A-Rod still a Yankee; signs for $275M over 10 years

[Zito75]

Just saw that A-Rod signed a new 10 year deal to stay with the Yanks. Let's hope getting the extra dough he wanted is enough to shut him up. :) The deal has incentives in it which will earn him millions more if retires from the Yanks as the all-time HR King. Let the fun begin!

[MyDogSparty]

One of the smart things about this deal is the 10 year length. It gives NYY the possibility that they will, just like they did with Babe Ruth, have the all-time HR King in pinstripes again. That's just outstanding foresight and marketing.

[Williamsburg2599]

Apparently the Baseball News volcano just erupted. ESPN must be drooling. Now, I saw a lot of Yankee fans trash A-rod for going after the money and calling him things like a "disingenuous jerk." What will the Yankee fans who trashed for leaving do now?

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Thank God, now we won't have to have the A-Rod rumours saturate the rumor mill for the rest of the offseason.

[Mattingly]

I don't even think that the pen has been picked up yet, much less the ink being dry. I believe it was done in principle, as in agreeing to sign the deal.

I still think that Mike Lowell would've been better at 3B.

[Zito75]

I still think that Mike Lowell would've been better at 3B.

I agree with you- I guess the talk is now that Lowell might be brought to play 1B. Guess we'll see how that pans out.

[Mattingly]

Apparently the Baseball News volcano just erupted. ESPN must be drooling. Now, I saw a lot of Yankee fans trash A-rod for going after the money and calling him things like a "disingenuous jerk." What will the Yankee fans who trashed for leaving do now?
For myself, I'll just deal with the fact that he did this w/o Bora$ looking over anyone's shoulder and talking nonstop. A-Rod essentially what Bernie did after the 1998 season: he came back to the club and said he'd wanted to remain a Yankee.

If the Yanks paid him $35m/yr, I would've screamed bloody murder (or something to that effect).

$275m is still beyond exorbitant, insane, absurd or whatever other crazy words I can think of. However, I do hope that there's no "opt out" clause in there.

I would've preferred an 8-year deal, since who expects a player to produce when they're 32? Alex was 25 when he'd gotten his last 10-year deal. If this goes through, I do hope that he at least plays the whole 10 years.

I don't think much about that #13 either, worn to honor ex-Miami Dolphins QB Dan Marino, since Alex grew up in Miami.

[Mattingly]

I agree with you- I guess the talk is now that Lowell might be brought to play 1B. Guess we'll see how that pans out.
This bit of taking players out of position bugs me. They wanted Nomah at 2B (since he's not much of a SS, I wouldn't have minded that), then Tejada at 3B. Now Lowell at 1B. Why don't they just ask him to pitch and catch also?

Boston, which hasn't offered many long-term deals for players over 30 (look at Pedro as an example), and who let Trot Nixon walk, has been firm on 3 years; Lowell wants 4 years. The Yanks could easily offer Lowell 4 years, especially at $14-15m/yr. If Rodriguez is signed, Lowell may be off to a new team.

Please see this thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=67233) in the BoSox forum re Lowell.

To me, the superior fielder plays 3B, so if that happens to be Lowell (haven't checked out his fielding much), then that's who you play. Why put the better fielder at a less lateral moving position?

My ideal:

Put Jeter at 2B, A-Rod at SS, Lowell at 3B, Cano at 1B.

Now I'll exit and go off to the funny farm, where I can be the laughingstock of even them. :D

[Neilios]

Why don't they go after Nomar for 1B, putting the former "big 3" shortstops of the late 90's-early 2000's on the same team (gee, I wonder who could have possibly predicted what team it could have been).

[Westlake]

Because Nomar had a terrible year last year (well, more like terrible 1st half, but whatever).

Anyway, I dont think A-Rod has signed yet.

[Neilios]

it was more fasicious than anything. if the yanks were gonna go after a former Bosox, it would be someone currently a Bosox. that's their style.

[rockin500]

I don't even think that the pen has been picked up yet, much less the ink being dry. I believe it was done in principle, as in agreeing to sign the deal.

I still think that Mike Lowell would've been better at 3B.
ouch. Lowell is a product of fenway park. outside of there he is merely average. is 14 or 15 mil per for four years someone you want to give that money to? Since money is no object to the yankees, may as well get the best option. and that clearly is A-Rod

[rockin500]

Because Nomar had a terrible year last year (well, more like terrible 1st half, but whatever).

Anyway, I dont think A-Rod has signed yet.
of course not, because he hasnt taken the physical and all the other fun stuff that needs to be taken care of. but once a deal is done in principle, its all over but the shouting.

[Westlake]

of course not, because he hasnt taken the physical and all the other fun stuff that needs to be taken care of. but once a deal is done in principle, its all over but the shouting.

Deal isn't really done in principle either, I dont think, or they would have said that. They keep using the word "outline", which i've never heard before in this type of thing. I'm sure a deal will be struck eventually, but the headline "signs for 270 mil" isn't true at all.

[brett]

Sucks.

A-Rod was meant to be a shortstop.

The Yankees will never get their money's worth playing him at third.

By the way, when A-Rod originally signed with Texas, didn't he have a guarantee that his salary would rise to match the highest in baseball if the $25 million got passed? At the time I though it would get passed during the duration of the contract.

By the way, I still have doubts about the deal. I'll have to see it confirmed tomorrow.

[mtortolero]

Adding another right-hand batter in that lineup it doesn´t sound the correct move regarding put Lowell in 1B.

[NightHawks2007]

He hasn't actually signed yet, its as close to being official as it can be though. Makes me hate the Yankees even more that they are offering an incentive for the all-time home run record. Just the Evil Empire thinking they are God's gift to baseball as usual.

This also makes the Scott Boras announcement during game four of the World Series even more distracting and wrong.

