Yankees and Mussina closing in on 2 yr deal

[jacksonianmarch]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/468153p-393976c.html

 

2yrs 20-24 mil. Could be done by next week.

[26 to 6]

I dont like it. Too much $$ IMO. I don't mind the 2 years so much, although I would prefer 1 year with an option.

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

Considering it sounds like Glavine is getting a similar deal and the fact that Mussina was pretty much top 5 or 10 in almost every pitching category I cant really complain. He would have been hard to replace.

[rician blast]

so where does this put Schmidt? and how about Zito?

[AlexanderTheGreat13]

I think it comes down to Matsuzaka. If they get him they will prob close up shop in the starting pitching department. If not then they have to look at those 2.

[CrespoBlows]

Great. The Yankees just inflated the values for starting pitchers.

[ARod2212]

Great. The Yankees just inflated the values for starting pitchers.

 

The Mets did that with Glavine.

[Gom]

Plus, Mussina wants more than Pavano, considering he has thrown a pitch for the Yankees in the last 18 months.

 

I don't think Matsuzaka will set the bar. He is an unknown commodity, and everyone acknowledges that he is a risk [irabu, Contreras, etc.]. I think the more established pitchers will have more to determine the market than Matsuzaka.

 

Folks, keep in mind, baseball has never been RICHER. It has more money than at any time during it's history, and as for overall financial health, it has never been stronger. Money will fly this offseason. Especially with the Yankees, since they broke ground with the new stadium, and can use those costs to offset the luxury tax. Brilliant move by George. Take money out of the pockets of other teams and put it into your talent, all the while avoiding the tax.

 

As for Red Sox fans complaining about salaries, talk about a bunch of hypocrites. At least us Yankee fans admit that the money helps us more than anyone else. What about you guys? The Red Sox are almost always number two, but bitch like crazy about it. There is no reason, considering your revenue stream, you should not blow away every other team on the way to your post-season. Remember, you got your only World Series win in the last 88 years as a wild card.

 

Do you think you could have signed Schilling to that extension when you got him? Without him, no championship. Same goes with Manny, picking up Lowell and Beckett in what was supposed to be a salary dump, extending Ortiz...the list goes on and on. Admittedly, it's not as long as the Yankees, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

The Red Sox have taken advantage of the same loopholes the Yankees have. In fact, their stadium revenue is actually higher than the Yankees. Now the Red Sox have their own TV network, so they will make even more money. Stop whining about salaries already. You are #2 on the list of most priveledged, 17 million more than the #3 team [As of Arpil 7, 2006]. Enough. If your front office is going to whine about it, then drop your salary to the league average. The A's have a right to gripe at #21. You don't at #2. Last I checked, they made the playoffs, you didn't.

 

You will see some crazy salaries this winter. That is my prediction.

[ORS]

Plus, Mussina wants more than Pavano, considering he has thrown a pitch for the Yankees in the last 18 months.

 

I don't think Matsuzaka will set the bar. He is an unknown commodity, and everyone acknowledges that he is a risk [irabu, Contreras, etc.]. I think the more established pitchers will have more to determine the market than Matsuzaka.

 

Folks, keep in mind, baseball has never been RICHER. It has more money than at any time during it's history, and as for overall financial health, it has never been stronger. Money will fly this offseason. Especially with the Yankees, since they broke ground with the new stadium, and can use those costs to offset the luxury tax. Brilliant move by George. Take money out of the pockets of other teams and put it into your talent, all the while avoiding the tax.

 

As for Red Sox fans complaining about salaries, talk about a bunch of hypocrites. At least us Yankee fans admit that the money helps us more than anyone else. What about you guys? The Red Sox are almost always number two, but bitch like crazy about it. There is no reason, considering your revenue stream, you should not blow away every other team on the way to your post-season.

