Related note to W.S. celebration

[Emmz]

They costed more than the Twins, by like... 20M

 

They didn't buy their championship AT ALL

[26 to 6]

Inaccurate.

 

CC got a $9M bonus with the $14M, Teixeira got a $5M bonus with the $20M, and Burnett gets $16.5M every year of his contract. So the initial expenditure was $64.5M, but that's not all. The LT is based on AAV of contract value, and every one of their salaries were over the cap. Therefore, you tack on 40% (repeat offender rate) of their combined AAV of $52M, which is $21.6M. In real $$ expenditures, those players cost the Yankees $86.1M this year alone.

Fair enough. I was aware of the bonuses, but neglected to mention them because I didn't think they went towards the actual payroll. As for Burnett, Cot's baseball Contracts had him getting just $13m this year. he signed for 5 years/$82.5m, which as you said averages out to $16.5, but I figured there was some sort of bonus or backloading in the contract. As for the LT and it being based on AAV and whatnot, you know much more about that than I do, so I'll take your word for it.

[26 to 6]

They costed more than the Twins, by like... 20M

 

They didn't buy their championship AT ALL

Where did I say that? Show me one post in which I failed to ackowledge the Yankees big financial advantage and their willingness to spend? ONE.

[TheMino007]

The luxury tax needs to be lowered and teams need to be punished more greatly for being over it. Every year the Yankees can't have a monoply over baseball by having all the power to spend on whomever ever they want while every other team has a budget.

[jacksonianmarch]

they built that "monoply" over decades of sustained success. It is more of an earned thing than anything else. That being said, if Bud somehow got a salary structure that forced NY into a lower salary range, then Cashman and Co would explode on the INTL FA market as well as the draft

[Dipre]

they built that "monoply" over decades of sustained success. It is more of an earned thing than anything else. That being said' date=' if Bud somehow got a salary structure that forced NY into a lower salary range, then Cashman and Co would explode on the INTL FA market as well as the draft[/quote']

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with the laughable imbalance of the current structure.

 

Jesus Christ.

[jacksonianmarch]

So, based upon your statement above, you do not believe that the Yankees current financial advantage has anything to do with their past successes? You do not think that their financial empire has been strengthened by their history of consistent winning?

[Dipre]

So' date=' based upon your statement above, you do not believe that the Yankees current financial advantage has anything to do with their past successes? You do not think that their financial empire has been strengthened by their history of consistent winning?[/quote']

 

What i do believe, is that the Yankees current advantage is a fault of the system, not a monopoly created by their past success.

[BoSox21]

Their financial empire has definitely been strengthened by their historical success. The fact that they can use their financial empire to create a competitive disadvantage for every other team is a fault of the system.

[Dipre]

Their financial empire has definitely been strengthened by their historical success. The fact that they can use their financial empire to create a competitive disadvantage for every other team is a fault of the system.

 

Fair enough, you are absolutely right.

[BoSox21]

But it isn't solely based on historical success so you can't just say "well, the Yankees worked hard to make winning a constant in their history, they should be able to benefit from that".

 

The biggest factor contributing to their financial empire is that the fact that they happen to play in the center of the universe, the largest and richest market in the country. No other team will ever be able to compete with that, to create revenue streams large enough to overcome not playing in New York City.

[jacksonianmarch]

The Mets can compare with that, but they dont have that financial advantage.

[BoSox21]

The Mets can compare with that' date=' but they dont have that financial advantage.[/quote']

 

Are NYC's business leaders more inclined to buy a box at Yankee Stadium or CitiField?

[Dipre]

The Mets can compare with that' date=' but they dont have that financial advantage.[/quote']

 

They probably could if they played their cards right

[jacksonianmarch]

And I can argue that people's willingness to buy tickets for a team is due to their history. Here is the flow sheet (and I know you are right Bosox)

 

Yankees market + Yankees prior success = massive renevues. Massive revenues + broken system = persistent dominance. Their prior successes and their current successes are a major part of why the team is so big in NY. They are a sticking point for the bravado of people who live in the city that never sleeps.

[jacksonianmarch]

They probably could if they played their cards right

 

You mean, if they started winning consistently, like say.... THE YANKEES

[jacksonianmarch]

The Mets/Yankees dichotomy shows that the past success is incredibly important. The Mets can easily have payrolls in the low $100 million range and not bat an eye. But if they go up into the mid to high $100 mil range, they need to be winning to be able to afford it. Why? because they are the mets, the lovable losers who got two championships but floundered many more. They dont have the history that NY does and therefore, they cannot draw off their fanbase as well as the Yankees can

[Dipre]

You mean' date=' if they started winning consistently, like say.... THE YANKEES

 

*Sigh*

 

Not winning WS consistently, because no one has done that this decade.

 

If they could stop s***ing the bed awarding bad contracts (See: Perez, Oliver), and making stupid trades (See:Kazmir, Scott) they could set themselves up to put a more competitive product on the field that's more appealing to New Yorkers. Sort of like the 2006 team.

