
I guess Joe was just really giving credit for George's nice signature on those checks. He must have a hell of a John Hancock.
@Larry - Well said, Dejan.
---------
YES! YES YES!
BDF: "SHEmullet" really? wow. outta my league. as i posted last week, i'm more of a lipstick and rouge kinda guy.
waiddaminnit...that didn't come out right.
"This is what made me finally turn off the TV last night:
Nice."
Did he seriously say that?
Ummm . . . Babe Ruth?
Actually, if Marte had been on the Pirates this season they would have lost over 100 games because Ohlendoff would not have been here so subtract his 11 wins and add Marte who appeared in only 21 games with a 9.45 ERA. Pirates had no pitcher would have picked up those 11 wins and Marte would not helped protect any leads.
There is near universal agreement that Pirates are way ahead on that trade.
Dongy - i understand your point. as with football way back when, sometimes it takes first in sports kind of leadership. I think for the good of the game it's time to share more of the local revenue in baseball...even if that's not the NFL model...in order to allow the game to prosper for all...and to avoid the continuing slide to a have-have not system of noncompetitiveness. I'm not calling for the equity of OUTCOME. God bless any team that wins repeatedly in a reasonably fair environment (Steelers?). In the American tradition i'm calling for the equity...or at least a greater leveling...of OPPORTUNITY...then let the better teams win.
You're right in saying the local revenue share, at least to this extent, would be a step beyond. Ok, then, i guess i'm saying it's time for a step beyond.
Former Sox
Yep Ruth did it with the Red Sox in 1915, 1916, and 1918 and many times with the Yankees.
At those who are taking shots at DK for his rant above: Are y'all suggesting that because he didn't write about the flaws with the PBC, he's not allowed to have a beef with the current MLB climate and the Yanks role in it? Or is his opinion about this sort of stuff worthless because he hasn't written a similar rant about the PBC?
Y'll all do realize that the PBC (and clubs of its ilk), or the Yanks, or the current "system" in MLB (or all, some, or none of them, in various degrees) could be "what's wrong with baseball"-- right? Just because your biggest issue is with X, doesn't mean that has to be everybody's biggest issue.
My take on whether it's the Yanks or the "system" that should take the blame: I'll blame the Yanks, if that's OK. Sometimes you gotta do the "right" thing, even though there's no rule against doing "wrong" thing. (I hate to use right/wrong labels here, but I couldn't think of another way to clarify it.) From my POV, the Yanks are doing the wrong thing by grossly outspending the rest of baseball to the detriment of MLB. No, there's no rule against it, but that don't make it right. From their POV, they're doing the right thing by winning championships. Reasonable minds can differ about this, but that's how I come down on it.
Sorry for the long post. Thanks for reading.
lipstick and rouge...does that make me Boy Drew?
I still think the best way to address inequities in market size is to allow NY to have more teams. This would dilute the revenue for each and would provide ample incentive for New Yorkers to kill each other off until the market size evened out with Pittsburgh.
DK- true.
a-roid's legacy? A-ROID
hinske with two rings is hardly bragging rights to a great career. he has ridden the pine on a world champ. bfd.
yankees win is like the kid next door who wrecked dad's car learning to drive, so dad got him a new one of his own. he got a new one when he graduated hs, a new one when he graduated college and a new one when he got married a few years alter. a lot of nice cars. no sense.
makes me happy when we win with our '97 labarron rolling on recaps with the 'my kid is an honor student at point park' sticker on the back.
Carl Mays did it too--on the Red Sox the same three winning years Ruth was and on the Yankees for the 1923 win
"From my POV, the Yanks are doing the wrong thing by grossly outspending the rest of baseball to the detriment of MLB. No, there's no rule against it, but that don't make it right. "
Steve,
I agreed with your post up until this point. I don't have a problem with anyone who wants to win so bad that they'll do anything as long as it's within the rules (obviously). That's the spirit of competition. And I wouldn't characterize it as the wrong thing.
Larry Z and Former Sox fan; Good ones guys.
Former Sox fan a question for you: Why a former fan? I still cheer for the Sox. Yes, I think most sox fans, particuarly the under 30 age group of fans have become obnoxious, but isn't this better than the old days?