[philkid3]

Just saw that A-Rod signed a new 10 year deal to stay with the Yanks. Let's hope getting the extra dough he wanted is enough to shut him up. :) The deal has incentives in it which will earn him millions more if retires from the Yanks as the all-time HR King. Let the fun begin!

Shut him up? A-Rod is suddenly known as a talker?

[placount]

id like to see the possible escalators and what the max he could be getting is going to be

[philkid3]

My ideal:

Put Jeter at 2B, A-Rod at SS, Lowell at 3B, Cano at 1B.

Now I'll exit and go off to the funny farm, where I can be the laughingstock of even them. :D

Why not Jeter at first? He's the worst fielder in the bunch, and Cano is becoming a pretty good second.

[Zito75]

Deal isn't really done in principle either, I dont think, or they would have said that. They keep using the word "outline", which i've never heard before in this type of thing. I'm sure a deal will be struck eventually, but the headline "signs for 270 mil" isn't true at all.

Sorry... When I read the story on the AP wire it said the deal was signed. I can change the headline if you want. It's not going to matter anyway, no other team can afford him.

[Westlake]

Sorry... When I read the story on the AP wire it said the deal was signed. I can change the headline if you want. It's not going to matter anyway, no other team can afford him.

No, its no problem at all. Eventually, he'll be signed. :)

[Brian McKenna]

Games top position player in 2007:

$6,075,000,000 (MLB Revenue) / $22,708,525 (Salary) = .3738%

[MudvilleMike]

$275m is still beyond exorbitant, insane, absurd or whatever other crazy words I can think of. However, I do hope that there's no "opt out" clause in there.


As a Red Sox fan, I'm just happy that he won't be wearing a Boston uniform. That said, the salary seems completely reasonable to me, if not a bit low, given this crazy market.

[Zito75]

Shut him up? A-Rod is suddenly known as a talker?

Big time. Game 4 of the WS he decides to announce that he's breaking his deal. Then he tells Boras to "shut up." He's done plenty of talking bud.

[Chi]

ouch. Lowell is a product of fenway park. outside of there he is merely average. is 14 or 15 mil per for four years someone you want to give that money to? Since money is no object to the yankees, may as well get the best option. and that clearly is A-Rod

Offensively, A-Rod's better without a question. The reverse is true defensively. It depends on what the Yankees want to tighten up.

Of course they could always try both. DH A-Rod (watch his offensive numbers climb) and start Lowell at third.

[Old Sweater]

Big time. Game 4 of the WS he decides to announce that he's breaking his deal. Then he tells Boras to "shut up." He's done plenty of talking bud.

Or behind a infielder thats under an infield pop up....lol

Good ol headline grabbers nowadays. Poor Jake Peavy gets 3rd headlines today.

[philkid3]

Big time. Game 4 of the WS he decides to announce that he's breaking his deal. Then he tells Boras to "shut up." He's done plenty of talking bud.

No, his agent made the fact that he was opting out available to the media and they announced it.

As far as the Boras thing. . . huh?


I haven't heard much from Rodriguez through most of this, so I'm not so sure he needs to "shut up."

[bigtime39]

If ever a player and a team deserved each other, it's Miss Pay-Rod and the Yankee$.
For Miss Pay-Rod, it's all about the Benjamins. For the Yankee$, all they need to do is look under the seat cushions in the YES reception area to find the necessary Benjamins.
Once again, the endle$$ river of ca$h that run$ through the Bronx has belched up another atrocity. Can't wait until baseball actually notices the Yankee$ revenue sharing payments are going down with the deductibility of the NYS payments.
At least Tom Hicks is happy.

[rockin500]

At least Tom Hicks is happy.

sure, he saved like 12 million (he had to pay 9 million if Arod opted out).

[Zito75]

No, his agent made the fact that he was opting out available to the media and they announced it.

As far as the Boras thing. . . huh?


I haven't heard much from Rodriguez through most of this, so I'm not so sure he needs to "shut up."

Whatever dude, you're right.

[Stray Cat]

Nobody is worth that kind of money, sorry I'm old school baseball. :eek:

[digglahhh]

Nobody is worth that kind of money, sorry I'm old school baseball. :eek:

I bet they play a kid's game, right?...

They don't "earn" their $20M paychecks, like Kenneth Lay did, and Lindsay Lohan does.

Cans of Bud at the stadium aren't "worth" 5.50 either.

You saw bkmckenna's post. The best player in a with about 700 players isn't worth .3% of the game's revenue?

"Old school" is, in this case, a euphemism for myopic and out of touch.

[Stray Cat]

Cans of Bud at the stadium aren't "worth" 5.50 either.

"Old school" is, in this case, a euphemism for myopic and out of touch.

Bud isn't worth a buck a bottle to me.
I guess I live in a different world.

[plask_stirlac]

Games top position player in 2007:

$6,075,000,000 (MLB Revenue) / $22,708,525 (Salary) = .3738%

22,708,525 / 6,075000,000 = 0.00373802881

[Brian McKenna]

22,708,525 / 6,075000,000 = 0.00373802881

Yes, and .003738 = .3738%

[stejay]

Thats the best news Ive heard for a long time

[cardsfanatic]

If ever a player and a team deserved each other, it's Miss Pay-Rod and the Yankee$.
For Miss Pay-Rod, it's all about the Benjamins. For the Yankee$, all they need to do is look under the seat cushions in the YES reception area to find the necessary Benjamins.
Once again, the endle$$ river of ca$h that run$ through the Bronx has belched up another atrocity. Can't wait until baseball actually notices the Yankee$ revenue sharing payments are going down with the deductibility of the NYS payments.
At least Tom Hicks is happy.

Yes, because no other teams spend crazy amounts of money and win World Series as a result of it. The Angels and Redsox do it with style and home cooking, yo!