 

Do you think you could have signed Schilling to that extension when you got him? Without him, no championship. Same goes with Manny, picking up Lowell and Beckett in what was supposed to be a salary dump, extending Ortiz...the list goes on and on. Admittedly, it's not as long as the Yankees, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

The Red Sox have taken advantage of the same loopholes the Yankees have. In fact, their stadium revenue is actually higher than the Yankees. Now the Red Sox have their own TV network, so they will make even more money. Stop whining about salaries already. You are #2 on the list of most priveledged, 17 million more than the #3 team [As of Arpil 7, 2006]. Enough. If your front office is going to whine about it, then drop your salary to the league average. The A's have a right to gripe at #21. You don't at #2.

I love it when Yankee fans revert to the #1 vs. #2 argument. They think it makes the difference negligible despite the fact that it ignores the most important aspect of the discussion, the magnitude. The Yankees spent in excess of $80M more than the #2 team. That's more than the league average. We are well aware that the Sox have an advantage over most of the league, but when the difference is that large, everyone has a right to complain. Deal with it.

 

Remember, you got your only World Series win in the last 88 years as a wild card.......Last I checked, they made the playoffs, you didn't.

Yeah, these really support your point. Just another example of your true intent here. Keep fishing, Cap'n.

[example1]

Great. The Yankees just inflated the values for starting pitchers.

 

Oh my god!! They inflated the values for starting pitchers!??!! Well at least they didn't inflate the value of SS, 3B, 1B, RF, CF or LF. I mean, as long as they're not paying anywhere near 20 million for any of those positions we're safe

[26 to 6]

Plus, Mussina wants more than Pavano, considering he has thrown a pitch for the Yankees in the last 18 months.

 

I don't think Matsuzaka will set the bar. He is an unknown commodity, and everyone acknowledges that he is a risk [irabu, Contreras, etc.]. I think the more established pitchers will have more to determine the market than Matsuzaka.

 

Folks, keep in mind, baseball has never been RICHER. It has more money than at any time during it's history, and as for overall financial health, it has never been stronger. Money will fly this offseason. Especially with the Yankees, since they broke ground with the new stadium, and can use those costs to offset the luxury tax. Brilliant move by George. Take money out of the pockets of other teams and put it into your talent, all the while avoiding the tax.

 

As for Red Sox fans complaining about salaries, talk about a bunch of hypocrites. At least us Yankee fans admit that the money helps us more than anyone else. What about you guys? The Red Sox are almost always number two, but bitch like crazy about it. There is no reason, considering your revenue stream, you should not blow away every other team on the way to your post-season. Remember, you got your only World Series win in the last 88 years as a wild card.

 

Do you think you could have signed Schilling to that extension when you got him? Without him, no championship. Same goes with Manny, picking up Lowell and Beckett in what was supposed to be a salary dump, extending Ortiz...the list goes on and on. Admittedly, it's not as long as the Yankees, but talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

 

The Red Sox have taken advantage of the same loopholes the Yankees have. In fact, their stadium revenue is actually higher than the Yankees. Now the Red Sox have their own TV network, so they will make even more money. Stop whining about salaries already. You are #2 on the list of most priveledged, 17 million more than the #3 team [As of Arpil 7, 2006]. Enough. If your front office is going to whine about it, then drop your salary to the league average. The A's have a right to gripe at #21. You don't at #2. Last I checked, they made the playoffs, you didn't.

 

You will see some crazy salaries this winter. That is my prediction.

Don't even bother. All that matters to them is that we spend significantly more than they do. They completely ignore the fact that they spend significantly more than a significant amount of the other teams. It's a lost cause with these people. Let them think they're poverty-stricken bums who work on a low budget; they're not fooling anyone.

[26 to 6]

Considering it sounds like Glavine is getting a similar deal and the fact that Mussina was pretty much top 5 or 10 in almost every pitching category I cant really complain. He would have been hard to replace.

Thats true. I mean, we certainly have the money to pay him, but if perhaps he goes down with an injury or something, thats an awful lot he'll be making. Whatever, it works out.

[a700hitter]

Don't even bother. All that matters to them is that we spend significantly more than they do. They completely ignore the fact that they spend significantly more than a significant amount of the other teams. It's a lost cause with these people. Let them think they're poverty-stricken bums who work on a low budget; they're not fooling anyone.

