faba Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 AP NewsBreak: Yankees set another payroll record td.yspwidearticlebody { font-size: 13.5px; }By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer January 23, 2008 AP - Jan 23, 4:53 pm EST More Photos NEW YORK (AP) -- The Yankees did finish first in something last year -- spending. While its streak of AL East titles ended at nine, New York wound up with a record payroll of $218.3 million. The World Series champion Boston Red Sox were a distant second at $155.4 million, according to information received by clubs from the commissioner's office. In addition to the largest payroll, the Yankees have the highest revenue in the majors. New York took in $415 million last year, giving about $100 million of it away in the sport's revenue-sharing plan. Both the Yankees and New York Mets will receive revenue boosts in 2009, when they move into new stadiums. ADVERTISEMENT "We're always working on increasing revenues, but it's getting harder and harder to do," Red Sox owner John Henry said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "The Yankees and the Mets will be greatly helped by their new ballparks which look to be state-of-the-art. They seem very well designed to maximize revenues and to greatly improve the fan experience. The renovations we have been at work on within Fenway, the new ballparks in New York, Washington, Minneapolis -- everywhere -- these are great for baseball." The Yankees were set to fall under the $200 million mark last year before signing Roger Clemens, who increased their payroll by $17.4 million. He went 6-6 with a 4.18 ERA in 18 appearances. New York is on track to lead the major leagues in payroll again but its total appears likely to drop. The Yankees have committed $198.6 million to 19 signed players on their 40-man roster. Adding in the midpoints for their three players remaining in arbitration -- Chien-Ming Wang, Robinson Cano and Brian Bruney -- the total increases to $207.6 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers were third last season at $125.6 million, followed by the Mets ($120.9 million), Chicago Cubs ($115.9 million), Seattle ($114.4 million), Los Angeles Angels ($111 million), Philadelphia ($101.8 million), San Francisco ($101.5 million) and the Chicago White Sox ($100.2 million). At the back end were Tampa Bay ($31.8 million), Florida ($33.1 million), Washington ($43.3 million) and Pittsburgh ($51.4 million). In all, teams spent $2.71 billion on players last year, up from $2.49 billion in 2006 and $2.35 billion in 2005. The 30 clubs estimate they took in $6.075 billion last year, an increase from $5.2 billion the previous season and $4.7 billion in 2005. Payroll figures are for 40-man rosters and include salaries and prorated shares of signing bonuses, earned incentive bonuses, non-cash compensation, buyouts of unexercised options and cash transactions. In some cases, parts of salaries that are deferred are discounted to reflect present-day values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Freakin' retarded sport where one team has the means to spend $218M and another spends barely $30M. The 4 lowest teams in spending were 4 of the worst teams in MLB. Like it's any stroke of genius that the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs are in the most populated US cities, therefore drawing the most revenue & in turn having the greatest spending ability. It would be like having a handful of NFL teams that are allowed to spend as much as they wanted & another handful only allowed to pull talent from other teams' practice squads. The league is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Sperm, this sport is business at it's finest. the league is better off this way. great talent can be found anywhere my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBrick Wall Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Freakin' retarded sport where one team has the means to spend $218M and another spends barely $30M. The 4 lowest teams in spending were 4 of the worst teams in MLB. Like it's any stroke of genius that the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs are in the most populated US cities, therefore drawing the most revenue & in turn having the greatest spending ability. It would be like having a handful of NFL teams that are allowed to spend as much as they wanted & another handful only allowed to pull talent from other teams' practice squads. The league is a joke. It's not a joke. It's better than watching the consistent mediocre teams that the NFL puts out day in and day out. I'd rather watch a few elite, superior teams battle each other any day of the week than a bunch of mediocre teams. MLB is becoming more like the NFL anyway because of revenue sharing. There is more parity than ever now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anskyruben Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I bet a lot of those small owners are pocketing big paychecks written to them by the big teams. I bet none of those owners is wondering where their next meal is coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 It's not a joke. It's better than watching the consistent mediocre teams that the NFL puts out day in and day out. I'd rather watch a few elite, superior teams battle each other any day of the week than a bunch of mediocre teams. MLB is becoming more like the NFL anyway because of revenue sharing. There is more parity than ever now. The sport itself is mediocre to watch to begin with. Like watching paint dry. For most of the season, any one game - any one win/loss - is totally irrelevant due to the stupidly long season & sheer number of games played. Or if it is relevant (or not) come October, you'd never know it watching the game in Apr/May/June/July. Then compound that with a bunch of the teams simply being unable to compete with others for economic reasons, and you have yourself a sport that only high market fans give a crap about (thus perpetuating this lopsided revenue-stream cycle). In 2008, Alex Rodriguez will make roughly the same as the entire Florida Marlins roster. And the Yankees' lineup is so stacked, they could have still