[Westlake]

Yes, because no other teams spend crazy amounts of money and win World Series as a result of it. The Angels and Redsox do it with style and home cooking, yo!

Dont worry, he cries about the Red Sox too.

[digglahhh]

Bud isn't worth a buck a bottle to me.
I guess I live in a different world.

...that's the sentence you decide to take issue with?

I guess you do live in a different world.

Explain to me, in tangible economic terms, why no player is worth X million dollars.

"No player is worth that much money, sorry I'm old school baseball."

Does the word "platitude" exist in your world?

Old School baseball? Like the reserve clause? like the color line?

What does that even mean? - NOTHING!

[Erik Bedard]

Yes, because no other teams spend crazy amounts of money and win World Series as a result of it. The Angels and Redsox do it with style and home cooking, yo!

The Angels did in 2002. And the Red Sox sort of did in 2004. Not 2007, though.

[cardsfanatic]

The Angels did in 2002. And the Red Sox sort of did in 2004. Not 2007, though.

Actually, just looked at the Angels and I need to offer up a retraction. While they don't shy away from spending money now, when they won that World Series they had a bottom half payroll and mostly products from their farm. However, don't even try to sell me the Redsox in 04 or 07. In 04 they had what, one player on their entire team that made any kind of a significant contribution to the win that actually came up with their farm?

Lest we forget the Redsox payroll in 2004 was 137 million, good enough for 2nd highest in the league and 143 million this year, also good for 2nd in the league. An even better way to look at things is that in 04, their payroll jumped from 98 million to 137. In 07, it jumped from 120 to 143. So, I'd say they spent their wad those years and won titles. And hey, don't take this as hating on the Redsox. They did what they had to do to win a World Series and congrats to them. However, I get sick and tired of hearing all of the "whaaaaaaaaaa, Yankees spend money" BS, when the Redsox are worse offenders in my opinion. Just recently have they started to produce from the farm system. For _years_ they purchased their entire teams. Pretty much wrote a check for everyone and had payrolls right on the tail of the Yankees and WAY above every other team in baseball. Yet, because they weren't successful (until recently) they got a pass. Same with the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers. All of those teams spend crazy amounts of money.

One would think the Yankees are the ONLY team spending money.

[Stray Cat]

...that's the sentence you decide to take issue with?

I guess you do live in a different world.

Explain to me, in tangible economic terms, why no player is worth X million dollars.

"No player is worth that much money, sorry I'm old school baseball."

Does the word "platitude" exist in your world?

Old School baseball? Like the reserve clause? like the color line?

What does that even mean? - NOTHING!

Well I wasn't going to respond to your rant but I guess I have to.
I'm not racist.
I'm not an accountant.
I'm a baseball fan.
I'm not a lawyer.
If they didn't get paid so much maybe there wouldn't be so much
pressure to win and use steroids.
I'm old school, sorry if you don't like that.
I don't like A-Rod.
I hate the Yankees.
It's my opinion and I can live with it.

[jeffh83]

ha ha - check out this poll someone made about A-rod "is A-Rod a loser for crawling back to the Yankees"?
http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/3840/is-a-rod-a-loser-for-crawling-back-to-the-yankees

[Mattingly]

ha ha - check out this poll someone made about A-rod "is A-Rod a loser for crawling back to the Yankees"?
http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/3840/is-a-rod-a-loser-for-crawling-back-to-the-yankees
I'm merging this here.

[philkid3]

Well I wasn't going to respond to your rant but I guess I have to.
I'm not racist.
I'm not an accountant.
I'm a baseball fan.
I'm not a lawyer.
If they didn't get paid so much maybe there wouldn't be so much
pressure to win and use steroids.
I'm old school, sorry if you don't like that.
I don't like A-Rod.
I hate the Yankees.
It's my opinion and I can live with it.

Was this supposed to be a poem?

You still didn't answer his questions. And how much, exactly, do you think they should be allowed to pay him? You think there shouldn't be pressure to win, and that lower pay would decrease the desire to gain a competitive advantage?

[Zito75]

Was this supposed to be a poem?

You still didn't answer his questions. And how much, exactly, do you think they should be allowed to pay him? You think there shouldn't be pressure to win, and that lower pay would decrease the desire to gain a competitive advantage?

Please... Lighten up man... Other people are entitled to their own opinions here.

[Westlake]

Please... Lighten up man... Other people are entitled to their own opinions here.

I dont really see what was wrong with his post (except for maybe the poem comment). Stray Cat doesnt think baseball players should be paid a lot, and we're trying to figure out his solution.

[Stray Cat]

My solution is not feasible.
An across the board pay per performance salary might have worked at one time,
but not anymore. Pay everyone the same amount to start and if they stay clean and do the job raise their salary.
As someone said the unions wouldn't go for it nor the players.
Just my opinion.

[Zagi-CRO]

$275M ?
It's too much, however.

[digglahhh]

My solution is not feasible.
An across the board pay per performance salary might have worked at one time,
but not anymore. Pay everyone the same amount to start and if they stay clean and do the job raise their salary.
As someone said the unions wouldn't go for it nor the players.
Just my opinion.

And what would that base be?

I believe that your system is kind like what exists. There's a minimum salary, and then a team offers players compensation above the minimum based upon the value that player can bring to the team, above that of somebody worth only the minimum.

I didn't claim you were racist. I was simply pointing out that being "old school" doesn't mean anything. There are lots of things that are "old school basebal,l" some admirable and some disgusting. You said it as if there was some sort of inherent nobility in being "old school."

Objecting to players making millions of dollars, when they drive a billion dollar industry, seems to be supportive of economic exploitation, no?

Performance driven contracts in the literal sense are a bad idea as they pit a player's individual (statistical) performance against the overall success of the team.