Drew: A clarification alert, great stuff. I would think that if an owner somewhere wanted to cause a problem for DK, they could do so. But I'm pleased to see his employer has his back.
I'm also surprised that Michael Kay who is the Yankees TV announcer is allowed to make negative comments on his ESPN New York radio show. I would think the Yankees aren't happy about it.
Do we have any accountants on this board that can lend their expertise?
When FC says they are "spending all of the revenue sharing money" they receive from MLB, could that be verbal/financial linguistics? For instance, perhaps the Pirates ARE spending all of their revenue sharing dollars ... BUT they are profit taking from their OPERATIONAL revenues.
Also, and this is where I'd love an accountant to weigh in, are there other ways for business principals to siphon money from an enterprise other than through dividends? I'm thinking Tony Soprano-type efforts like excessive board of director salaries, Vice President of Sitting Around positions, offering deals with the Bucs (free advertising, etc.) in exchange for more favorable deals with their business (buy a year's worth of full-page ads in my newspaper and I'll give you a billboard at PNC Park -- Pirates don't see revenues that they should)
I hope some of the vitriol around the Yankees' win last night will be sustained and create real change in baseball. The Bucs suck because they've mismanaged the club, but baseball's economics haven't helped.
@Dongta and Drew,
I think you're on the right track. There are two fundamental problems with a salary cap (that's actually a misnomer, it's a payroll cap):
(1) The revenue disparities in MLB are so great due to teams having complete control over their own broadcast rights that you can't set a cap low enough to cover the enormous revenue of the Yankees, Red Sox and eventually probably other teams, while achieving your aims. Nobody is going to agree to a cap that PROHIBITS the Yankees from reinvesting $100M+ of their revenue every year.
You also can't set a floor as high as it'd need to be without making it impossible for teams to carry out legitimate rebuilding operations, which lower revenue teams have to do to be competitive. The Rays went to the WS with a payroll that was a little over $40M. If they'd been required to have a payroll of, say, $60M, maybe they wouldn't have made it. If the revenue disparities aren't addressed first, a cap won't help. And when you think about it, it's absurd that the Yankees can truck their TV crew into the Rays' ballpark and broadcast a game against the Rays without paying the Rays a dime.
(2) There's more at play than the owners being satisfied with the current system. A lot of these guys are heavily leveraged. There were some figures floating around a couple years ago about debt in MLB and it's astronomical. It's inevitable given the huge appreciation in franchise values. The Nats' owners, for instance, just paid over half a billion for their franchise. I suspect most of the owners CAN'T withstand the muli-year work stoppage that'd be necessary to get a payroll cap. They'd go bankrupt. There's a reason Selig has made it clear the owners won't seek a cap, even though most of them would love to get one. The idea of a cap solving everybody's problems is a fantasy that has zero chance of ever occurring.
FatJimmy,
Frank didn't say they have spent all the revenue sharing money. This is what he said.
"We have invested every dollar that we receive in revenue sharing in the ballclub"
And they have said at least several times over the past few years that they are not taking money out of the team to pay dividends to owners.
"Also, and this is where I'd love an accountant to weigh in, are there other ways for business principals to siphon money from an enterprise other than through dividends? "
The number of fraudulent ways for owners to steal money from their business is plenty. But there are also checks and balances referred to as internal controls. The Pirates are also audited annually. You can set up dummy vendors, for example.
Thanks, 21. I don't think I was even suggesting what they were doing was "fraudulent". I'm wondering if there are legitimate means to siphon money ... paying your BofD 2x the going rate isn't necessarily fraudulent (especially for a non-public org), but also isn't necessary.
I guess the root is that I don't trust Frank and Bob. Their versions of the facts differ from everyone elses....I'd like to speculate on how that could happen.
Morning mates, good tidings
Drew - Nuclear Foghorn Alert - trust me, if you hear that, its too late.....
Today I am going to look on the bright side. How many years has it been since the Cubbies splashed champagne? 102?
As long as that number keeps growing, there is still a bit of justice in the world.
But the ratings for the WS at the bizrow house were horrible 0.000000000000000000000
Drew one more thing, from yesterday, I think they should sign NH for a one year extension, if we are floundering come this time next year, just eat the contract. Do not extend JR though.