fielded a first-place team without him. Oh yeah. That's exciting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The sport itself is mediocre to watch to begin with. Like watching paint dry. For most of the season, any one game - any one win/loss - is totally irrelevant due to the stupidly long season & sheer number of games played. Or if it is relevant (or not) come October, you'd never know it watching the game in Apr/May/June/July. Then compound that with a bunch of the teams simply being unable to compete with others for economic reasons, and you have yourself a sport that only high market fans give a crap about (thus perpetuating this lopsided revenue-stream cycle). In 2008, Alex Rodriguez will make roughly the same as the entire Florida Marlins roster. And the Yankees' lineup is so stacked, they could have still fielded a first-place team without him. Oh yeah. That's exciting. Like they say, "to each his own"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Like they say, "to each his own"... I hear that & it always seems to register as "Sperm is right & anyone who disagrees is wrong." Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I hear that & it always seems to register as "Sperm is right & anyone who disagrees is wrong." Go figure. In your own mind... Listen, there are plenty of clubs that have more money than the clubs you mentioned...they just don't spend the money. Here's an example. Twins owner Carl Pohlad is a billionaire over and over. He could well afford to sign Santana, but rather buy himself toys instead. No way this baseball fan will watch hockey or basketball when his football season is over...but, then again, here comes that saying...to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 In your own mind... Listen, there are plenty of clubs that have more money than the clubs you mentioned...they just don't spend the money. Here's an example. Twins owner Carl Pohlad is a billionaire over and over. He could well afford to sign Santana, but rather buy himself toys instead. No way this baseball fan will watch hockey or basketball when his football season is over...but, then again, here comes that saying...to each his own. I guess it is easy to tell someone else how to spend his money. Just becasue he is succcessful in other business enterprises, DOES NOT mean that he has to syphon off profits of one of those businesses to feed his baseball team. Baseball SHOULD be set up with an economic structure that should not have to entail every owner having to be a billionaire, just to fund his ball club. That is not free enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I guess it is easy to tell someone else how to spend his money. Just becasue he is succcessful in other business enterprises, DOES NOT mean that he has to syphon off profits of one of those businesses to feed his baseball team. Baseball SHOULD be set up with an economic structure that should not have to entail every owner having to be a billionaire, just to fund his ball club. That is not free enterprise. None of these Billionaires are losing money on baseball. So you don't have to be one. There does need to be a floor and a ceiling. I am all for a cap actually. Hopefully someday we will see it in baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsis Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 None of these Billionaires are losing money on baseball. So you don't have to be one. There does need to be a floor and a ceiling. I am all for a cap actually. Hopefully someday we will see it in baseball. If there is a cap, there should be a minimum you can spend on payroll as well. And even if there is a cap in baseball, It's not gonna be something like $40 million, it's gonna be significantly higher and it's not gonna make a difference because you're still gonna have all these teams with a payroll of fifty cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I guess it is easy to tell someone else how to spend his money. Just becasue he is succcessful in other business enterprises, DOES NOT mean that he has to syphon off profits of one of those businesses to feed his baseball team. Baseball SHOULD be set up with an economic structure that should not have to entail every owner having to be a billionaire, just to fund his ball club. That is not free enterprise. On the other hand, I don't want to hear fans from these teams (like the Twins) bitching and moaning that the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., buy championships either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 On the other hand, I don't want to hear fans from these teams (like the Twins) bitching and moaning that the Yankees, Red Sox, etc., buy championships either. You think it is an equitable system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 None of these Billionaires are losing money on baseball. So you don't have to be one. There does need to be a floor and a ceiling. I am all for a cap actually. Hopefully someday we will see it in baseball. I seriously doubt they are losing money. I seriuosly doubt that they can reasonably spend like the big clubs, also. All for the cap, floor and ceiling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBrick Wall Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The sport itself is mediocre to watch to begin with. Like watching paint dry. For most of the season, any one game - any one win/loss - is totally irrelevant due to the stupidly long season & sheer number of games played. Or if it is relevant (or not) come October, you'd never know it watching the game in Apr/May/June/July. Then compound that with a bunch of the teams simply being unable to compete with others for economic reasons, and you have yourself a sport that only high market fans give a crap about (thus perpetuating this lopsided revenue-stream cycle). In 2008, Alex Rodriguez will make roughly the same as the entire Florida Marlins roster. And the Yankees' lineup is so stacked, they could have still fielded a first-place team without him. Oh yeah. That's exciting. That's your opinion. That's not everyone else's. Baseball happens to be my favorite sport to watch and I can sit down and watch a full, 