[bigtime39]

Dont worry, he cries about the Red Sox too.

This thread is about Miss Pay-Rod and the Yankee$, isn't it?
The Yankee$ have been buying titles for many decades.
MLB has revenue disparity issues. The Yankee$ are the most obvious offender in using their $$$ to dominate the rest of the sport.
Until the financial playing field is further leveled--and I'm not saying that things aren't better than they were 10 years ago on the revenue distribution side--this is a drum worth beating: better revenue sharing for MLB!

[bigtime39]

Bud isn't worth a buck a bottle to me.
I guess I live in a different world.

Well it is really, really bad beer...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This thread is about Miss Pay-Rod and the Yankee$, isn't it?
The Yankee$ have been buying titles for many decades.
MLB has revenue disparity issues. The Yankee$ are the most obvious offender in using their $$$ to dominate the rest of the sport.
Until the financial playing field is further leveled--and I'm not saying that things aren't better than they were 10 years ago on the revenue distribution side--this is a drum worth beating: better revenue sharing for MLB!

Why does the financial playing field have to be leveled? In what other industry is there a level playing field? Is Lockheed Martin or Boeing forced to spend less simply because they have more financial resources than smaller aerospace companies?

[bigtime39]

Why does the financial playing field have to be leveled? In what other industry is there a level playing field? Is Lockheed Martin or Boeing forced to spend less simply because they have more financial resources than smaller aerospace companies?

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, or Ford and Chrysler don't need each other to exist in order to do what they do. Like it or not, in sports, you do need other teams to play against. Leveling the financial playing field makes it more likely cities like Pittsburgh or St Petersburg can field competitive teams on a somewhat regular basis. (Unlike the Marlins, with their win then purge methodology.)

[Captain Cold Nose]

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, or Ford and Chrysler don't need each other to exist in order to do what they do. Like it or not, in sports, you do need other teams to play against. Leveling the financial playing field makes it more likely cities like Pittsburgh or St Petersburg can field competitive teams on a somewhat regular basis. (Unlike the Marlins, with their win then purge methodology.)

So why shoould a team be punished for brokering their own money? the Yankees, and a couple other teams, had the wherewithal to have their own broadcasting outlets. That's the bulk of their money. Why are they the problem with that, they did it perefectly legal within the rules of the sport, something other teams can follow suit if they wish. Should they give up that money by choice, as good sports? GM sure didn't help Chrysler and Ford in the 80's. How is that any different?

[Erik Bedard]

Actually, just looked at the Angels and I need to offer up a retraction. While they don't shy away from spending money now, when they won that World Series they had a bottom half payroll and mostly products from their farm. However, don't even try to sell me the Redsox in 04 or 07. In 04 they had what, one player on their entire team that made any kind of a significant contribution to the win that actually came up with their farm?

Lest we forget the Redsox payroll in 2004 was 137 million, good enough for 2nd highest in the league and 143 million this year, also good for 2nd in the league. An even better way to look at things is that in 04, their payroll jumped from 98 million to 137. In 07, it jumped from 120 to 143. So, I'd say they spent their wad those years and won titles. And hey, don't take this as hating on the Redsox. They did what they had to do to win a World Series and congrats to them. However, I get sick and tired of hearing all of the "whaaaaaaaaaa, Yankees spend money" BS, when the Redsox are worse offenders in my opinion. Just recently have they started to produce from the farm system. For _years_ they purchased their entire teams. Pretty much wrote a check for everyone and had payrolls right on the tail of the Yankees and WAY above every other team in baseball. Yet, because they weren't successful (until recently) they got a pass. Same with the Mets, Cubs and Dodgers. All of those teams spend crazy amounts of money.

One would think the Yankees are the ONLY team spending money.

You're definitely right. I was more talking about the "style" of the "style and home cooking". The '04 Red Sox weren't just all the big-name free agents of the last few years -- which they turned into this year. They were a few guys signed off the scrap heap, as well as some guys who weren't technically from their farm system, but were guys that the Red Sox had developed, and had had all their great years in Boston, and a few high-priced veterans (Manny, Damon, Foulke, and Schilling) who had been signed as free agents.

[Stray Cat]

So why shoould a team be punished for brokering their own money? the Yankees, and a couple other teams, had the wherewithal to have their own broadcasting outlets. That's the bulk of their money. Why are they the problem with that, they did it perefectly legal within the rules of the sport, something other teams can follow suit if they wish. Should they give up that money by choice, as good sports? GM sure didn't help Chrysler and Ford in the 80's. How is that any different?

When was the last time ESPN aired a Royals game? I was watching a Cardinals game when the announcers were giving the scores and one of them gave the Royals score and said "does anybody care". Fox Sports Midwest rarely airs their games while the Red Birds games are show sometimes twice a day.
How can Kansas City get more money if no one will show their games.

[Stray Cat]

And what would that base be?

I believe that your system is kind like what exists. There's a minimum salary, and then a team offers players compensation above the minimum based upon the value that player can bring to the team, above that of somebody worth only the minimum.

I didn't claim you were racist. I was simply pointing out that being "old school" doesn't mean anything. There are lots of things that are "old school basebal,l" some admirable and some disgusting. You said it as if there was some sort of inherent nobility in being "old school."

Objecting to players making millions of dollars, when they drive a billion dollar industry, seems to be supportive of economic exploitation, no?

Performance driven contracts in the literal sense are a bad idea as they pit a player's individual (statistical) performance against the overall success of the team.

So is A-Rod not getting paid for performance? Roger Clemons didn't get to
choose when he started pitching this season? And how many times did the Yankees buy players for the World Series, like Jose Canseco.
All salaries would be confidential so we could focus on the games and not the money.

