Save Your Yankees Disgust
Friends, Americans and baseball fans around the globe, lend me your eyes: I’m writing to praise the New York Yankees, not to bury them.
Friends, Americans and baseball fans around the globe, lend me your eyes: I’m writing to praise the New York Yankees, not to bury them.
Don’t misinterpret this message, for my Yankee-hating bona fides are second to no one. Over the decades, I’ve cursed Mantle and Munson, Martin and Maris, Jeter and Giambi, Posada and Pepitone, Reggie and Rocket, Tito and Torre, and Dent and Damon. There’s a particular loathing for Paul O’Neill, YES yes-man Michael Kay, Mike Mussina and, it hardly bears repeating, the most odious athlete of this era, Alex Rodriguez, aka A-Fraud. As a Red Sox fan I’ve been threatened and punched by creeps at Yankee Stadium, endured slings and arrows and misfortune from skunks in the stands, and once gave my sons permission to give a bow-tied afternoon drunk the finger after he hooted at my wife for the crime of cheering a David Ortiz blast into the right field seats.
Nevertheless, the recent commotion from baseball media commentators—in print, on the tube, online and at parties—after the Yankees signed free agent Mark Teixeira for $180 million has been the most knee-jerk, naïve and plain dumb hyperbole that’s occurred in the past year. The Yankees are ruining Major League Baseball! The Steinbrenners Hal and Hank (and GM Brian Cashman) don’t play fair! Locking up three players—aside from Teixeira, they nabbed C.C. Cheeseburger and A.J. Burnett—for a total of $423.5 million is unseemly during a crippling recession and the world’s most famous sports franchise is once again spitting at people with prudence and manners!
What a load of hooey.
Despite the indignation from sportswriters and other owners that the Yankees aren’t abiding by the MLB’s new and hardly unspoken tightwad rules—did they ever, going back to the 1950s when they used the Kansas City Athletics as a virtual farm team?— does anyone consider that if New York’s management has the wherewithal and desire to spend money on players, it’s their privilege to do so?
After all, the United States is not yet a socialist country.
Twinned in villainy with the Steinbrenners is the skeezy agent Scott Boras, a man whom, no matter what you think of him, negotiates very lucrative contracts for his clients. There was an extraordinarily dopey column by a blogger at onlineseats.com, which not only riffed off a horribly dated Frank Sinatra cliché—the headline read “It’s Scott Boras’s World, We’re Just Living In It”—that blasted Boras for once again making a buck or two. This person, apparently an Angels fan, wrote: “[I] do not consider you to be a professional baseball team until Mr. Boras… has reamed you in the off-season… [The Angels] were the prettiest girl at the ball last season, but have been used and abused like Britney Spears after just a single season with the best rotation in baseball.” ESPN’s Peter Gammons rebutted the whining about Boras with this zinger: “Boras doesn’t want to be the good guy, and doesn’t care who gets burned as long as his clients get the best deal; didn’t [legendary lawyer] Edward Bennett Williams do the best he could for Joe McCarthy and Sirhan Sirhan?”
And if I read or hear one more imagination-impoverished key-puncher moaning that the Yanks must’ve missed the message that Gordon Gekko’s motto of “Greed is Good” is now unspeakably gauche, I do think I’ll deposit my latest meal on a copy of The New York Times. (On the subject of the Times, the parent company is reportedly, according to The Wall Street Journal,conducting a deep-discount yard sale for some its assets, including its 17.5 percent stake in the Red Sox, as well as The Boston Globe, purchased for $1.1 billion in 1993 but now predicted to fetch as little as $20 million.)
Topping off the analogies was Murray Chass (murraychass.com), a former—thank the Lord for small favors—Times columnist who suggested, “The Yankees operate the way they operate because they can. While the rest of the economy is depressed and showing no signs of recovery, the Yankees are awash in cash. It’s as if they are the beneficiary of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.” Still-employed Times writer Harvey Araton, a sensible guy, also couldn’t resist piling on, writing on Dec. 24, “If there is a deep recession with budget austerity, it is news to the Yankees. While they spend like an OPEC nation when oil was trading at $140 a barrel, they continue to hit the city for sweetheart treatment, most recently for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given.”
Araton’s is a fair point, and I find public financing of ballparks really sketchy unless the venue is built in a blighted area where a raft of jobs could be created, but don’t blame the Yanks; New York City’s elected officials could’ve exercised restraint and shown the Steinbrenner family the door. The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Phil Sheridan, a lousy writer who may also go online after the Inky goes out of business, opened his own Christmas Eve column with this declaration: “The New York Yankees represent the very worst of America.”