Don't count me in this camp. The Sox problem is not a lack of funds. They have plenty of dough. Their problem is poor decisions. If they finsh third in the AL East two years in a row with the second highest payroll, heads will roll and deservedly so.

[Gom]

Don't count me in this camp. The Sox problem is not a lack of funds. They have plenty of dough. Their problem is poor decisions. If they finsh third in the AL East two years in a row with the second highest payroll' date=' heads will roll and deservedly so.[/quote']

 

Thank God. I thought all that New England Clam chowder was going to all of your collective heads.

 

I love it when Yankee fans revert to the #1 vs. #2 argument. They think it makes the difference negligible despite the fact that it ignores the most important aspect of the discussion, the magnitude. The Yankees spent in excess of $80M more than the #2 team. That's more than the league average. We are well aware that the Sox have an advantage over most of the league, but when the difference is that large, everyone has a right to complain. Deal with it.

 

Yeah, these really support your point. Just another example of your true intent here. Keep fishing, Cap'n.

 

It doesn't make things negligible. It is your team's decision to not spend money. We deal with it. Unlike you, we aren't hypocrites. We know that it gives us an advantage, and we choose to use it. If you don't like it, go watch football, which has no leeway in payroll. Personally, I miss the NFL dynasties, but that's me.

 

There is no doubt that the Yankees spend the most money. Deal with it, and stop whining. The Red Sox have nearly as much money from their revenue stream. According to Forbes Magazine [here's the link: http://pdf.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/334613.html], the Red Sox lost 18.5 million, while the Yankees lost 50 million. However, Henry and Werner bought the team in 2002 for $380 million, and it is now valued at $617 million. Not a bad investment. In 1998, the overall value of the Yankees compared to the Sox was about 150 million difference. Now it is nearly 400 million. Was this luck? Get real.

 

There is NO REASON why the Red Sox can't compete on fairly even terms with the Yankees if OWNERSHIP wanted them to. They don't. There is nothing the Yankees have that the Sox don't. The average income in both areas is similar, the stadium revenue is similar [smaller crowd in Fenway, more expensive tickets], now the media stream is similar in profits. The actual profits between the two teams isn't that far off. It's significantly closer than the difference in payrolls, thats for sure.

 

As for the fact of the Red Sox winning the World Series as a wild card, you obviously don't see my intent, as you are not too quick on the uptake, at least not as much as I thought you were. You're actually quite thick. The Wild Card allows teams with a disparity in payroll to make it and gives them a chance. Without the Wild Card, and the old two division system, the Sox would have had no chance of ever winning against the Yankees. You would have not even made the playoffs in 2004. Or any year for that matter since 1998. Under those circumstances, your gripe has some legitimacy. The Wild Card gives teams with lower payrolls to get into the playoffs. Like we have all seen, anything can, and does happen there. Wake up. With your payroll, you should lock up the wild card every year. Not only did that not happen, but you finished behind the Blue Jays in the division.

 

You know what's pathetic about your whining? Fine, the big bad Yankees absolutely destroyed you and left you in their payroll dust. Fair enough. We are supposed to, by your argument. We have done so for the last 12 years. Fair enough. Explain the following then:

 

How do you let the Blue Jays, with an opening day payroll of over $48 MILLION LESS THAN THE RED SOX beat you in the standings? How does the team with the SECOND HIGHEST PAYROLL IN ALL OF BASEBALL not even finish in the top 50% of teams in the American League. Where are your excuses now? Wake up.

[ORS]

It doesn't make things negligible. It is your team's decision to not spend money. We deal with it. Unlike you, we aren't hypocrites. We know that it gives us an advantage, and we choose to use it. If you don't like it, go watch football, which has no leeway in payroll. Personally, I miss the NFL dynasties, but that's me.