[rockin500]

So is A-Rod not getting paid for performance? Roger Clemons didn't get to
choose when he started pitching this season? And how many times did the Yankees buy players for the World Series, like Jose Canseco.
All salaries would be confidential so we could focus on the games and not the money.

no salary could be confidential since they are legal contracts, not to mention there are things called taxes. Some sleuthing could do the job pretty easily.

as for the rest of your comments through out the thread, capitalism is a wonderful thing. embrace it!

[bigtime39]

So why shoould a team be punished for brokering their own money? the Yankees, and a couple other teams, had the wherewithal to have their own broadcasting outlets. That's the bulk of their money. Why are they the problem with that, they did it perefectly legal within the rules of the sport, something other teams can follow suit if they wish. Should they give up that money by choice, as good sports? GM sure didn't help Chrysler and Ford in the 80's. How is that any different?

OTOH, why should a team be punished for not having had the good fortune to have been randomly plopped in the country's largest media market 100 years ago?
Last I checked, MLB teams don't make cars, or stereos, or air conditioners. It shouldn't be a libertarian, every-man-for-himself scramble. (Or, if it's gonna, be, let's put five teams in New York and three in Boston!) The teams need each other in order to put on sporting exhibitions. If all 30 MLB teams had the same resource base to work from, winners and losers would be determined by merit...not by who had the biggest sack of gold teeth under the desk.
If it was perfectly legal within the rules of our country for me to slap you in the face with a paddle as long as I thanked you afterward, would it still be right? Or just "legal"?

[Captain Cold Nose]

OTOH, why should a team be punished for not having had the good fortune to have been randomly plopped in the country's largest media market 100 years ago?
Last I checked, MLB teams don't make cars, or stereos, or air conditioners. It shouldn't be a libertarian, every-man-for-himself scramble. (Or, if it's gonna, be, let's put five teams in New York and three in Boston!) The teams need each other in order to put on sporting exhibitions. If all 30 MLB teams had the same resource base to work from, winners and losers would be determined by merit...not by who had the biggest sack of gold teeth under the desk.
If it was perfectly legal within the rules of our country for me to slap you in the face with a paddle as long as I thanked you afterward, would it still be right? Or just "legal"?

It sounds like the issue isn't the Yankees,then, is it? They're part of a world they did not create and do not run. So they're to blame?

No, they do not make cars, stereros or air conditioners. But what they do is what they do for a living, it is not exhibition for them, it is their livelihood. Shiould the basic concept of making a living and the right to make the best living for themselves be scrapped because it isn't fair. Why should the rules be different in a sports venue? Because the product isn't tangible? That is the economic realities of anyone in this type of system.

[Stray Cat]

So how about if we seperate the leagues into high and low payrolls.
Why would the Yankees and the Red Sox want to play a low end team, waste of time since they are so much better and nobody would want to watch.
:twocents::twocents:

[digglahhh]

So is A-Rod not getting paid for performance? Roger Clemons didn't get to
choose when he started pitching this season? And how many times did the Yankees buy players for the World Series, like Jose Canseco.
All salaries would be confidential so we could focus on the games and not the money.

That's a matter of maintaining perspective, my friend. I don't have any problems focusing on the game and not the money - I'm only motivated to discuss when I choose to respond to those who take it all out of context.

When you buy a can of Coke, do you think about how much the CEO makes? When you watch a movie or TV show do you think about how much the actors make?

[Captain Cold Nose]

So how about if we seperate the leagues into high and low payrolls.
Why would the Yankees and the Red Sox want to play a low end team, waste of time since they are so much better and nobody would want to watch.
:twocents::twocents:

But they're not so much better. They're both successful to a point, but actual reality has shown the smaller markets can and DO win.

[Stray Cat]

But they're not so much better. They're both successful to a point, but actual reality has shown the smaller markets can and DO win.

I totally agree with you!:highfive:

[bigtime39]

But they're not so much better. They're both successful to a point, but actual reality has shown the smaller markets can and DO win.

Not the AL East. Not since 1997. And back then, the Orioles spent like they thought they were a large market club.

[Mattingly]

This thread is about Miss Pay-Rod and the Yankee$, isn't it?
The Yankee$ have been buying titles for many decades.
MLB has revenue disparity issues. The Yankee$ are the most obvious offender in using their $$$ to dominate the rest of the sport.
Until the financial playing field is further leveled--and I'm not saying that things aren't better than they were 10 years ago on the revenue distribution side--this is a drum worth beating: better revenue sharing for MLB!
*Hides bt39 in a big oil vat somewhere, even though nobody will notice*

Well who else but the Yanks were going to sign him? He didn't quite have a Barry Bonds 2001 season, but then again, he's still young.

As to the financial playing field, what do you think the team salaries should be? Are you implying a salary cap? If so, how much? How much would the floor be, if there's a cap?

[Mattingly]

But they're not so much better. They're both successful to a point, but actual reality has shown the smaller markets can and DO win.
You mean the smaller market teams in the regulars or in the playoffs?

Now here's the loaded question: what's your definition of a "small market" city?

Would that be a city with a small population? What about the regional/metropolitan area? Looking at Boston, that's got a small population, but they've got the entire New England area (including about 40% of Connecticut) all to themselves.

Lastly, which teams would qualify as "small market" under your definition? Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder if a separate thread may even be worthwhile on this.

[bigtime39]

*Hides bt39 in a big oil vat somewhere, even though nobody will notice*

Well who else but the Yanks were going to sign him? He didn't quite have a Barry Bonds 2001 season, but then again, he's still young.

As to the financial playing field, what do you think the team salaries should be? Are you implying a salary cap? If so, how much? How much would the floor be, if there's a cap?