Are the Yanks trying to buy a pennant and World Series? Of course, just as they have for years. When you’ve got the dough, you’re going to spend it. Did Barack Obama, drawing mild rebukes from liberal editorialists for mocking their sacred campaign finance “reform” by opting out of public financing for the general election, also seek a monetary advantage against Hillary Clinton and then John McCain? Yes, and it was smart for him to do it. Unlike the president-elect, however, the Yanks haven’t been quite as successful this decade: despite shelling out a fortune in salaries, the team hasn’t won a World Series since 2000 (almost a crime in the Bronx), and have seen the likes of the skinflint Marlins, pre-Arte Moreno Angels, the Cards and D-Backs take home the trophy in recent Octobers.
Mark Attanasio, owner of the Milwaukee Brewers (who lost out in the Sabathia lottery), wrote to Bloomberg News saying, “At the rate the Yankees are going, I’m not sure anyone can compete with them. Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap.” Hmm, I think Attanasio might be whistling a happier tune if his club was in the American League, where a weekend series with the Yanks brings also-ran franchises like the Orioles, A’s, Royals, and Blue Jays an enormous jump in attendance revenues. My next-door neighbor and I engaged in sports small-talk at a recent holiday party and he was livid about the Teixeira bagging, also calling for a salary cap. Now, I like this fellow a lot, but it was a little strange hearing him rant since his team, the Mets, just nabbed K-Rod from the Angels and opened the vault for Johan Santana last winter.
As a Bosox fan, the most important thing each summer aside from Boston winning is New York tanking, and it’s my hope that despite the influx of new talent, the aging Jeter, Posada, Damon and Rivera (the best closer in MLB history will, one of these years, falter) won’t be able to keep pace and once again the NYC media will dump on the Yanks. Such a summer occurrence is far better than even a bumper crop of silver queen corn and sweet & sour plums. Nevertheless, even though I was disappointed the Sox owners—obviously one of baseball’s wealthiest franchises, with the fourth largest payroll in ‘08—couldn’t complete a deal for Teixeira, I don’t fault the Yanks for attempting to field the best team possible.
It’s called competition.
From http://www.splicetoday.com/sports/save-your-yankees-disgust
2 recs |
85 comments
Comments
+1,000
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
by brenarlo on Dec 29, 2008 8:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We have to approve? Where's the fun in that?
;-)
"If I've got baggage, he's got a whole set of Louis Vuitton." ~ Milton Bradley on Barry Bonds
by UncleLeo on Dec 29, 2008 9:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Excellent find!
Got my rec. Those signings will probably work for them, too. But I’m really interested in seeing what happens three years out (and later) with those contracts. Those contracts may pan or it could be like an ACME explosive device exploding in the face of Wile E. Coyote.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 9:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"find"?
I don’t think that word means what you think it does.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cliff's Notes version:
“The rich try to acquire what the poor can’t, because they can do it – wouldn’t you?”
Nope, still disgusted.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 29, 2008 9:05 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Come on, Nico...
…there’s something for everyone here.
…Still-employed Times writer Harvey Araton, a sensible guy, also couldn’t resist piling on, writing on Dec. 24, "If there is a deep recession with budget austerity, it is news to the Yankees. While they spend like an OPEC nation when oil was trading at $140 a barrel, they continue to hit the city for sweetheart treatment, most recently for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given."
Araton’s is a fair point, and I find public financing of ballparks really sketchy unless the venue is built in a blighted area where a raft of jobs could be created, but don’t blame the Yanks; New York City’s elected officials could’ve exercised restraint and shown the Steinbrenner family the door…
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 9:17 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is where it really gets to annoy me
The drop hundreds of millions on three of their latest free agent signings, while at the same time go ask for handouts related to their stadium, AND fans are about to be paying the highest ticket prices ever just to see a game there.
Absolutely disgusting.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Dec 29, 2008 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some of those bad logic germs from yesterday must have gotten into the water
There’s a particular loathing for Paul O’Neill, YES yes-man Michael Kay, Mike Mussina and, it hardly bears repeating, the most odious athlete of this era, Alex Rodriguez, aka A-Fraud.
Insulting A-Rod in hyperbolic language without any backup? (The most odious athlete of the era? More odious than, for instance, Rae Carruth, who conspired to murder his wife?) We’re only in the first paragraph. This is going to get ugly.
Nevertheless, the recent commotion… has been the most knee-jerk, naïve and plain dumb hyperbole that’s occurred in the past year.