 

There is no doubt that the Yankees spend the most money. Deal with it, and stop whining. The Red Sox have nearly as much money from their revenue stream. According to Forbes Magazine [here's the link: http://pdf.forbes.com/lists/2006/33/334613.html], the Red Sox lost 18.5 million, while the Yankees lost 50 million. However, Henry and Werner bought the team in 2002 for $380 million, and it is now valued at $617 million. Not a bad investment. In 1998, the overall value of the Yankees compared to the Sox was about 150 million difference. Now it is nearly 400 million. Was this luck? Get real.

 

There is NO REASON why the Red Sox can't compete on fairly even terms with the Yankees if OWNERSHIP wanted them to. They don't. There is nothing the Yankees have that the Sox don't. The average income in both areas is similar, the stadium revenue is similar [smaller crowd in Fenway, more expensive tickets], now the media stream is similar in profits. The actual profits between the two teams isn't that far off. It's significantly closer than the difference in payrolls, thats for sure.

Do you have any clue as to revenue sources for these two teams? Any?

 

Where have I denied that the Sox have an advantage or claimed that they don't use it? I'm well aware of their advantage, and, see if you can follow here, since they are #2 in payroll, they obviously use it. What I'm saying is sweeping the Yankee payroll under the rug with the "well you are #2" comment is a non-sequitor. Call it whining if you want, but I happen to think that a defining characteristic of sports is a level playing field. Care to rebut that notion? Go ahead and try. Baseball does not have that now. And, even though I know it would make things tougher for my team, it won't have one until there is complete revenue sharing and a salary cap/floor.

 

Your comment about being a football fan instead is another throw-away comment. I am a football fan, but I like baseball better. How dare I want some legitimacy for the sporting aspect of the game I love.

 

Are you that naive to think that either of these teams lost money? Their major source of revenue is the TV networks they own. Fortunately for them, those are separate entities where profits can be hidden, taking money from the revenue sharing pool (of which the Yankees and Mets will not contribute to after the 2009 season when they start deferring money to the payments for their new stadiums - in other words it's only going to get worse). This is where the Yankee's advantage comes into play. They NY media market is in excess of 10,000,000 viewers, with virtually everyone of them being forced to subscribe to the YES network via the fact that YES is provided on the major cable carriers. The New England market is ~3,000,000 viewers. I don't know what kind of math you took in school, but 10M =! 3M, so your comment that the Sox could spend like the Yankees if they wanted to is a fabrication.

 

Given the lack of understanding you have shown for this process, it's very funny that you question my intelligence. Continue to insult me all you like, but please continue to show us that path to "enlightenment" you promised by sharing your take on things, because every time you do, you reveal more and more of your ignorance.

 

As for the fact of the Red Sox winning the World Series as a wild card, you obviously don't see my intent, as you are not too quick on the uptake, at least not as much as I thought you were. You're actually quite thick. The Wild Card allows teams with a disparity in payroll to make it and gives them a chance. Without the Wild Card, and the old two division system, the Sox would have had no chance of ever winning against the Yankees. You would have not even made the playoffs in 2004. Or any year for that matter since 1998. Under those circumstances, your gripe has some legitimacy. The Wild Card gives teams with lower payrolls to get into the playoffs. Like we have all seen, anything can, and does happen there. Wake up. With your payroll, you should lock up the wild card every year. Not only did that not happen, but you finished behind the Blue Jays in the division.

 

You know what's pathetic about your whining? Fine, the big bad Yankees absolutely destroyed you and left you in their payroll dust. Fair enough. We are supposed to, by your argument. We have done so for the last 12 years. Fair enough. Explain the following then:

 

How do you let the Blue Jays, with an opening day payroll of over $48 MILLION LESS THAN THE RED SOX beat you in the standings? How does the team with the SECOND HIGHEST PAYROLL IN ALL OF BASEBALL not even finish in the top 50% of teams in the American League. Where are your excuses now? Wake up.

I understand what the WC has done for baseball. It does give the smaller market teams a chance, but only marginally so. And, in the end, the playoff appearances are dominated by big market teams because their financial advantage is more impactful over 162 games than it is in a small series.

 

The Blue Jays? Hahah, keep throwing that in our faces. It does nothing for your argument. Of course, I don't expect it needs to in your mind, because your only intent there is to try and piss us off. Pathetic.