Never been in favor of a salary cap. That just makes the big-market teams more profitable, and they'll likely find a way around it. They always find a way around it. Always been a revenue-sharing radical. My plan would see a minimum of 75% of locally generated revenues go into a common pot, and distributed to all 30 teams equally. (All "new media" revenues are currently divided equally between the teams, so this isn't an entirely new concept.) Teams would be required to spend their pool money on making the team better. It could not be used to line team owners pockets. (You wouldn't have to spend your pool money on player salaries. You could spend it on scouting and development, opening an academy in the Dominican...something that makes your team better, either in the long or the short run.)

[Captain Cold Nose]

Not the AL East. Not since 1997. And back then, the Orioles spent like they thought they were a large market club.

Toronto did beat out Boston last year. And what if some of those moves by Baltimore panned out? Right now, they have the makings of a good team, they're young and have some cornerstones. Any team that has a pitcher like Erik Bedard at the top has a shot to be there in October.

Population is only part of the picture in regards to market, Matt. Boston does have the advantage of having the whole of New England, as well as benefitting from NESN more than the majority of teams can say with their boradcasting. Which is huge. Stable ownership plays into that, as well. Detroit, for baseball purposes, is considered a mid-sized market. Atlanta, with the Superstation, can be considered a large market. Not as large as New York, Boston or LA, but in the top tier.

The minimum spending level bigtime is calling for is certainly something I can endorse. That goes with stable ownership, the money spent is used to make the team better, period. That goes deeper than free agent contracts.

It's going to be awfully hard to convince teams to give up their own money like that, though. Especially when they can easily point out how money doesn't guarantee ultimate victory. (Of course, it doesn't hurt.) Perhaps making such changes should be systematic, or over time. Convincing certain teams to "loan" the money to the smaller markets, for the benefit of the sport's future. But I can see some cllubs complaining how some team was able to sign so and so while the moneyed club came up short because the smaller team used "their" money. Imagine if the Pirates signed ARod, basically.

[bigtime39]

Toronto did beat out Boston last year. And what if some of those moves by Baltimore panned out? Right now, they have the makings of a good team, they're young and have some cornerstones. Any team that has a pitcher like Erik Bedard at the top has a shot to be there in October.

Population is only part of the picture in regards to market, Matt. Boston does have the advantage of having the whole of New England, as well as benefiting from NESN more than the majority of teams can say with their broadcasting. Which is huge. Stable ownership plays into that, as well. Detroit, for baseball purposes, is considered a mid-sized market. Atlanta, with the Superstation, can be considered a large market. Not as large as New York, Boston or LA, but in the top tier.

The minimum spending level bigtime is calling for is certainly something I can endorse. That goes with stable ownership, the money spent is used to make the team better, period. That goes deeper than free agent contracts.

It's going to be awfully hard to convince teams to give up their own money like that, though. Especially when they can easily point out how money doesn't guarantee ultimate victory. (Of course, it doesn't hurt.) Perhaps making such changes should be systematic, or over time. Convincing certain teams to "loan" the money to the smaller markets, for the benefit of the sport's future. But I can see some cllubs complaining how some team was able to sign so and so while the moneyed club came up short because the smaller team used "their" money. Imagine if the Pirates signed ARod, basically.

Toronto beat out Boston last year in large measure because the Red $ox were devastated by injuries. They settled right back into their accustomed third place in the East this season.
Imagine if the Pirates could sign Miss Pay-Rod, indeed! Maybe that beautiful park of theirs would fill up again, and interest in the sport, now pretty much moribund in that city, would rebound! Bad for the Yankee$? Perhaps. Bad for ESPN? Perhaps. But great for the sport of baseball.
I'll admit that I'm a revenue sharing radical in part because it helps the Orioles by placing a drag on the cash spewing behemoths in New York and Boston. But, it also helps--in all likelihood--20 or more of MLBs 30 teams. It would make MLB even more competitive. And that's a good thing. Because even the Devil Rays deserve a shot at the brass ring that doesn't involve climbing over $350mm in opponents payrolls.

[cardsfanatic]

And how many times did the Yankees buy players for the World Series,


When they won their four World Series in the 90's and 2000? Not often, homeslice. I'm nowhere near a Yankee fan but I often find myself defending them because of the utter amount of stupidity flung out about them. Look at the payrolls. Look at the talent. Most of those Yankee teams were *GASP* products from the Yankee farm system. Their payrolls, while still in the top 5 league wide were only marginally greater than the rest of the league. Where the average payroll was 45 million theirs were around 65-ish during those years. Not that big of a difference, eh? Yes, the Yankees spend like crazy these days and yes, so do A LOT of other teams. But don't be a sheep, son. The Yankees have never bought a World Series. The four they won during my lifetime were all products of a _very_ well ran organization. Period.


like Jose Canseco.


LMAO. Yes, the Yankees bought Jose Canseco like _every other team_ at the end of his career so they could win a World Series. That's too rich, man. Even Larry The Cable guy couldn't come up with this stuff.


All salaries would be confidential so we could focus on the games and not the money.

Some of us manage to do that already. I'm well aware of the money involved and who spends what. But at the end of the day, money doesn't buy rings. Too many high dollar payrolls have flamed out and too many low payroll teams have won to say that. It just becomes a factor when a high dollar team wins, it's _always_ "oh, they just spend tons of money!!!!" When, if you looked at it objectively (I know, hard for all you Yankee haters out there) a ton of teams spend like crazy just like the Yankees (and now the Redsox) and don't ever win crap. So, while some teams may have money they are also exceptionally ran. And that's what it takes to win. All the money in the world can't buy what being a well ran organization despite what financial constraints you have can net you. And that's the bottom line.

[Stray Cat]

All the money in the world can't buy what being a well ran organization despite what financial constraints you have can net you. And that's the bottom line.