At least we’ve confirmed that, yes, in fact, the pot has no inhibitions whatsoever about calling the kettle black.
After all, the United States is not yet a socialist country.
Baseball is a socialist system, at least in the European, non-revolutionary sense of the term. “The United States” is irrelevant, both legally (because of the CBA and the antitrust exemption) and metaphorically.
Boras doesn’t want to be the good guy, and doesn’t care who gets burned as long as his clients get the best deal
The last time I checked, we referred to this sort of person as a sociopath. Laud him at peril to your own conscience.
On the subject of the Times, the parent company is reportedly, according to The Wall Street Journal,conducting a deep-discount yard sale for some its assets, including its 17.5 percent stake in the Red Sox, as well as The Boston Globe, purchased for $1.1 billion in 1993 but now predicted to fetch as little as $20 million.
An ad hominem attack? Well, maybe not, you’re not attacking a hominid. Perhaps an ad corporeum attack, then. I never was much good at Latin. Probably because I never studied it. I have, however, studied logic… and saying someone’s point is invalid because they’ve recently lost money is a classic fallacy. Hell, if we take that position seriously, we’d have to invalidate the entire presidential election (given that, oh, 95% of the voters have taken a hit lately), which would no doubt warm the cockles of this fellow’s heart.
don’t blame the Yanks; New York City’s elected officials could’ve exercised restraint and shown the Steinbrenner family the door.
Or they could not have asked for the ridiculous subsidy in the first place. Reverse the situation— the politician asks for a campaign contribution to buy his support— and it’s bribery the instant the words leave his mouth, regardless of how the Yankees respond. If I punch someone, and someone else could have tackled me before I did it, that doesn’t make me innocent of battery. The legal analogies go on and on.
drawing mild rebukes from liberal editorialists for mocking their sacred campaign finance "reform" by opting out of public financing for the general election
Gosh, that’s funny. Last time I checked, “voluntary compliance” was something conservatives pretended to believe was actually a good idea.
I think Attanasio might be whistling a happier tune if his club was in the American League, where a weekend series with the Yanks brings also-ran franchises like the Orioles, A’s, Royals, and Blue Jays an enormous jump in attendance revenues.
My back-of-the-envelope math has a single weekend series with the Yankees bringing in somewhere around $1 million in extra revenue (average ticket price of $25, 15,000 extra tickets sold) for the A’s. That is, in baseball terms, peanuts.
Nevertheless, even though I was disappointed the Sox owners—obviously one of baseball’s wealthiest franchises, with the fourth largest payroll in ‘08
But naturally, your opposition to a salary cap is purely principled, and completely unrelated to the fact that your own team benefits tremendously from the absence of one. Merest coincidence, wot?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 29, 2008 11:02 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
"Baseball is a socialist system"
So naturally one would not be able to find any trace of excesses, greed, leverage, and inequity there.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 12:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not going to work. Socialist systems, like every other system, are inhabited by humans.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 29, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's exactly why...
Not going to work. Socialist systems, like every other system, are inhabited by humans.
…that, given all the ‘systems’ out there to choose from, I’ll embrace the one that offers the most liberty.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You favor humanity returning to hunter-gatherer bands?
Huh. Wouldn’t have guessed that one.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 29, 2008 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that excactly what we don now?
Only on an international scale?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 30, 2008 6:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Complete with technology, specialization, and exchange, too.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2008 7:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Most everything is farm produced
I don’t eat much wild meat or wild grains and vegetables.
by Lovejoy on Dec 30, 2008 7:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The future is in specilization my friend....
I don’t think it’s a passing fad.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 30, 2008 8:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought we were donning our gay apparel.
And trolling ancient yuletide Carole, whoever she is.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 30, 2008 7:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nonsense!
Why should we don our gay apparel when clearly we’re Too Sexy for our shirts.
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 30, 2008 7:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
NoSaidLoCoJoe?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 30, 2008 8:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
when I was in high school, I played electric triangle for the Hunter-Gatherer Band
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so, how's the weather in Somalia this time of year?
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Revenue
Besides the tickets sold, remember that all those A-Rod and Jeter and Sabathia and Texiera, etc. jerseys earn us 1/30th the revenue due to revenue sharing of all merchandise (which also provides us NO incentive to sign a player due to how much revenue we think we can get from merchandising to offset the cost of the contract, but that is a different, yet related topic). (From Forbes: “And the Yankees account for 27% of all league merchandise sales, the profits of which get shared equally throughout the league to the tune of more than $3 million per franchise.”)