[Dipre]

The Mets/Yankees dichotomy shows that the past success is incredibly important. The Mets can easily have payrolls in the low $100 million range and not bat an eye. But if they go up into the mid to high $100 mil range' date=' they need to be winning to be able to afford it. Why? because they are the mets, the lovable losers who got two championships but floundered many more. They dont have the history that NY does and therefore, they cannot draw off their fanbase as well as the Yankees can[/quote']

 

As stated above, that has a lot more to do with the quality of the product.

[jacksonianmarch]

*Sigh*

 

Not winning WS consistently, because no one has done that this decade.

 

If they could stop s***ing the bed awarding bad contracts (See: Perez, Oliver), and making stupid trades (See:Kazmir, Scott) they could set themselves up to put a more competitive product on the field that's more appealing to New Yorkers. Sort of like the 2006 team.

 

Where did I say world series in there? I said winning consistently. They have won a lot of world series, but the yankees have been winning consistently for 15 yrs now. Not necessarily the big one, but they have won the most games, have been to the most playoff games, the most world series', etc over the past decade plus. You win consistently and people will support your team. That glow lasts only so long, so you need to put a team out there that is competitive on a consistent basis. The Mets put out competitive teams once every 5 yrs or so, and that isnt enough when the yankees are rattling off 95+ win seasons like they are going out of style.

[Paradisecity]

Yeah, it definitely has nothing to do with the Yankees having been around an extra 60 years...

[Dipre]

Where did I say world series in there? I said winning consistently. They have won a lot of world series' date=' but the yankees have been winning consistently for 15 yrs now. Not necessarily the big one, but they have won the most games, have been to the most playoff games, the most world series', etc over the past decade plus. You win consistently and people will support your team. That glow lasts only so long, so you need to put a team out there that is competitive on a consistent basis. The Mets put out competitive teams once every 5 yrs or so, and that isnt enough when the yankees are rattling off 95+ win seasons like they are going out of style.[/quote']

 

Ah, i see.

 

You are right in that instance then and i concur.

 

If the Mets could put together a team that could at least make the playoffs consistently it would be a whole different scenario.

[BoSox21]

For once, Jacko and I are on the same page. The Yankees control most of the NYC pie and thus the NYC financial advantage because the Yankee brand is simply bigger than the Met brand and they owe that to past success.

 

The Yankees have had as many bad contracts as the Mets but the Yankees can buy their way out of their mistakes without missing a beat more than the Mets can.

[Dipre]

Yeah' date=' it definitely has nothing to do with the Yankees having been around an extra 60 years...[/quote']

 

I honestly think it has more to do with the Met's suck.

 

But that's just me.

 

If Mets ownership started manufacturing and distributing dairy products, a week later it would be discovered that milk is the cause for cancer.

[BoSox21]

Yeah' date=' it definitely has nothing to do with the Yankees having been around an extra 60 years...[/quote']

 

The Angels consistently outspend the Dodgers

[yankees228]

Are NYC's business leaders more inclined to buy a box at Yankee Stadium or CitiField?

 

That's because the Yankees are a more successful organization, and because of their rich history. Jacko's point about the Yankees and the Mets is a valid one.

 

EDIT: I didn't finish reading the rest of the thread. I apologize for stating things that have already been discussed.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yeah' date=' it definitely has nothing to do with the Yankees having been around an extra 60 years...[/quote']

 

which also adds to their lore and following. PC, if the yankees had the same luck as the cubbies, then I bet the Mets would be the hot ticket in NYC. Its not just the lore and the time served, but the quality of that time.

[ORS]

which also adds to their lore and following. PC' date=' if the yankees had the same luck as the cubbies, then I bet the Mets would be the hot ticket in NYC. Its not just the lore and the time served, but the quality of that time.[/quote']

The Cubs are the more popular team in Chicago despite the White Sox and their better recent success. This suggests the popularity of a team in a shared town is more arbitrary than it is dependent on success. I find no achievement by Yankee management for them being more popular in NY. It's low hanging fruit that's easy to pick. It's only remarkable if they fail to pick it.

[yankees228]

The Cubs are the more popular team in Chicago despite the White Sox and their better recent success. This suggests the popularity of a team in a shared town is more arbitrary than it is dependent on success. I find no achievement by Yankee management for them being more popular in NY. It's low hanging fruit that's easy to pick. It's only remarkable if they fail to pick it.

 

You don't think that the Yankees winning is the reason why they're more popular than the Mets?

[jacksonianmarch]

The Cubs are the more popular team in Chicago despite the White Sox and their better recent success. This suggests the popularity of a team in a shared town is more arbitrary than it is dependent on success. I find no achievement by Yankee management for them being more popular in NY. It's low hanging fruit that's easy to pick. It's only remarkable if they fail to pick it.

 

The cubbies forge their legacy as lovable losers.