Plan B

[26 to 6]

I will when a Yankee fan gives me a proper defense of this spending in this economic climate instead of "it's a business!!!"

 

Seems like an awfully poor managed business to me if you miss budget on the stadium by as much as they did.

I'm not sure how much over budget the Stadium went, not much i dont think, but I could be mistaken. That's not the issue thoguh, the issue is where the money is coming from, which we've acknowledged is wrong. And the only reason it is wrong is because all along the organization was claiming it would be 100% privately financed, which obviously didn't turn out to be the case. But as for the budget, like ORS said things change. Plans change. Almost nothing costs as much to build as originally thought and budgeted. That can be said for probably every Stadium built in recent history. It doesn't make them a bad business, because the new York Yankees are far from that. I'm not dick-riding with that statement, I'm just telling the truth. Most profitable franchise in American sports, for various reasons (market, network, stadium, merch, etc.). I just don't see why it bothers you so much that a lot of the money is coming from city taxpayers. You don't live in the city (nor do I), hell you don't even live in the state. It shouldn't really concern you. I think your issue is less with the funding of the Stadium and more with the Yankees spending, and that's fine. But if that's the case then say so, don't hide behind this stupid Stadium argument.

[TheKilo]

I wouldn't harp on them for being over budget, but the public funding in light of their lavish spending should draw criticism.

 

Stadiums get fasttracked in construction. Here's an example. I worked on the Fresno St. Bulldogs arena in 2002. We started building with 50% complete plans. Structure gets reengineered, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems get reworked, etc., etc. It typically adds money to the bottom line. I didn't stay to the end because I moved 'cross country, so I can't tell you the magnitude of changes, but being 50% over is not out of this world (depending on how complete the plans were at the start of construction).

 

To me, missing their budget by about 28.5% while throwing out $400+ million in contracts is a serious problem and reeks of mismanagement.

[jacksonianmarch]

Is this gonna be your argument if we take the title back to NY this offseason.

 

But..but..they were over budget and...and... they asked the taxpayers to fund part of their stadium.

 

I dont care. If banner #27 hits the facade on opening day 2010, I wont care how much we spent to get it or whose money it is.

[TheKilo]

I'm not sure how much over budget the Stadium went' date=' not much i dont think, but I could be mistaken. [/quote']

 

28.5%

 

Original plans - $1.3 billion

Asked for $370 million more

 

.37/1.3 x 100 = 28.46

 

That's not the issue thoguh, the issue is where the money is coming from, which we've acknowledged is wrong. And the only reason it is wrong is because all along the organization was claiming it would be 100% privately financed, which obviously didn't turn out to be the case.

 

Yup.

 

But as for the budget, like ORS said things change. Plans change. Almost nothing costs as much to build as originally thought and budgeted. That can be said for probably every Stadium built in recent history.

 

Hypothetical - You miss budget on a project that size. Tell me if you're able to keep your job.

 

It doesn't make them a bad business, because the new York Yankees are far from that. I'm not dick-riding with that statement, I'm just telling the truth. Most profitable franchise in American sports, for various reasons (market, network, stadium, merch, etc.). I just don't see why it bothers you so much that a lot of the money is coming from city taxpayers. You don't live in the city (nor do I), hell you don't even live in the state. It shouldn't really concern you.

 

You just ANSWERED my problem - the Yankees are a supremely wealthy organization and yet in the same breath have the balls to ask NYC taxpayers for more money.

 

What happens if NYC told the Steinbrenners to go screw? Would the Yankees move? No way. The city had all the leverage in the world and still got bent over by the team who just spent $450 million in contracts.

 

It's a complete joke - families in that same city live day to day, meal to meal and here come the Steinbrenners crying poverty.

 

I think your issue is less with the funding of the Stadium and more with the Yankees spending, and that's fine. But if that's the case then say so, don't hide behind this stupid Stadium argument.

 

They can spend what they want to spend - there isn't a salary cap in baseball and those are the rules to play by.

 

In this economic environment, to put more pressure on NYC taxpayers...just a terrible job.

[TheKilo]

Is this gonna be your argument if we take the title back to NY this offseason.

 

But..but..they were over budget and...and... they asked the taxpayers to fund part of their stadium.

 

I dont care. If banner #27 hits the facade on opening day 2010, I wont care how much we spent to get it or whose money it is.

 

 

Whatever, holmes.

[italstallianion]

Is this gonna be your argument if we take the title back to NY this offseason.