Good column here: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/joe_posnanski/12/26/yankees.spree/index.html?eref=sircrc
talking about how many MLB clubs have won Championships with no salary cap versus how many fewer football and basketball teams have won with a salary cap.
by ChuckBudd on Dec 29, 2008 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...
…
Anyone think about some other possible causes for there being more baseball teams to win the World Series recently? Like, for instance, oh, say, the fact that they’re not playing the same sport?
Basketball and football are much more predictable games than baseball. Talent is a higher proportion of the outcome of a given game, luck a lower proportion. A 7-game basketball series is rarely won by a significantly worse team (although sometimes, eg Warriors/Mavs ‘07, it’s won by a team that was only better in the context of a given matchup). By contrast, baseball and hockey series are routinely won by weaker teams that got the bounces or played over their heads for a few games.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 11:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and this is part of why I find the "but it doesn't buy titles" argument so beside the point (and annoying)
Because the nature of the playoff system ensures that you can’t buy titles. But you can sure as hell buy playoff appearances. Once you’re there you’re left to the intricacies of the game, which in 7 games can go anywhere, though talented teams do have an advantage. But that’s due to the mechanics of the game – that one or two teams can ensure that they’ll be in the playoffs essentially every year is due to the mechanics of the system. And that’s not right.
by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
It’s like allowing people to buy in to the final table at the WSOP. Sure, they still have to win the final table, but they’ve gotten around the hard part.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Pre Yankees
Didn’t people buy Sabathia and Teixeira Jerseys before they signed with the Yankees?
by Larry E on Dec 31, 2008 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Attanasio might be whistling a happier tune if his club was in the American League, where a weekend series with the Yanks brings also-ran franchises like the Orioles, A’s, Royals, and Blue Jays an enormous jump in attendance revenues.
My back-of-the-envelope math has a single weekend series with the Yankees bringing in somewhere around $1 million in extra revenue (average ticket price of $25, 15,000 extra tickets sold) for the A’s. That is, in baseball terms, peanuts.
Just want to clear this up, because there are truths (and inaccuracies) in what both of you are saying. While it is true that the ticket sales from a weekend series with a team is peanuts, the other sales is where the A’s make money hand over fist for having good drawing teams come in – parking, food, beer, merch, future ticket sales, etc. I used to work for the Dodgers in ticket sales, and we’d do promos all the time to get people in the ballpark – the ticket price was nearly irrelevant. What was more important was the per capita revenue generated.
by noava22 on Dec 30, 2008 2:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How is baseball a "socialist system" where teams keep most of the locally generated revenues?
The NFL seems a lot more “socialist” since most of the revenues are nationally derived.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
doing my best to turn this green
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the guy is putting up this exact fanpost at a variety of SBN sites
and he never comments. Its spam for his political writing which is equally bad.
by Lovejoy on Dec 29, 2008 11:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
haterade
he probably claims redsox to elicit truer anger
by jaylikewise on Dec 29, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
agree 100%
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've flagged it as spam
Kind of sad it ended up rec’d enough to go up top when the guy has no interest in participating.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
by Flashfire on Dec 30, 2008 12:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
the 49ers did the same thing
and it led to to a salary cap.
i agree that money is a big part of the pro baseball equation, and that succesful mangemement of it is essential to success. but baseball is not purely a business. sports are compelling because of competition… and competition requires equity. every franchise abides by strict opperational guidelines on feild and off in every area but one: capital.
that’s just they way it is. and i get it… the best business should be the best team… and every team is trying to be the best… free pie for everyone, come get a slice etc etc. that’s a great view from up top… i wonder if detroit lions fans (or mortgage brokers) would concur? my point is, genius draft choices or management strategy aside… what is the hope of a small market franchise to legitimately compete in a contest when they out-resourced in every way? isn’t that sort of advantage antithetical to the nature of sport?
i’m devil’s advocating a bit, a’s fans (and ray’s fans) should know the difference a savvy front office can make. the contention that “the yanks are ruining baseball” is not without its merit, but it is made under the premise that they aren’t going anywhere. in my book, the yankees are there FOR hating. they are a lightning rod for my baseball contempt. they embody evil and i cheer their losses every time. but they are permanent—inherent to baseball. , and they arent going anywhere, so i may as well hate on them and their fans and their laughable free agent offers.
and lets not forget… they failed to even buy themselves a ticket to the post season last year.
by jaylikewise on Dec 29, 2008 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What make a small-market franchise?
Is it the management/ownership? Sure they are the ones who decide which way the capital is allocated. But how do they generate the revenue to earn that capital?
