My heart bleeds for the poor Yankees fans. Try being an Expos fan! :mad:
If you say so. [I have no idea what this means.] I came off more harshly than I meant to in that post, but my point is this: it’s very satisfying to watch a team develop its own players, but this thing about ‘oh, it’s so much less satisfying to always win!’ does not reflect reality. Losing sucks. No matter who you bring in through free agency, winning is never a sure thing. And waiting for a team to develop its own players and fail, of course, isn’t satisfying at all. That also sucks. And yeah, Pittsburgh fans might think you are crazy here. They haven’t had a winning team since George H. W. Bush was in office. Cleveland hasn’t won a championship in 60 years. Do you think they’d rather win or have the kind of implied moral victory that comes from using homegrown players?
I started a thread a while back about how much more fun it is to watch International cricket since a few key Australian players retired and we stopped just winning all the time.
Well, it’s not like there’s any other baseball team in New York that would give you what you’re looking for.
Oh, wait. . . .
Oops, sorry. I’m a Cubs fan, and I must have accidentally wandered into the wrong thread.
I have no idea what you people are talking about. Do carry on, though…
I’ve been a Yankee fan since 1976, when I was 6 years old. I’ve been a loyal fan since. The only 2 fist fights I’ve ever had in my life were the result of defending my Yankees. However, I started having similar feelings as you in the early 2000’s. It wasn’t that I disliked the Yankees. But deep playoff runs every year created a very ho hum attitude. But everything changed back in October of 2004. I felt somewhat responsible for the monumental collapse by not being faithful enough.
I realize this has been picked on already, but damn. The Astros’ best stretch ever, from '97 to ‘05, was less successful than the Yankees’ stretch of “sucking”. :eek:
If you really feel that way, make it known that you support rule changes that would really level the playing field. As it stands now, if the Yankees want a player, they get him, no ifs ands or buts. If the Indians, Pirates or Royals etc. want a player, they’d better develop him themselves, and even then they can only hold on to him until the Yankees want him.
Yeah, no kidding. The Brewers’ best stretch ever (from '78 to '87 or so) was no more successful than that, possibly less so.
I’m sorry, but Yankee fans get no sympathy, whatsover, from this camp. That stretch in the 1980s, when Steinbrenner kept throwing money at bad free agents, generated all sorts of schadenfreude in my heart.
Or if they gamble on giving their free agents a big contract, they better hope it works out, because they can’t afford to eat it and move on like the Yankees or Red Sox.
We had a thread where someone advocated for a free agent pool that revenue sharing would go into (instead of directly into cheap owners’ pockets) that the small market teams could tap to pay half of a homegrown player’s big contract. I thought that was a decent idea.
As it stands now, unless you root for one of like six or eight big market teams, you don’t necessarily have a reason to pay much attention to baseball every season. Chances are your team will be in some stage of rebuilding.
Major League Baseball would be better for fans of all teams if TV revenue were divided fairly, rather than going to the teams which happen to be in the largest TV markets. The profits of products’ sale should go to those who made them. In this case, the product is the televised depiction of the season games. The value of that product comes from the participation of both teams, plus the competitive context of the whole league. So the profits of any particular depicted game should go equally to both teams that played it, plus some share divided among the rest of the league.
MLB didn’t make the Yankees’ TV network. For that matter MLB didn’t make New York a wealthier part of the country where fans might be better able to afford expensive tickets (and assorted crap). There does need to be more revenue sharing and a salary floor but I’m not sure I buy into your argument that the MLB made the product here.
While I don’t think the system is perfect, these types of statements are silly and completely wrong. Small market teams can and do compete, often on a consistent level. The current division leaders in the NL are San Diego, St. Louis, and Atlanta. Which do you want to consider a big market?
First of all, what I said had nothing to do with tickets of any kind. I’m talking strictly about TV broadcasts.
Second, the Yankees were only able to make “their” TV arrangements because they played in MLB, and further because MLB’s revenue rules were largely drawn up during the days before significant TV revenue.
If the Yankees think they can do just as well outside the league, I invite them to try. In fact, I join Bill James in suggesting that small-market teams should start refusing to play the Yankees.
Atlanta is an outlier. I don’t expect them to hold off Philly this season, and they would have been a middling team after their 90s run if the Mets hadn’t been consistent underachievers.
St. Louis is a fine franchise, but they went 17 years between pennants before 2004.
San Diego is consistently competitive?
Granted. Now, what percentage of the costs of the YES network are covered by Major League Baseball? What’s MLB’s stake in the network and how much money did they lay out to help set it up? If the answer is “a big fat zero,” then the MLB didn’t make the network. And I’m pretty sure the answer is “a big fat zero.” The Red Sox also have a network and any other team could do what the Yankees have done with that network if they had the money and the fanbase to sustain it. It does relate to the economies of New York and the Northeast.
This is silly because they’re not going “outside the league.” For better and for worse, networks like this (see also the MLB and NFL networks) are probably the way of the future. The Yankees derive their value from being a major league team but that does not mean the MLB should own all revenue made by any team.
Those channels could not have been made without MLB. Without MLB, or more precisely without the cooperation of each of the other individual team organizations, they have nothing to sell.
Saying that the Yankees should keep the profits because they own the network is like saying the dealership should keep all the profits from selling the cars.
And you are saying that all dealerships should make the same amount money regardless of their ability to sell cars. Not that the yankees keep all their profits anyway.
How bout this? I buy a team and pay the least amount allowed on players. Spend nothing on scouting, development, advertising, stadium repair, or any other frivilous expense. Then I can have my equal share of the pie right?
By extension, that means you’re arguing the automaker should get all the profits from the dealership. Which doesn’t make much sense at all. The dealer doesn’t make the cars but he does the work of selling them. And it doesn’t work economically. The Yankees derive value from MLB but clearly the Yankees contribute some portion of the value of YES. If they didn’t contribute some of the value, then maybe you think just as many people around here would subscribe to a Kansas City Royals network instead. I’d be fine with TV network revenue being included in revenue sharing. The notion that MLB owns all the money from the TV broadcasts doesn’t fly, though. And I don’t think the owners would want it that way even if it were an option: that would give them no incentive to set up their own profitable TV networks, which I’m sure some of them are thinking about doing.
I am saying no such thing. A Yankees game broadcast is obviously more valuable than many other MLB broadcasts. If the Yankees were to get, say, 45% of the profits for each of their broadcasts (with 45% going to the opponent, and 10% divided among all other teams), they would likely still be making more money than any other team just from TV alone, not to mention their advantages elsewhere.