Salary Cap? Why? I think every team is making $$, are they not? Some owners don't care about winning, they care about the status and the $$. Would love to see it though, but how would you implement it with the big contracts the Yuckees have?
Rather than getting stuck in the tall grass and worrying about counting and accounting for every dollar in the Pirates operating budget, I think the focus should be on the larger issue that DK pointed out. Even if the Bucs increase their payroll to $85M they will still be spending la little more than half of what the Yankees spend on their starting nine.
There will be occasional exceptions to the rule like the Rays or the Rockies but the fact is that in the long term that disparity creates a non-competitive situation...period.
"Former Sox fan a question for you: Why a former fan? I still cheer for the Sox. Yes, I think most sox fans, particuarly the under 30 age group of fans have become obnoxious, but isn't this better than the old days?"
Well . . . it's tough to say. For starters, I'm barely out of that under-30 group, but I do feel that way about a lot of their fans. And I still root for them to a degree.
It's not because it's different after finally winning a Series. I don't know, I just feel like as an organization, it's no longer as compelling to follow them. The atmosphere is very corporate. Ownership squeezes every last dime out of the fans, and makes them feel like attending games is a privilege.
And it may sound dumb, but it's kind of refreshing to follow a team that's in rebuilding mode.
@Fat Jimmy: All the financial expertise in the world ain't gonna help if that expert doesn't have access to the data. I'd be happy to give my opinion-- I'm no CPA, but I have accounting/auditing experience-- but without numbers to back it up, I'm just guessing. Sorry.
But isn't it more fun that everybody can make all kinds of wild accusations and unsupported justifications without having to worry that the numbers don't back them up? ;)
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that the Commish's office audits every team and so far has not raised an issue with the PBC (or, in fact, any other club I'm aware of). Some will say that's because the PBC is operating within guidelines. Others will say it's because the Commish's office is incompetent or on the take. Or that the guidelines are flawed. Take your pick. Unless or until the PBC opens it books to public inspection (and if I were the PBC, I'm not sure I'd ever want that to happen), there's always gonna be a controversy.
When the Pirates say "we are not pocketing the money" we are using it as part of the PBC it is really a game semantics.
Obviously the hypothetical is oversimplified and since we don't know real numbers since the books are never open here is an explanation that shows the disingenuous nature of statement "we are not pocketing the money."
On Jan 1 2010 lets say the PBC is worth 200 dollars and has 50 dollars in debt. The net worth of PBC is 150 dollars. Lets assume its 2010 operating payroll/expenses are 10 dollars and its operating revenue is 15 dollars. So the PBC makes 5 dollars this year and they use the 5 dollars to pay off debt build a new facility or buy new equipment. The PBC is now worth 155 dollars. Now MLB comes along and gives the PBC 10 more dollars. Rather than use any of the 10 dollars to increase payroll, the PBC again pays of debt or buys some new assets such that the PBC how has a net worth of 165 dollars. This process goes on for 10 years with the payroll only increasing if revenue from tickets/local tv increase as well but because of the revenue sharing the net worth the franchise increases to 500 dollars. The Nuttings decide they are going to sell the PBC and low and behold the Nuttings who have quote not "pocketed" any of the revenue sharing money sell the franchise for 500 dollars instead of the 300 dollars it might have been worth without the money from revenue sharing. So yes they can tell us with a straight face that they are not "pocketing" the money and are putting back into the team, but you can rest assurred when they sell the team, they will put all of that money into their "pockets."
Regarding revenue sharing, what revenue would they share? It's not like the NFL which has national broadcast contracts. Each team has its own. You'd have to tear up 30 different contracts. Or just have each team send that money to MLB, but where's, say, the Yankees incentive to drive a hard bargain if they just stick it in a pool and get a fraction of the money?
Plus, you're left with the disparity at the gate. Green Bay draws more fans than Chicago, which is possible when you only play 8 home games in parks that seat pretty much the same number of people. That doesn't work when you play 81. You think the Yankees or Cubs are going to put their gate receipts into a pot?
So say you do cap and floor. If everyone spends to the cap under that system, the large market teams would make hundreds of millions in profits, the small market teams zilch. Or you'd have the small markets spend the floor and the large markets spend the cap. You end up with the exact standings you had this year.
Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with this system until people who don't live in NYC, Chicago, Boston, Philly and LA simply quit going to games. Maybe then the big markets will wake up and go to a national broadcast model and do true revenue sharing, or risk playing in two six-team leagues. If the Yankees are playing the Red Sox 40 times a year, the lustre will fade. Then they'll realize they needed the small market teams all along.
Fat Jimmy,
To your point about siphoning, I think you can look at the ugly situation unfolding with the Dodgers and the pending divorce of Farnk and Jamie McCourt. She held the title of CEO and was drawing a hefty salary. Some of the recent "perks" of her job was attending the Maccabi Games in Israel and then stopping off in Paris for a two week layover, all at the expense of the team.
It's going to be very, very ugly.
I actually think the current system of revenue sharing is on the right track, but there should be some tweaks to it.
I personally don't like the idea of a cap and floor because it limits smart personnel moves. The NBA system is ridiculous where you have to trade similar contract values.
Right now there is a luxury tax, but the revenue from that tax isn't distributed directly to the poorer teams. Plus, the threshold is so high that only the Yankees pay it most of the time.
I would have a lower thresholds (say 100M and 130M) where it would be a sliding scale tax, and it would be redistributed to lower market clubs for the sole purpose of signing their home grown products.
So, if the Pirates would have wanted to keep Jason Bay, for example, they could use that money from that pool to help.
There are always going to be haves and have nots. But when the Yankees can spend $65M more than the next closest club, that's a disparity that is pretty hard to justify in a competitive sense.
Juniata -
MLB does share revenue. They share x% of all revenue - tv contracts, gate attendance,etc - made by every club. It goes into a pool and then is paid out equally from that pool.
That is where the Pirates get their revenue sharing money from - not the luxury tax.
All merchandise is shared equally and is not considered the revenue of individual teams. So for people who say they won't purchase a Pirates jersey because they don't want to put more money into Nutting's pocket, only 1/30 of that jersey goes to the Pirates.
25% of all merchandise is Yankees branded.
Absolute, that was exactly the type of insight I was looking for. Thanks!
So for people who say they won't purchase a Pirates jersey because they don't want to put more money into Nutting's pocket, only 1/30 of that jersey goes to the Pirates.
________________________________________________
Well, I'm going to start a niche business selling 29/30th's of jerseys, hats, etc. and market them toward Nutting haters. KA-CHING!
Just catching up:
- WTM: your first point is, i believe, spot on. your 2nd point? now you've done it. Depresses the heck out of me and makes me want to borrow PoH's new avatar and run screaming into New York. (if i wear the Boy Drew get-up, i'll fit right in)
- Biz: i can live with a ONE year (only) extension. Not my personal choice but i understand the logic and wouldnt react to it in same way as a three-year "reward" extension.
- Mark: your incremental approach is probably a MUCH more
achieveable goal than the more dramatic approaches suggested by me and others. i might "like" the aggressive approach better but i recognize sometimes one has to deal with the world the way it is rather than the way it should be.
I don't know if the Yankees are that far ahead of several teams. Yea, they won one world series in 10 years, how much money did it take them to win one WS in 10 years.
How much money did it take the Marlins to win 2 WS in 5 or 6 years?
Marte pitches very well in the post season and they HAD to have him, he turned out to be the bridge to Rivera, but overall he had a very poor season.
They have a lights out 40 year old relief pitcher, that if they did not have the chances are they would not even have won with all that supposed talent.
They had a DH that could not even play in the games in the NL city get red hot in the AL city and carry them yesterday.
In baseball the most important characteristic to winning is chemistry. Talent is huge I am not dismissing that.
Talent without chemistry is not going to be a winner very often and money does not buy chemistry.
As a matter of fact, the Yankees and all their money are trying to decide now who to keep, Damon or Matsui.
JK - I think, or it used to be this way that the visiting team gets a very small slice of the revenue from tickets sold for games they play.
TV is what really skewers the playing field. It takes two teams to play each game, I'd suggest that ALL TV revenues go into the pot, radio too, the gate recepts and concession revenues go to the home team, maybe that would work.