Could it be that the spending of a small-market team’s fan base is somewhat responsible?
by LowcountryJoe on Dec 29, 2008 6:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To me a small market franchise is a franchise in a market substantially below league average
in total market income. So to me that’s:
Kansas City
Milwaukee
Pittsburgh
St Louis
Arguably:
Cincinnati (depending what you do with Indianapolis and Northern Kentucky)
Tampa Bay (depending on how far deep in Florida you think their market is)
That’s really about it. Everybody else is close to average or substantially above. Of these St Louis is easily the most successful at drawing fans from a large radius. Cincinnati used to be like that in the 1950’s and 1970’s. The others were always sort of struggling to be averagish in their best years and terrible in their worst.
A team like the Marlins in a mid-sized market that simply refuse to do what it takes to attract fans or a team like the A’s in a large market that considers fan demand “inelastic” and therefore doesn’t bother with fans much, to me is simply not doing its job business-wise. It’s not “small market”. It’s incompetence.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You can more or less define small markets
By ranking what kind of TV contract a team is able to sign. It’s a partially-shared source of revenue (as opposed to a 100% shared source of revenue such as merchandise, internet, etc.) so it’s a/the major source of the differences in payroll. The Yankees have their own massive TV network that reaches tens of millions of people who advertisers want to sell to. The A’s fanbase on the other hand is relatively small and not particularly affluent, so the team gets paid the equivalent of free nachos and discount BART passes. That’s why even if we/they were to theoretically get a new stadium in the East Bay, we shouldn’t expect to see our payroll THAT much. It’s still just not that great of an advertising market, which is the point after all.
by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well it's also their job to exploit their whole market, not just the East Bay. MLB defines their
market as including a huge area into Nevada and Oregon. I’m not sure whether it includes San Jose and San Francisco, but it should. Calling the A’s an East Bay team is like calling the Yankees a Bronx team. They don’t have to limit themselves that much.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure if this in jest or not
But nobody lives in Nevada or southern Oregon. Or eastern California. And those few who are there don’t give a rip about the A’s and never have (with good reason, as the team is 500+ miles away). None of the extremely small businesses there are doing any kind of advertising that makes any kind of difference. However the regions are defined by the offices in MLB, the A’s don’t even have a good chunk of California. In fact they don’t really have any of California except for the East Bay, and they don’t even have all of that since once you get over the hill it becomes Giants country real fast. The A’s could have the sickest marketing team in the world and they’d still be the 4th most popular California baseball team. If they move to San Jose and steal half that fan base from the Giants then they can battle them for #3. There’s just not much for the A’s to exploit. They can kill themselves marketing to “their region”, but there’s just not much there there.
by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 1:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
{jdr receives angry letter from Needles Chamber of Commerce}
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have been to Needles and liked it
Do I get a waiver?
This is an interesting map:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/03/160-the-united-countries-of-baseball/
by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 1:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I've been to Needles too.
I’d rather have water than waivers. And yes, I know the Colorado river is right next door. It’s still not enough water.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 30, 2008 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If it's really that hopeless they should move.
I don’t buy that it’s that hopeless. I also don’t buy that they have to take a back seat to the Giants.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
From a purely business sense they should move
They should move to San Jose and try to split Northern California with the Giants. Or MLB could go the NFL route and split all TV money. Or put in revenue sharing that really puts teams on even ground. But that’s not what MLB wants to do – MLB wants to maximize profits for owners, and this system works just fine for that. The Yankees generate a ton of money which is partially shared with everyone else. Everyone makes a bunch, the Yankees/Red Sox/Mets make more than a bunch, and everyone is mostly happy. Everyone once in a while a GM, who is NOT an owner, gets pissed about his relative inability to compete, since that affects his ability to keep his job. But everyone else is getting paid. There was a mini-revolt ~10 years ago when the money started getting really big which led to the revenue sharing we have now. Theoretically there could be another revolution in the future. Who knows.
In terms of hopelessness, if the A’s stay in Oakland, it’s generally hopeless. They will never be a big market. I would say with a great new ballpark in a good location they can pull themselves to the lower middle of the pack and stay there. Kind of like the Reds, hopefully without the stupidity. I could live with that. In terms of competing with the Giants, it’s mostly hopeless. I can see scenarios where the A’s rip off multiple world series appearances in a row and temporarily pull even in terms of popularity. As in the 1980s. But once they slip back the Giants built-in advantages will start to assert themselves again. A new ballpark would help a lot there. As would a move to San Jose. But if we had a new ballpark in San Jose we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
by jdr on Dec 30, 2008 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I see a new ballpark in San Jose.