Exactly! :hyper:

[Rags2Riches]

When they won their four World Series in the 90's and 2000? Not often, homeslice. I'm nowhere near a Yankee fan but I often find myself defending them because of the utter amount of stupidity flung out about them.

exactly people seem to forget that when they won their 1st WS title under Torre in 96' they won it with players like Charlie Haynes playing 3b, Jim Leritz (spelling) playing C', 1B DH, Mariono Duncan playing 2B...even had Clay Ballinger (spelling) playing some roles that helped them out.....

in fact I think that's been the Yankees down fall lately, thinking they need an AS at every position......you need role players to win imho.....

[digglahhh]

Their payrolls, while still in the top 5 league wide were only marginally greater than the rest of the league. Where the average payroll was 45 million theirs were around 65-ish during those years.

I agree with your post, but I just want to mention that, while in raw numbers it doesn't look so great, proportionately, 65 to 45 is pretty substantial. They are spending roughly 50% more than the average team. If you, say, outperform the mean SAT score by 50%, that will put you in the 99th percentile.

Here's some food for thought. Guess who had the highest payroll in 1986? That's right, Pete Townsend, Keith Richards, and the rest of the Mets. They had 3 of the 10 highest paid players in the NL, including the highest and second highest paid players in the sport.

You know who was the highest paid player in baseball in 1986, by 33% no less? George Foster! Do you know what the Mets did with George Foster in 1986? They released him outright to facilitate a homecoming for Lee Mazzilli. Think about that, the Mets outright released the highest paid player in the sport!

Could the Yankees have done that at any point without it being common knowledge?!

[bigtime39]

When they won their four World Series in the 90's and 2000? Not often, homeslice. I'm nowhere near a Yankee fan but I often find myself defending them because of the utter amount of stupidity flung out about them. Look at the payrolls. Look at the talent. Most of those Yankee teams were *GASP* products from the Yankee farm system. Their payrolls, while still in the top 5 league wide were only marginally greater than the rest of the league. Where the average payroll was 45 million theirs were around 65-ish during those years. Not that big of a difference, eh? Yes, the Yankees spend like crazy these days and yes, so do A LOT of other teams. But don't be a sheep, son. The Yankees have never bought a World Series. The four they won during my lifetime were all products of a _very_ well ran organization. Period.

The genesis of that 1996-2000 group is absolutely the fifteen minutes George $teinbrenner spent away from the team during his "lifetime ban" from the sport over the Winfield/Spria brouhaha.
The simple fact of the matter is that, one way or another, every Yankee$ title has been bought. This team has been wielding a financial club over the rest of the sport for 80+ years. As I have said here many times, the real question about this club is not "how did they 'win' those 26 worlds championships?" but rather, "how did they manage not to win all the rest, given the vast disparity of resources between them and their competition?"

[cardsfanatic]

I agree with your post, but I just want to mention that, while in raw numbers it doesn't look so great, proportionately, 65 to 45 is pretty substantial. They are spending roughly 50% more than the average team. If you, say, outperform the mean SAT score by 50%, that will put you in the 99th percentile.


To me, you have to take it in context. Every team in the league was capable in 1996 and is capable today of carrying a 65 million dollar payroll. It's not like the Yankees were spending to the point that other teams couldn't keep up if they wanted to. There is definitely a gross disparity in payrolls today from the top to the bottom. There's no way Kansas City and Tampa Bay can field 100+ million dollar teams. However, those people crying about level financial playing fields... it was pretty freaking level in the years the Yankees won their four titles. Also, considering the bulk of those Yankee payrolls were paid out to players coming out of their farm (outside of Cone, Knoblauch and Clemens) I don't really think you can say the Yankees bought anything during those years. They had very few high dollar free agents.

[Rags2Riches]

[QUOTE=cardsfanatic;1054134 However, those people crying about level financial playing fields... it was pretty freaking level in the years the Yankees won their four titles. Also, considering the bulk of those Yankee payrolls were paid out to players coming out of their farm (outside of Cone, Knoblauch and Clemens) I don't really think you can say the Yankees bought anything during those years.[/QUOTE]


exactly, the Yankees 1st big FA move in their winning titles era if I recall correctly was probably David Wells away from my O's in 97' (they got Cone through a trade correct, then signed him a 1 or 2 later in his FA year) other then them paying their own home grown talent alot of $$$$$ it wasn't again until they once again signed away another former O's in Mussina for alot of $$$$,

since 02' I'll agree with anyone saying that they are attempting to buy a Title, but not up until then I won't, they had alot of role players mixed in with their own talent.....

[dabigyankeeman]

I love the way the envious jealous Yankee-haters constantly complain about the money they spend or how many times they win.

Well, first of all, no matter how much money you make or have available, you dont have to spend it. The Yankees spend it because they want to win. They could spend less and put a real good team out there and make a big profit and pocket the money, but they spend the money, so give them credit for trying to win every year. Wouldnt that be what you would want your owner to do, try to spend enough to WIN? There are plenty of teams that dont spend as much money as they could because the owner wants to pocket the cash rather than make his team better.

Secondly, dynasties or very good teams are good for sports. It creates interest, whether you love them or hate them, people want to see them, people are always talking about them, it creates interest in the sport. Their attendance not only at home but on the road too is always outstanding and the tv networks love to put them on tv. Look at other sports, did people hate basketball when the Bulls with Jordan won every year, did they hate football when you had dynasties like the Steelers, Cowboys, etc., no, its always fun to watch a dynasty and if you dont root for them, its always fun to try to root against a dynasty, and even more fun to root for them.