9-inning baseball game any day of the week. Some will agree and others will disagree. But the fact that you can't watch baseball has nothing to do with the argument. Thing is, teams HAVE been able to compete with other teams, with one spending exorbitant amounts of money and the other not. The Rockies, Tigers, Cardinals, White Sox, and Astros have shown this just in the last three years by being 5 out of the last 6 teams in the World Series. What baseball may need is a salary minimum so morons like Jeff Loria don't try to spend $10 million per year while making a large profit because of revenue sharing and then pocketing that money. It's not the Yankees or Red Sox fault that they pay up to $100 million in revenue sharing while it gets pocketed by other owners who don't give two ****s about their teams. What the NFL has created is a bunch of mediocre teams playing each other. Give me 70s Steelers-Vikings or 90s Cowboys-49ers before any of the games today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Here is the problem. The players will never go for a cap The owners will never go for a floor. The big markets will always beat down on the smaller markets. It is the medium markets. (Detroit, Cleveland, St.Louis, etc) that actually keep the sport competitive now. IMHO To me the medium size market teams are the teams that keep baseball from being a complete joke. Those teams go through the cycles of winning and losing, because they don't have the revenue streams that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or Cubs have. If it wasn't for teams like the Tigers, Indians, Padres, and some others baseball would be nothing more than old school pro wrestling where the superstar beats down on the jobber. If someone could come up with a plan that would make the owners and players happy I would be all for it. I just don't see it ever happening. If it does it will be because franchises are folding and players are losing their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 What the NFL has created is a bunch of mediocre teams playing each other. 18-0 is mediocre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 It's not a joke. It's better than watching the consistent mediocre teams that the NFL puts out day in and day out. I'd rather watch a few elite, superior teams battle each other any day of the week than a bunch of mediocre teams. MLB is becoming more like the NFL anyway because of revenue sharing. There is more parity than ever now. Parity? Thy name is Pete Rozzelle. I hated that ****er. I'll take Al Davis in diapers over him any day of the week. I guess it is easy to tell someone else how to spend his money. Just becasue he is succcessful in other business enterprises, DOES NOT mean that he has to syphon off profits of one of those businesses to feed his baseball team. Baseball SHOULD be set up with an economic structure that should not have to entail every owner having to be a billionaire, just to fund his ball club. That is not free enterprise. What's with this socialist bull****? The Twins are making money, aren't they? I don't think he'd have to syphon profits to sign a guy that will probably pay for himself in revenue anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drago Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 In your own mind... Listen, there are plenty of clubs that have more money than the clubs you mentioned...they just don't spend the money. Here's an example. Twins owner Carl Pohlad is a billionaire over and over. He could well afford to sign Santana, but rather buy himself toys instead. No way this baseball fan will watch hockey or basketball when his football season is over...but, then again, here comes that saying...to each his own. Having the money is one thing, and as you know, ROI is a totally different thing. You own your own business, what if you made it big at it, big enough to by a small baseball team. How much would you put into that business if you weren't getting enough money back to make it worthwhile? You would put in just enough to make the money necessary to keep the investment. The Twins are no cash cow, and they are certainly not in New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 Thing is, teams HAVE been able to compete with other teams, with one spending exorbitant amounts of money and the other not. The Rockies, Tigers, Cardinals, White Sox, and Astros have shown this just in the last three years by being 5 out of the last 6 teams in the World Series. What baseball may need is a salary minimum so morons like Jeff Loria don't try to spend $10 million per year while making a large profit because of revenue sharing and then pocketing that money. It's not the Yankees or Red Sox fault that they pay up to $100 million in revenue sharing while it gets pocketed by other owners who don't give two ****s about their teams. What the NFL has created is a bunch of mediocre teams playing each other. Give me 70s Steelers-Vikings or 90s Cowboys-49ers before any of the games today. What is that smell? I think it is the dead horse in the corner. What the NFL gives you is your team going to the playoffs. Only 3 of the 32 teams have not been in the playoffs this decade and the longest drought just hit 10 years. By comparison 9 of the 30 MLB teams have not been to the playoffs this decade and three teams have droughts lasting more then 20 years. It does not matter that the Sox and Yanks pay millions in luxury tax. They hide more money in the cable stations they own. When the Sox were for sale, the prospective owners were more interested in the 80% contrfolling interest of NESN becasue that was a cash cow. The Sox can turn a profit or loss, but in the long run things even out, but the cable network banks money every year. Ditto the Yankees and YES Network. YES pays the Yankees and they are both owned by Yankee Global Enterprises LLC. Giving the small market teams a pittance does virtually nothing. They still cannot compete. How is the 20+ million the D-rays will receive going to make a difference? What are they to do? Sign one 20 million a year player? Two 10 million a year players? It does nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.