 

But..but..they were over budget and...and... they asked the taxpayers to fund part of their stadium.

 

I dont care. If banner #27 hits the facade on opening day 2010, I wont care how much we spent to get it or whose money it is.

 

 

Would any Yankee fan care? And isn't that part of the problem??

[BSN07]

I'm not sure how much over budget the Stadium went' date=' not much i dont think, but I could be mistaken. That's not the issue thoguh, the issue is where the money is coming from, which we've acknowledged is wrong. And the only reason it is wrong is because all along the organization was claiming it would be 100% privately financed, which obviously didn't turn out to be the case. But as for the budget, like ORS said things change. Plans change. Almost nothing costs as much to build as originally thought and budgeted. That can be said for probably every Stadium built in recent history. It doesn't make them a bad business, because the new York Yankees are far from that. I'm not dick-riding with that statement, I'm just telling the truth. [b']Most profitable franchise in American sports[/b], for various reasons (market, network, stadium, merch, etc.). I just don't see why it bothers you so much that a lot of the money is coming from city taxpayers. You don't live in the city (nor do I), hell you don't even live in the state. It shouldn't really concern you. I think your issue is less with the funding of the Stadium and more with the Yankees spending, and that's fine. But if that's the case then say so, don't hide behind this stupid Stadium argument.

 

When you see someone wearing Major League Baseball garb, it's often bearing a New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox logo. That's because these two teams account for a little more than half of all MLB merchandise sales. However, even with this success at cash registers across America, the Yankees and Red Sox are not among the most profitable teams in all of pro sports. In fact, according to Forbes, the Yanks lost $25.2 million in 2006 and the Red Sox had only $19.5 million in operating income that year

 

 

 

LOL, hard to be #1 when you lose money.

 

Washington Redskins have the honor of being #1.

 

http://www.askmen.com/sports/business_200/221_sports_business.html

 

I'm glancing through Forbes for the actual article, I haven't found it yet though.

[ORS]

The Forbes evaluations use the phony "revenues" the Sox and Yankees get from their broadcast networks. In recent years it was reported that YES paid the Yankees $60M to broadcast a single season. They've been investigated for this figure being well below the market value of the rights to broadcast their games. Those franchise owned networks are cash cows that just aren't a part of Forbes evaluations, as they are separate entities.

[Teddyballgame10]

Did they get the extra money they asked for yet?

[Dipre]

Is this gonna be your argument if we take the title back to NY this offseason.

 

But..but..they were over budget and...and... they asked the taxpayers to fund part of their stadium.

 

I dont care. If banner #27 hits the facade on opening day 2010, I wont care how much we spent to get it or whose money it is.

 

As usual, you make a habit at turning people's words around and turning a nice discussion into a field of strawman arguments.

 

But let me put it in simple terms you can understand.

 

The issue is not about them "buying" a championship with their spending spree, they've tried that before only to FAIL miserably.

 

The issue at hand is that you have the balls to go out and spend more than 400 million dollars on players in this economy, then you, and everyone else who defends them, is a certified ******* for defending their crying to taxpayers for money.

 

That is all.

[diony]

 

The issue at hand is that you have the balls to go out and spend more than 400 million dollars on players in this economy, then you, and everyone else who defends them, is a certified ******* for defending their crying to taxpayers for money.

 

That is all.

 

I'm tired of that BS. They didn't spend 400 million dollars. They committed that money for the next 5-8 years.

 

So they're going to have $200 million payroll for 25 players next season, in this economy.

 

Is not like they made a $180 million check for Teixeira.

[Dipre]

I'm tired of that BS. They didn't spend 400 million dollars. They committed that money for the next 5-8 years.

 

So they're going to have $200 million payroll for 25 players next season, in this economy.

 

Is not like they made a $180 million check for Teixeira.

 

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a retard

[CrespoBlows]

I'm not sure how much over budget the Stadium went' date=' not much i dont think, but I could be mistaken. That's not the issue thoguh, the issue is where the money is coming from, which we've acknowledged is wrong. And the only reason it is wrong is because all along the organization was claiming it would be 100% privately financed, which obviously didn't turn out to be the case. But as for the budget, like ORS said things change. Plans change. Almost nothing costs as much to build as originally thought and budgeted. That can be said for probably every Stadium built in recent history. It doesn't make them a bad business, because the new York Yankees are far from that. I'm not dick-riding with that statement, I'm just telling the truth. Most profitable franchise in American sports, for various reasons (market, network, stadium, merch, etc.). I just don't see why it bothers you so much that a lot of the money is coming from city taxpayers. You don't live in the city (nor do I), hell you don't even live in the state. It shouldn't really concern you. I think your issue is less with the funding of the Stadium and more with the Yankees spending, and that's fine. But if that's the case then say so, don't hide behind this stupid Stadium argument.[/quote']

 

OK, but when Schumer, Bloomberg, and Rangel all start bitching about needing to a bailout, because of their massive state debt, remember comments like this.