Of course most people, myself included, think baseball players make too much money, but if thats the way it is, then work within the system and get the best team you can buy and try to win the championship. I tip my cap to the teams that do that, and the Yankees, with 26 world championships and around 40 trips to the world series have done it best, and just in case you cant tell, I AM A YANKEE FAN AND DAMN PROUD OF IT. They bring immense enjoyment to my life, and win or lose, they always entertain me, and thats what sports ultimately is, entertainement, and a team that spends the big bucks will always entertain you, whether they win the world series or not!
:gt

[BosoxOrioles69]

The Yankees and Alex Rodriguez have agreed on a $30 million marketing package that could raise the total value of his new contract to $305 million over 10 years.
Under the agreement, Rodriguez would receive $6 million each for tying the home run levels of Willie Mays (660), Babe Ruth (714), Hank Aaron (755) and Barry Bonds (762), and an additional $6 million for breaking Bonds' record. Technically, it's illegal to tie incentive clauses to such statistics as home runs, but the Yankees have worked around that by declaring reaching said marks as historic events, enabling Rodriguez to receive the added money in exchange for additional personal appearances and signed memorabilia for the club Nov. 25 - 1:39 am et
Source: The Associated Press

According to Rotoworld, Arod will earn 30M if incentives are achieved

[ElHalo]

According to Rotoworld, Arod will earn 30M if incentives are achieved

Split up as:

$6 mill at his 660th homer
$6 mil at his 714th homer
$6 mil at his 755th homer
$6 mil for tying Bonds
$6 mil for passing Bonds

[sandlot]

Unlike a lot of other people, I have no problem with players making all the money they can, because that's exactly what owners, breweries, candy-bar makers and others have done since day one. What does concern me is the possibility that a player would be swinging for the fences unnecessarily, and maybe sometimes against the team's best interest, because the incentives to do so are so huge and the disincentives so tiny. You can't tell me that the closer a person gets to a $6-million-dollar paycheck, the more it doesn't weigh on his mind. It's hard enough on a player when he's near a major milestone in his career -- how many times have we seen a pitcher struggle for his 20th season win, or 200th careeer victory, or 500th homer, etc.? Add to that the financial implications and the pressure just accelerates. More pressure + wrong incentives x greed = bad decisions. I'd love to see a team put all the various bonus money into a giant kitty and say something like: "Okay, guys, you're already getting individual salaries based on your market value. But here's another $100 million. If we in a World Series, we divvy it up." I'm sure someone could figure out a formula.

[ElHalo]

Unlike a lot of other people, I have no problem with players making all the money they can, because that's exactly what owners, breweries, candy-bar makers and others have done since day one. What does concern me is the possibility that a player would be swinging for the fences unnecessarily, and maybe sometimes against the team's best interest, because the incentives to do so are so huge and the disincentives so tiny. You can't tell me that the closer a person gets to a $6-million-dollar paycheck, the more it doesn't weigh on his mind. It's hard enough on a player when he's near a major milestone in his career -- how many times have we seen a pitcher struggle for his 20th season win, or 200th careeer victory, or 500th homer, etc.? Add to that the financial implications and the pressure just accelerates. More pressure + wrong incentives x greed = bad decisions. I'd love to see a team put all the various bonus money into a giant kitty and say something like: "Okay, guys, you're already getting individual salaries based on your market value. But here's another $100 million. If we in a World Series, we divvy it up." I'm sure someone could figure out a formula.
Players do already get WS bonuses.

[sandlot]

Players do already get WS bonuses.Yes, that's right, and it's one of the formulae that might be applied to what I'm suggesting but perhaps did not make clear. I'd like to see incentives based more on team results and less on individual performance. Reward individual performace in the basic contract salary and maybe some perks. Put all the other dough into a collective team kitty. The more games the team wins, the further it goes into the post-season, the more each player gets from the pot. I repeat, how can rewarding individual performance based upon things like HR totals, or SB totals, etc., guarantee that this is what's best for the team overall?

[bob]

We saw in the past 2 seasons with the giants that so much attention was focused on barry and his HR total that the rest of the team suffered. However, it sure did bring in the fans and sell the merch. From a financial point of view it makes alot of sense to offer your star player incentives for milestones.
But the giants went over the top. They forgot that they had to try and win games and not just get barry on plate for a HR chance.
Will the yankees do something simular? Doubtful. They have far more than 1 star player and the whole team is capable of playing at a very high level, and yankee fans expect a win, they wont be trading winning seasons just so Arod can have a crack at the record.

[Stumanji]

I repeat, how can rewarding individual performance based upon things like HR totals, or SB totals, etc., guarantee that this is what's best for the team overall?

I can see your point, but you must remember that even though these guys are on a TEAM they really don't benefit from their teammates the same way that hockey, football, basketball, and soccer players do...

You can make arguments for sac-bunts leading to RBI's, the battery, the 6-4-3 DP, or what not, but when you get down to it, baseball is a TEAM sport wrapped around a ONE-on-ONE face-off... pitcher vs. hitter.

The players that do best in the one-on-one's really do help the team more, and deserve more compensation. Sure, Player X sac-bunts all the time to move Player Z into scoring position, so Player Y can drive them in... but Player Y is in that position because he CAN drive them in. He earned that spot in the order and he should be rewarded for it.

[HDH]

I don't think Alex Rodriguez is so much better than every other MLB player to merit the contract the media is reporting. The contract he walked away from was so absurd, the Rangers were paying the Yankees to take him. Now, he wants more and if what the media says is true, the Yankees will essentially be doubling what they paid last year. Paying someone to break Mays, Ruth, Aaron, and Bonds HR marks really belittles those records. Mr Selfish distanced himself from the BoSox making his announcement at WS. So, the Yankees are in the "driver's seat" and should be able to negotiate for less than the 25M/year of his last contract for an old player who had his peak season offense to go with his usual poor defense. The Yankees are better off with Joe Crede who is an available 3B who's defense helps pitchers and two front line pitchers for a salary possibly less that A Rod's. That would bring the Yankees over the top, not an oversized contract for A-Rod, Santana, or Cabrera.