It makes too much sense for all involved not to happen…..eventually.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"I see a new ballpark in San Jose."
Yes. I see it, too. At least I hope this comes to pass.
by mrod on Dec 30, 2008 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, 6 out of 30 teams are below average?
What is this, the Lake Wobegon league?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 30, 2008 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Substantially below average, and I personally wouldn't count Cincinnati and Tampa Bay
but you arguably could. Just like there are about 6-7 markets that are substantially above average. Most markets are averagish.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is it true that, as things stand, the Yankers' total payroll will fall in 2009?
If so, then all this hoopla over the gee whiz total for the three amigos is just very olde news. .
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 29, 2008 5:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it will
A lot depends on how you define payroll. If it includes Sabathia’s signing bonus, buyouts, Igawa’s salary et cetera, it may not. Even if it didn’t I don’t think it would make it “old news.”
by Lovejoy on Dec 29, 2008 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not olde news? Why not?
All this hand-wringing over the Yankees just doing what they’ve always done? People have treated it like it’s something new, or more extreme than has been their wont. If it’s neither, then it was important when they first started doing it, but this is something like the umpteenth iteration — and especially understandable in light of their having missed the playoffs in 2008, and opening their new park in 2009.
Sounds like the same olde Yankees to me.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 29, 2008 8:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you defined the division of old news and new news as last year's payroll
I don’t think their payroll will be less. Again, it defends on definition. By most people’s understanding it may already be larger.
Declaring that something negative has occurred, repeatedly, but again that’s by your definition, doesn’t mean everyone should be fatalistic.
Its supposed to be a league. Letting it become a watered down version of the Harlem Globetrotters makes it much less interesting and fun, at least to me.
Let me ask you this: what are your expectations for playoff success for the Athletics? Next year or in five or in ten, how many times do you think the A’s will not just make the playoffs but win a series or two? How about chances for a World Series in the next ten years?
by Lovejoy on Dec 30, 2008 7:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yanks' payroll has been within 10% of 200 million for the last five years, since 2004.
If they stand pat now, it will be less in 2009 than last year. To wit:
What the Yankees have done is redistribute the salaries they have lopped off their 2008 roster. Despite the spending spree that brought them Teixeira, Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, the latter of which is in the running for the worst expenditure of the offseason, and left-handed reliever Damaso Marte; and trades that brought them first baseman/outfielder Nick Swisher and built-in raises for Jeter and Robinson Cano, the Yankees’ offseason efforts have added $79.05 million in payroll.
Meanwhile, the removal of Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Wilson Betemit, Morgan Ensberg, Kyle Farnsworth, LaTroy Hawkins, Mike Mussina, Carl Pavano and Andy Pettitte from their Opening Day roster a season ago has slashed $90.22 million of payroll.
And having invested that $Billion in title-seeking, how many have they won? As many as the Washington Generals — Globetrotters, indeed. I believe you are indulging in the consistently -disproved fallacy that money necessarily buys titles. Baseball is a better game than that.
Apropos of nothing I wrote but in response to your inquiry, I expect the A’s to compete for the West this year, and win it thereafter for several years. I expect the A’s will be competitive — meaning: “meaningful games in September” off into the indefinite future, and that they/we might even smite the mighty/shoot the craps out of the tournament sometime in the next decade — regardless of what the Yankers do.
Such are the natures of baseball and fandom.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 30, 2008 7:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yet again I say that i was responding to you and your definition
I can’t believe you went and dug up that quote as its been reproduced innumerable times. And its non-responsive. Things that aren’t discussed and may not be included in the final payroll number are Sabbathia’s signing bonus, Giambi’s and Pavano’s buyouts, arbitration increases, scheduled raises like ARods, Kei Igawa’s salary or signing of high priced draftees that are another flaw in the system that favors the wealthy. They also are likely not done signing free agents.
I also didn’t say that they were the Harlem Globetrotters and have never stated that a championship can be bought. Congratulations on the mighty victory against the skyscraper sized straw man fallacy that anyone anywhere has claimed that “money necessarily buys titles.”
Its nice that you think that the A’s might “shoot the craps out of the tournament” whatever the hell that metaphor is, but at least you realize that the chances are quite low. The truth is that it may not be far from the chances the Washington Generals have of a win. Meanwhile Sox and Yanks fans are wondering “how many.”
by Lovejoy on Dec 30, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Look, killjoy:
1 — you don’t know whether those numbers are in the total or not — why wouldn’t they be? In any event, saying they “may” not be there is not saying very much, especially since it “may” also be true that prior buyouts would be consistently treated by the payroll numbers. The fact remains that the NY payroll is not out of line with their prior history. I still call that olde news.