 

I mean, for Christ sake, how the f*** can anyone think big government is the solution to problems. Look at the utter fail that's pouring out of New York and infecting the rest of East Coast. 1 in 4 New Yorkers are in poverty, and to respond to this crisis? The city of New York takes $1.3 BILLION out of pockets of the already overburdened taxpayers of New York City, and gives it to a billionaire. Not voluntary. But backed by the force of the state government. What a disgusting use of power.

 

I don't get it, then you try to shield the Boss from people who see something wrong with this, by claiming, "ur juss mad dat teh yankees got teixeira lol"

 

Are you f***ing serious? You don't see why people wouldn't get angry at this? You aren't watching the trend of Big Government and Big Business high five each other, while they fleece taxpayers out of their hard earned money. "LOL KEYNES IS AWESOME!"

[diony]

And you wonder why everyone thinks you're a retard

 

That coming from you? Ha, hilarious.

[Dipre]

That coming from you? Ha' date=' hilarious.[/quote']

 

If it was only me

[TheKilo]

Did they get the extra money they asked for yet?

 

Yes

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/01/16/sports/AP-BBO-Yankees-Mets-Ballparks.html?ref=sports

[26 to 6]

They can spend what they want to spend - there isn't a salary cap in baseball and those are the rules to play by.

 

In this economic environment, to put more pressure on NYC taxpayers...just a terrible job.

I agree with you, but you say it as if you actually give a s***.

 

I don't get it, then you try to shield the Boss from people who see something wrong with this, by claiming, "ur juss mad dat teh yankees got teixeira lol"

 

Are you f***ing serious? You don't see why people wouldn't get angry at this? You aren't watching the trend of Big Government and Big Business high five each other, while they fleece taxpayers out of their hard earned money. "LOL KEYNES IS AWESOME!"

I AGREE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS, I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THIS. SURE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY ABOUT IT, BUT YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. THOSE PEOPLE INCLUDE THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. YOU'RE ALL THE WAY DOWN IN BUM-f***, TEXAS SO IT REALLY DOESN'T CONCERN YOU. WHAT DOES THE WELFARE OF THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE TO DO WITH YOU AND YOUR INTERESTS? NOTHING.

[26 to 6]

woops, sorry for the caps. I'm not gonna go edit and retype the damn thing though.

[CrespoBlows]

I AGREE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS, I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THIS. SURE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY ABOUT IT, BUT YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. THOSE PEOPLE INCLUDE THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. YOU'RE ALL THE WAY DOWN IN BUM-f***, TEXAS SO IT REALLY DOESN'T CONCERN YOU. WHAT DOES THE WELFARE OF THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE TO DO WITH YOU AND YOUR INTERESTS? NOTHING.

 

This is an insane argument. Wrong is wrong. Regardless of where I live, I am going to take a stand on the this issue. Should we not say anything about Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? I don't live there. You don't live there. No, I'm not comparing taxpayer funded stadiums to genocide, but does this line of thinking extend to these cases, as well?

 

The idea of taxpayer funded stadiums has spread all the way down to "BUM-f*** TEXAS." Jerry Jones got himself a beautiful stadium in Tarrant County, so did the Texas Rangers. It's going to take a collective effort to stop this open robbery.

 

I stand by my argument. I don't care where I live. Bloomberg is using his power to fund a stadium when the whole state has a massive deficit. Like I said before, does the rest of nation have the right to get pissed when the state of New York stretches its hand out to Washington for assistance with their exploding debt?

[italstallianion]

I agree with you, but you say it as if you actually give a s***.

 

 

I AGREE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS, I'VE ACKNOWLEDGED THIS. SURE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY ABOUT IT, BUT YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. THOSE PEOPLE INCLUDE THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. YOU'RE ALL THE WAY DOWN IN BUM-f***, TEXAS SO IT REALLY DOESN'T CONCERN YOU. WHAT DOES THE WELFARE OF THE CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK HAVE TO DO WITH YOU AND YOUR INTERESTS? NOTHING.