MarkinDallas - from what I've read about the NBA salary cap, there are so many exceptions, I don't know if its really a hard cap, but it does seem to have kept clubs in the black financially. One good thing it has is the slotting of draft choices, and a world wide draft, but I'm not sure if slotting would work for baseball with all the rounds.
All the talk about payroll and salary caps and Yankee/Red Sox spending has me wondering if either of those two clubs had ANY players making less than $1 (full season regular pay, not bonuses) this year?
Anybody know?
That should have been $1 MILLION, not $1.
JK -
Aren't the TNT, ESPN and Fox TV monies split evenly between all the teams? I agree with you that each team has significant local TV contracts that belong just to them and that's one of the major things that feeds the bloated revenue stream of the Yankees.
I don't know about basketball, but NHL hockey does have local TV contracts similar to baseball where they get all the revenue. The NHL national TV contract with NBC is unusual in that NBC pays no up-front money to the league and only shares proceeds from advertising once production costs are paid. So, basically, hockey teams get next to nothing from the national TV contracts.
Football, to my knowledge, has ONLY national TV contracts. Exhibition games are covered by local stations but not the regular season or playoffs.
Thus, MLB is somewhat unique in having BIG national AND local TV contracts.
G-Man
____________________
Without research I could not give you exact names, but the kids in the Yankee bullpen sure are not making much more than minimum. I am talking about Coke, Hughes, Robertson.
Biz -
>>I think, or it used to be this way that the visiting team gets a very small slice of the revenue from tickets sold for games they play.<<
I know that used to be true when I was a teenager. I remember Joe L. Brown talking on his radio show about visiting teams gettins x-cents per ticket. But I have not heard that in years. I once asked that in a Q&A letter - if visiting teams still get a share of the gate - but it wasn't picked to be answered.
I'm curious if that's still the practice.
Biz--there was an article in the P-G paper edition several days or a week ago from either AP or some NY paper that said a Cap wasn't in the cards for the next labor negotiations, but that in talking to people on the management side in MLB there were things they could and should do, includiing having a worldwide draft and hard slotting of draft choices.
Lead - i'll grant that talent with chemistry is far better than talent without chemistry but if i have to make an independent choice, i'll take talent OVER chemistry. Baseball is a much more individual sport than others. Sure, there's the teamwork of double play combos, pitch-catch battery etc etc...but there's no similar football analogy of the 9-on-1 battle between the one lone sole batter against the other team's nine. That batter is much more on an island than a cornerback who is dependent on safeties and quality of pass rush, or kicker who needs holder, snapper, line. When a SS either grabs or boots a hard grounder, he's all alone. I'm not dismissing chemistry, just saying it has less effect in baseball than the other major sports, which magnifies the impact of talent.
Leadoff -
Re Yankees' yound bulpen arms: Thanks. That's what I was thinking might be the case. I don't follow teams other than the Pirates closely enough that I know much about their personnel beyond the big names.
Re my comment about TV contracts: I mentioned TNT but maybe that should have been TBS. Can't remember now which Turner network carried baseball.
I think the national contracts with ESPN/FOX are split, but that's a pittance when it's all spread out. Same with whatever small percentage of local TV contracts go into the pot.
Markindallas — correct. Merchandise and web monies all get spread out evenly. Not sure what the local % is that goes into the pot. Obviously, it's not a lot when the Yanks can spend $200 million and make a profit and the Pirates would turn a loss at about $78 million.
I think it's really going to come down to fans staying away in droves and pushing small market teams to the brink of financial failure. Maybe then MLB will wake up and realize they can't survive with a 12-team product.
Arriba - those possible changes are a bit too incremental for me.
I don't think the system is that bad, anyone blaming the system for the Pirate failures to me are nuts.
When a big market team wins one time in 10 years, I don't see overbalance in that.
When another big market team has not won a WS in 102 years, I don't see overbalance in that.
The Pirates are to blame for where they are, and to their credit they are doing something about it. I will take that over just sitting around and crying about the system.
The Pirates can win in this system with a well executed plan, they can't win if they don't care and they just pocket profit.
I don't believe they just pocket profit, the Pirates are a well run organization at this point in time, have not always been that way IMO, but they are now.
ESPN.com lists all salaries.
sports.espn.go.com/.../roster
Looks like about 8 players on the Yankees -- mostly pitchers.