 

End the end, I'm not whining about payroll, I'm merely stating a fact. The system is inequitable. The only ones whining on the subject are Yankee fans with their knee jerk reaction whenever anyone mentions the advantage they hold over the entire league. If you care to, please explain how the current system is fair. This should be fun.

[BudLight]

7 years, 7 different WS champions - who cares about salary differences, not those 7 clubs.

[ORS]

Irrelevant. Only one team has been in the post season each of those 7 years.

[BudLight]

Irrelevant. Only one team has been in the post season each of those 7 years.

 

 

Not irrelevant - lends support to the belief that revenue sharing is working in the MLB and teams with lower payrolls are able to compete as a result of teams like the Yankees paying their "tax" every year. Guess it depends on your school of thought of a successful season - some believe you must win the WS to be considered successful.

[ORS]

I'm not saying that the revenue sharing hasn't leveled the playing field some, but in the end it just looks like a token gesture to me. The top teams are still raking in the money and elite talent that hits the market, and they still make a substantial majority of the teams that able to make the playoffs. Saying "7 years, 7 champs" doesn't address the blantant inequities in the system.

 

EDIT: To add, and this is important, the biggest contributors to the revenue sharing pool are about to be exempt from it. NYY and NYM won't have to contribute while making new stadium payments, which could take decades, so the farce of "fairness" is about to take a big hit.

[ORS]

Don't even bother. All that matters to them is that we spend significantly more than they do. They completely ignore the fact that they spend significantly more than a significant amount of the other teams. It's a lost cause with these people. Let them think they're poverty-stricken bums who work on a low budget; they're not fooling anyone.

And all that matters to you is that we are #2. You think that puts us in a position from which we cannot complain. You would be right if we didn't acknowledge that we do have an advantage over the rest of the league, but we do. Nobody is claiming poverty for the Sox, that is another one of your fabrications.

 

The lost cause is you. You actually think the current system is A-Ok. Well, that shouldn't come as any surprise, only one group of people thinks that way, and, coincidentally, they all root for the team that benefits from it most. Who would have seen that happening?

[BudLight]

I'm not saying that the revenue sharing hasn't leveled the playing field some, but in the end it just looks like a token gesture to me. The top teams are still raking in the money and elite talent that hits the market, and they still make a substantial majority of the teams that able to make the playoffs. Saying "7 years, 7 champs" doesn't address the blantant inequities in the system.

 

EDIT: To add, and this is important, the biggest contributors to the revenue sharing pool are about to be exempt from it. NYY and NYM won't have to contribute while making new stadium payments, which could take decades, so the farce of "fairness" is about to take a big hit.

 

 

No argument the "system" is broke and the fact that the Yankees and Mets will be exempt from the contributions while paying for their new stadiums really will put a damper on the payments to other teams and further widen the gap. The 7 years, 7 different champs statement is meant to prove the point that even with the inequities teams can still compete and beat the top money teams in baseball. Just because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on players doesn't guarantee them a championship.

[ORS]

There certainly aren't any guarantees. Although, it's pretty evident that if you spend a lot, spend it wisely, and aren't befallen by injuries (or in some cases able to buy your way around them), then you will be one of the few that has a shot via the postseason.

[BudLight]

There certainly aren't any guarantees. Although' date=' it's pretty evident that if you spend a lot, spend it wisely, and aren't befallen by injuries (or in some cases able to buy your way around them), then you will be one of the few that has a shot via the postseason.[/quote']

 

Spend it wisely is the key. K. Brown, Pavano, prime examples of not spending wisely. As for buying around injuries, the Yanks went with players from within last season for Matsui and Sheffield, until late in the season when they traded for Abreu.

[ORS]

They got about a month and a half out of Abreu before either of those two returned. I'd say that is a significant period of time. Let's not forget Lidle too, who helped offset the unwise acquisition of Pavano. That was a move made solely because of financial capability, and it was a difference maker.