 

 

 

Do you play tennis 26 to 6?

[Dojji]

I'm guessing that'd be the only love he scores on a regular basis

 

(sorry, the line was too much for me to resist)

[TheKilo]

I'm tired of that BS. They didn't spend 400 million dollars. They committed that money for the next 5-8 years.

 

So they're going to have $200 million payroll for 25 players next season, in this economy.

 

Is not like they made a $180 million check for Teixeira.

 

Just because the investment doesn't come in one calendar year doesn't mean that the investment doesn't have to be paid. It does.

[italstallianion]

I'm guessing that'd be the only love he scores on a regular basis

 

(sorry, the line was too much for me to resist)

 

 

 

I was asking because he just got SERVED....

[Dojji]

That's good too.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

That coming from you? Ha' date=' hilarious.[/quote']

Yes, him, the dude with a law degree.

 

 

 

Which is definitely more than you can say for yourself.

[italstallianion]

Yes, him, the dude with a law degree.

 

 

QUOTE]

 

 

I'm sure it was well proven during your drunken rampage with incoherent typing....j/k

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

 

I'm sure it was well proven during your drunken rampage with incoherent typing....j/k

What was well proven?

[jacksonianmarch]

Getting back to the topic at hand.

 

The Sox plan B was to go out and sign 4 reclamation projects.

 

I like the Saito signing simply because they dont NEED him to produce and if he is somehow able to stay healthy, then their top 3 of Saito/Oki/Papelbon will be tough to beat. Granted, I dont think there is a chance in hell he performs at his prior level of ability or lasts the entire yr. But the upside of this deal outweighs the risk.

 

I dont think the sox did enough with their #4 spot. You have a guy in Beckett who misses time regularly, you have DiceK who doesnt give a lot of innings and has broken down at some point in each of his 2 MLB seasons, you have a guy in Lester who just surpassed his prior IP limit by 80, which is concerning, and you have Wake who hasnt been the picture of health over the past few yrs. I do think that the idea of getting 2 injury prone guys for the spot was better than 1, but overall, there are just too many ?'s in that rotation, especially when a guy like Lowe could have helped. That being said, it would have to be an incredible stroke of un-luck for all those pitchers to be out at once, but hey, stranger things have happened (see 2008 yankees).

 

In terms of the OF, the sox sign Baldelli and resign Kotsay. Not sure what the reasoning is there. Kotsay fits the prototype of a 4th OFer. He's durable, plays good D at all 3 positions and can get on base. Baldelli isnt a good 4th OFer. He cannot play on consecutive days in the field and he's lost a ton of speed. So the sox are now carrying 5OFers and the two guys on the bench really dont add much in terms of SB opportunities.

 

The sox lost out on their prize offensive acquisition and now need to hope for a repeat of career yrs for some and a bounceback from injury/ineffectiveness from others.

 

And the C position still remains an issue.

 

There's the plan B. Nothing all that attention grabbing. We'll see how things work out for them

[Paradisecity]

 

 

 

I dont think the sox did enough with their #4 spot. You have a guy in Beckett who misses time regularly, you have DiceK who doesnt give a lot of innings and has broken down at some point in each of his 2 MLB seasons, you have a guy in Lester who just surpassed his prior IP limit by 80, which is concerning, and you have Wake who hasnt been the picture of health over the past few yrs. I do think that the idea of getting 2 injury prone guys for the spot was better than 1, but overall, there are just too many ?'s in that rotation, especially when a guy like Lowe could have helped. That being said, it would have to be an incredible stroke of un-luck for all those pitchers to be out at once, but hey, stranger things have happened (see 2008 yankees).

 

 

 

We have a few arms that are ready in the pen/minors.

[jacksonianmarch]

as do most teams. I think the question is, do you want to rely on them? I think the sox are trying to do enough on a 1 yr basis to shield them from being pressed into big league duty so they can get their innings up and get their stuff in order, confidence back, etc. I am just not sure that they did seeing as Smoltz is really a wing and a prayer to even take the mound and be effective. If you take his name off the list, then you're down to 5 guys with significant concerns. And if you remember, last yr we started with 2 guys we thought would be innings eaters in Wang and Pettitte and then had 3 durability concerns. Well, Moose proved us all wrong, Wang went down with a freak injury and the other two durability cases proved to not be durable. And neither did the rest of the guys we brought in for that matter