2 — that quote is less than a week old. “innumerable times?” GFY and your arrogance.
3 — I think it’s interesting when the Yanks come to town — and fascinating that their money doesn’t buy titles. YMMV, but again, they’ve been “The Yankees” since the days of Babe, DiMaggio, the 50s and early 60s and most of the Steinbrenner era. Cue Office Barbrady.
4 - [pls ignore any strike-through] I think that what fans hope for is meaningful games in September. The A’s have amply rewarded my fandom - and I expect they will continue to do so, regardless of the Yanks because the A’s have found a different success model. The metaphor was the one “repeated innumerable times” comparing the tournament to a crapshoot, which I think is apt. I see no reason why mine is an unreasonable prediction, but opinions are like assholes — everybody has one, or in your case, and taking the holistic view, maybe two. We’ll have to wait and see whether you calm down after you’ve been here a while.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 30, 2008 10:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Yankee
You want to look up what expenditures are included in yearly payroll, knock yourself out. I don’t think the buyouts, the bonuses, the draft signings and Igawas pay are. They wouldn’t be included because there is a definition for how the number is calculated. For the third time, I’m only responding to what you said. Now that what you said might be wrong you want to change things. I sure don’t care. You clearly don’t either.
As for the numbers coming off the Yankee payroll its been repeated a godawful number of times… and its still non-responsive. Pointing out something godawful obvious isn’t arrogant, its helpful.
Obviously spending money enables the Yankees to win titles. Do you want to compare their results to the A’s?
I don’t think many people really believe that the playoffs are a crapshoot. You may. And I don’t disagree with your prediction. You don’t think the A’s have much chance of winning a World Series in the next decade. Hoping for a “crapshoot” speaks volumes. And as I said, the Yankees have a good chance to win several. Something tells me you’ll be watching and enjoying it if they do.
by Lovejoy on Dec 30, 2008 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously spending money enables the Yankees to win titles. Do you want to compare their results to the A’s?
Not always true, and certainly not in the past 8 years. For the sake of context, the below merits mentioning, despite the fact that it may be somewhat redundant.
Opening day payrolls:
OAK
2001 – $33,810,750.00
2002 – $39,679,746.00
2003 – $50,260,834.00
2004 – $59,825,167.00
2005 – $55,869,262.00
2006 – $62,243,079.00
2007 – $79,366,940.00
2008 – $47,967,126.00
Total 2001-08 Outlay: $429,022,904.00
WS Titles: 0
NYY
2001 – $109,791,893.00
2002 – $125,928,583.00
2003 – $152,749,814.00
2004 – $182,835,513.00
2005 – $205,938,439.00
2006 – $194,663,079.00
2007 – $189,639,045.00
2008 – $209,081,577.00
Total 2001-08 Outlay: $1,370,627,943.00
WS Titles: 0
In outspending the A’s by more than 3:1 for an 8 year perio , the Yankees won precisely as many championships as the Washington Generals during such period.
by CletusSJY on Dec 30, 2008 3:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is this guy my karmic punishment for dogging FSU?
If so, I apologize — and I’ve got a brand new New Year’s Resolution about Unca Lew, that dastardly, double-dealing capitalist.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 31, 2008 8:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Karmic justice will not be denied.
Where is FSU these days? Haven’t seen him around in a while.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 31, 2008 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
May we hope he's attending his muse?
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 31, 2008 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of Karmic justice...
I ended up with two more dogs for a grand total of three. At least one of them is a real dog. A full Lab. The other is a Cocker Spaniel, who also appears to be a pure breed.
Problem is, the little pug/terrier mix has taught the lab how to dig. And by “dig”, I mean full scale excavation…..along the lines of an earth mover. I’m about ready to put a hot wire on the back fence, but my kid is whining about a “humane” approach. Obviously, she’s not the one filling in the grand canyon in my backyard on a daily basis.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 31, 2008 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Forgot the point of the comment....
any idea of another way to stop a dog from digging?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 31, 2008 8:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bury him?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 31, 2008 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Won't work.
The freaking mix is more of a mole than a dog. He’ll just pop up in the front yard and tear it up too.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 31, 2008 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Bury Lovejoy?