[BudLight]

They got about a month and a half out of Abreu before either of those two returned. I'd say that is a significant period of time. Let's not forget Lidle too' date=' who helped offset the unwise acquisition of Pavano. That was a move made solely because of finacial capability, and it was a difference maker.[/quote']

 

 

ORS - okay, I view it through pinstriped glasses, but the Yanks went longer without Abreu and Lidle than they did with them last season. In all honesty, Abreu wasn't tearing up the National League when he was dealt, but you are right, the "throw in" of Lidle was a very good move on Cashman's part and Philly was looking to dump salary.

[ORS]

It was a very good move. Of course, it was a move that nobody else was willing to make due to the salaries involved. Therein lies the root of the problem. When only one team has the financial muscle to absorb that type of move and no constraint on the usage of it, the system has failed. I'm sure several other offers involving those two put a package of better prospective talent on the table, but Philly wasn't interested in the talent return as much as they were in jettisoning salary.

[BudLight]

No doubt, Philly was dumping salary and probably believed at the time that they were totally out of the playoff picture and were setting up for a big FA signing this off season (see Soriano). It is also the reason they have been trying to dump Burrell and his salary. Like the Yankees, they agreed to really stupid contract amounts on both Burrell and Abreu and the no-trade clauses only screw it up more. FWI - we talk about the haves and have nots, but the Matsuzaka lottery is another prime example of where Bud Selig and MLB are failing the system. A team will pay upwards of $20M just for the privilege of negotiating a contract with him. That's ridiculous!!! When's the last time you heard of a MLB team paying a college prospect $20M just for the rights to talk to him about a contract

[rician blast]

Stop whining about salaries already. You are #2 on the list of most priveledged' date=' 17 million more than the #3 team [As of Arpil 7, 2006']. Enough. If your front office is going to whine about it, then drop your salary to the league average. The A's have a right to gripe at #21. You don't at #2. Last I checked, they made the playoffs, you didn't.

 

It's not whining. It's pointing out to those who don't seme to "get it" that there is a big difference between the approximately $17-20m advantage the Sox hold over the White Sox, Mets, Angels and Dodgers (and $25m-$30m over the next 7 teams) versus the Yankees $70-80m advantage over the Sox.

 

Not even close to an accurate comparison and let's face the facts...if the Yankees "only" spent $120m, do you really think the Red Sox and other teams would spend what they do? Simply put, the Yankees spending NECESSITATES the Red Sox spending if they want to compete because they're in the same division. If the Red Sox were in a different division then the Yankees they would not need ot spend the way they do.

 

Let me add that I realize that the Red Sox payroll helps them to be a playoff competitor, there is no doubt about it. But the playing field is heavily slanted in the Yankees direction because of their resources, regardless of what Forbes says and regardless of Yankee fans attempts to classify the Red Sox fans' acknolwedgement of the obvious payroll discrepancies as "whining".

[riverside sluggers]

Now the Red Sox have their own TV network' date=' so they will make even more money.[/quote']

 

You do realize that NESN isnt actually a new network, right?

[ORS]

No doubt' date=' Philly was dumping salary and probably believed at the time that they were totally out of the playoff picture and were setting up for a big FA signing this off season (see Soriano). It is also the reason they have been trying to dump Burrell and his salary. Like the Yankees, they agreed to really stupid contract amounts on both Burrell and Abreu and the no-trade clauses only screw it up more. FWI - we talk about the haves and have nots, but the Matsuzaka lottery is another prime example of where Bud Selig and MLB are failing the system. A team will pay upwards of $20M just for the privilege of negotiating a contract with him. That's ridiculous!!! When's the last time you heard of a MLB team paying a college prospect $20M just for the rights to talk to him about a contract[/quote']

Add to that early reports of tampering in the supposed "blind" bidding process.

 

The whole international talent market needs to be addressed IMO. It doesn't make any sense to have one segment of the talent market regulated by a draft while leaving another segment wide open to the influence of money. I think they need to get rid of the IFA market and create an International Draft. The rights to players from other professional leagues should be part of this draft. I'm all for the players' right to negotiate salary as a FA, but I think every player should have to go through the same process to earn that right.