I get your point about the individual performance nature of baseball - 1 against 9 at a time. But I won't discount chemistry. I just think it takes a different form or with different areas of emphasis. In hockey, for example, one example is the sense of knowing where a team mate is/will be without looking for or seeing him when you pass.
I think baseball's chemistry is more in line with trust and confidence in each other. An example of that might be the way the Pirates have reacted as a team after the last couple years to trades of core players. Certainly the absence of those good players reduced the results. But the remaining players seemed to perform at lower levels afterward.
Another example of that trust/chemistry is how you, as a fielder, respond to having JR leave in your worst bullpen guy when he is giving up homeruns in extra innings. (Phil Dumatrait comes to mind.)
At the end of the day, chemistry is an intangible and different in every sport. But it exists.
BetterDays, your point about the Dodgers' ownership group is also what I meant by "siphoning". Detractors of ownership suggest it's profit taking, which ownership denies and FO supporters use to say "we have no reason to doubt them".
I think there are a lot of ways that the FO can ... let's call it... "divert" money that should be used to build the ML team, invest in LA, draft and sign the best players available, etc., without pocketing the cash through dividends. Yet, at the same time, is accomplishing the same thing.
We hold these things self evident:
The Yankees suck.
Bud Selig is the devil incarnate.
The MLBPA are greedy pigs.
Bob Nutting is the ringleader of the downfall of America's Pastime.
And -- like a crazy girlfriend who burns down our house -- we will love the Bucs even though we know they haven't, aren't and won't treat us right.
G-Man-<That should have been $1 MILLION, not $1>
Whew, for a minute there I thought you were talking about the Bucs, not the Yanks. ;-)
Fat Jimmy -
Thanks for the links to salaries.
>>I don't think the system is that bad, anyone blaming the system for the Pirate failures to me are nuts.<<
You hit the nail on the head. The issue with the Pirates is less that it's 30 years since the last WS and more that they have lost for 17 straight years. Money is not the sole reason for all that lack of being competitive. Bad management in concert with money spent on payroll is.
Arriba -
That's the response I would have expected from NuHos. :-)
G-man - i agree. I wasnt trying to advocate chemistry is irrelevant, just that in baseball due to the nature of the game, talent is emphasized to a greater degree. i recall what they used to write about in boston in the late 60s early 70s re Red Sox...25 players, 25 cabs...meaning that they didnt hang out after games because they didnt get along, and therefore underperformed. I think chemistry has an important place at the table. I just think that talent sits at the head of the table.
Small world. How about the fact that Fat Jimmy and I have dated the same girls?
"At those who are taking shots at DK for his rant above: Are y'all suggesting that because he didn't write about the flaws with the PBC, he's not allowed to have a beef with the current MLB climate and the Yanks role in it? "
Of course not. It's DK's blog and he is entitled to write anything his little heart desires.
By the same token, that doesn't mean one cannot question his decision to stand up now and at this time to make critical statements regarding the Yankees and baseball's severly flawed economic when as a beat writer covering the PBC he sees a club owner taking advantage of baseball's economic system in a manner every bit as damaging to the sport as the Yankees on a daily basis and for some unexplained reason doesn't comment on the PBC.
Yes, MLB's ecomomic system is flawed. - Thanks to DK for pointing out the obvious. The Yankees and the Pirates are at opposite sides of the MLB economic system. The Yankees take advantage of those flaws from one extreme, Bob Nutting takes advantage of those flaws from the another.
DK covers the Pirates daily and rarily utters a peep about how Nutting and the PBC are destroying the integrity of the game by working the system solely to benefit the owner, but then he mouths off two or three times on the internet to express his concerns about baseballs economic system when the Yankees win the world series.
Where's DK's concerns about the system and how owners work it the rest of the year????
@Arriba "Whew, for a minute there I thought you were talking about the Bucs, not the Yanks"
Some comments are so perfect they don't need any further amplification. (But i wish i'd said that)
Fat Jimmy and Jose Lind's Pants,
Are one of you guys Andre Bad Moon Rison?
Didn't a crazy girlfriend burn his house down too?
JLP -
>>Small world. How about the fact that Fat Jimmy and I have dated the same girls?<<
The sad part is several of them are ex-wives of mine.
you mean both you guys dated mrs drew?
before or after me?