Labs are ungodly strong and enthusiastic, in my limited experience. Bad combination in this case. They also have an extended adolescence, and then become model citizens. BCs don’t tend to dig — I’ve had a lot more experience with jumpers — but —
There are lots of advice columns on the web. They start with prevention: understand why s/he digs — if it’s boredom, then daily tiring the dog may be helpful (but also often impossible in the case of young labs). Rawhides and kongs with treats inside may also provide some alternative stimulation.
Then there’s deterrence. Wikihow has a suggestion involving cayenne pepper sprinkled liberally on the surface to discomfit paws and nose. Or if he hates his own poop, try fertilizing the hole. They also suggest buried chicken wire, but I get this mental image of the lab triumphantly parading the yard with the wire in its mouth — so you’d want to firmly anchor it, covering a large area.
I also don’t have a fundamental objection to annoyance-level shock — IFF it’s done humanely (which sounds like an oxymoron). It can be a quick and clear if it’s done right, but it can be very difficult to modulate the dose and give the dog the “right” message — I once aversion-trained my sheplab against the many snakes of Texas under kennel club supervision — two pops and he was cured for life. But I think I’d try the pepper or other odor even labs find disgusting (good luck finding that) first.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 31, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As luck would have it....
the lab is 3 to 5 years old. I wouldn’t have gotten it, except my wife and son went with my daughter to get the spaniel. They were preparing to put him down (or so said the attendant) and my wife freaked out. She loves the dog, and so does my six year old son. It’s actually a great dog, enthusiastic enough to suit my son and yet well behaved. I’ve taught it to heel, sit, and behave on walks. It will fight with the Spaniel on occasion. Nothing serious and easy to break apart. Oddly enough, the spaniel usually starts the fights. It’s an exceedingly clever dog and does it to get the lab “corrected”. It only starts fights when I’m around to jump on the lab.
I guess I’ll put up the hot fence. Better to overshock the two than for them to get hit by a car. I’ve heard of the chicken wire remedy, but I have to agree with you. The lab will make a trophy out of it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Dec 31, 2008 9:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd try the pepper first, as above.
The other possibility with electricity if you’re good at that stuff (it’s magic to me) is to rig a sound-first thing, where he soon figures out that if he ignores the sound, he gets zapped. There are electric collar/trainers that can be programmed to buzz first, and I think those underground border fences have something similar in their collar attachments.
Anyway, thanks for sticking with him!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 31, 2008 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
man, Texas is a weird state
They have a kennel club supervising snake breeds?
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jan 1, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Snakes they like.
Monkeys they shoot into orbit.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
by alox on Jan 1, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing more annoying than the Yankees excess spending
is a Red Sox fan complaining about the Yankees excess spending.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 29, 2008 5:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What about us complaining about everything?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 29, 2008 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My prediction is
The A’s will win The Super Bowl!!!!!!!!!!!
:p
by mrod on Dec 30, 2008 8:22 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
id say they have about as good a chance as the other team in oakland
well at least as long as Al is still in charge
"My group runs some frogloks down the hall to finish them off and POP! RASTER! If there was a way to scream louder than caps in EQ I was doing it. Man I am straight panicking because I know I have NO CHANCE soloing and the party has run off. I'm in my hotel room; it's like 5am, and I am straight hollering, in EQ and in real life. Bottom line is the group comes back, heals me, and kills Raster! WOOT!" -Curt Schilling on his favorite memories in the video game "EverQuest"
by travdog6 on Dec 30, 2008 6:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"the most odious athlete of this era, Alex Rodriguez"
I think this point got lost in PT’s excellent fisking: the above quote proves that the author is a grade-A moron.
Plus, the whole thing is
-
ing spam.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wanna delete it?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that's my inclination, but it's not an overwhelming urge
1. Several people have (astonishingly, to me) recommended it
2. Want to see the other mods weigh in
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh, and
3. There’s some entertaining threads that have broken out. Always fun to watch PT and LCJ goin’ at it.
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 12:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is there a way to tell who's recommended it?
If it’s the family of the poster that wouldn’t really count.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It has 3 recommendations and 2 flags
The post itself may be spam, but it has enough content within it that I would not want to erase its existence.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Dec 30, 2008 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
cool
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 2:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
plus, there's also this whole discussion that needs to be saved for posterity
I'll send you a postcard from Space Mountain. @('.')@
by monkeyball on Dec 30, 2008 3:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Only way I know to check recommenders is to look at Profiles, where actions are chronicled.
Often, recommenders comment favorably. It’s a boring manual, and ultimately slapdash process, however.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Dec 31, 2008 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