Re chemistry: we're cool. I agree with a lot of what you said.
It's just, well, you know me. When I have the opportunity to say something, I can't resist running my mouth.
(Waiting patiently for PoH to make a comment on that.)
we need someone in here to play the drums so we can get that ba-dum-bum played after some of our posts.
Drew--don't shoot the messenger--talk to MLB. ;-)
I think a salary cap would be a better system than we have now, but agree with leadoff that the PBC's problems aren't the system's fault. Can't argue, though, that the Yanks didn't go out and buy their championship this year, just l ike the Marlins in 1997 and the D'Backs the year they did it. Thing is, there is nothing to prevent the Yanks from doing it again next year, whereas the Marlins had to blow it up and the D'Backs apparently are still trying to dig themselves out from their "success."
JLP
is it because you and he are the same person, just another extension of the NuHo lineage
Yeah Arriba, i thought about the messenger thing after i posted.
BTW, this is my Francis Scott Key post. (anybody guess why?)
ba-da-boom Theres your drum sound Drewbieskins
Thanks Indy
- Boy Drewbieskins
With all the talk here daily about money, salaries etc., I wante to mention something I ran across that's very interesting from a sports fan perspective.
The editors of The Hockey News, a 50+year old publication out of Canada, has as the theme of it's current issue, "The No Money Issue." They are responding to gripes by readership that they dwell too much on money matters and not enough on the sport itself. So they put together this special issue where they don't mention money except to explain the theme of the issue. Cool.
Can you imagine a day here on the blog if money was never brought up once? I'm betting 4 comments tops:
(1) a gathering announcement
(2) a mention of Mrs. Drew
(3) Maz sporting a new avatar and asking where everyone is(4) JHadar telling everyone he's pullin' for us
>>BTW, this is my Francis Scott Key post. (anybody guess why?)<<
I would have called it your Tchaikovsky post for the 1812 overture post. :-)
guys -
FC said all welfare money is going back into the the organization. He is making this claim because:
- I forget the exact figure, but I believe their TAKE (I mean this literally) was 40 million.
- They "put" more than 40 into the organization
This allows him to say "it has all been put back in"
He (Nutting) has done this but not put much (if any) of his own money or incoming revenue back in..... it is all an illusion.
G-man: DING DING DING.
To be historically accurate, THIS is my FSK post since it was written in 1814
Quick poll - say the Pirates had the Yankees identical roster and won the world series yesterday. Would everyone here still want salary caps?
BFD
_________________________
They can have all the illusions they want, they can talk about payroll and who pockets it until hell freezes over as far as I am concerned.
Put me a winner on the field, that is what I am concerned about, I don't care if they have to do it by hook or crook, just get it done.
agreed leadoff, but if he ain't spending, we ain't gonna win.........
Hi, Drew,
From the Web: "...Describes Key's witness of the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in 1814 that led him to write the "Defence of Fort McHenry," which later became The Star Spangled Banner..."
It was your 1814th post, buddy!
G;>}
G-man - in honor of your image of the moneyless asylum:
Me and Mrs.Drew
We got a thinnnnnggggg goin'on
We both know that it's wrong
But she’s wearing a thong
In my avatar
We meet every night and have the same fight
"stop posting those things about me"
I’m surprised she isn’t long gone
While I write these foolish songs
Me-eee—eee-ee-eeee and Mrs.Drew
We both know that it's sad
Cause i'm looney and she's mad
About my avatar
Me-eee—eee-ee-eeee and Mrs.Drew, Mrs.Drew, Mrs. Drew
Spike, in Defence of Fort McNeal, you are correct, sir!
mrs drew wonders how i keep my job.
Yes, it was Andre Rison's house that burned down. And, it was singing sensation Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes who burned it. It's one of the great sports stories of all time. It's the OJ trial without the tragedy.
Surprisingly, Andre Rison's wikipedia page does NOT begin with this story. I would have thought it to be his defining moment.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Andre_Rison
I know what you mean, Drew - about the Job...!
I've managed to keep mine (with one externally imposed break-in-the-action, along the way!) by learning-the-job / taking-the-shift that nobody wanted - and then being on-call 8-24-365 for 30+ years.... G;>}
ants have marched==================================