Unofficial Adrian Gonzalez thread.

[Dipre]

Whatever dude...what happened this year, that you can spend like it's going out of style, but not last year?

 

How come we're going to see an increase of nearly 27% in their payroll?

 

Did they change ownership?

Win a World Series?

Increase seat capacity?

Anything?

 

No.

 

They ALWAYS could. They chose not to. What Yankee fans and smart Red Sox fans have said all along. Instead, they convinced the SHEEP that they couldn't, and they believed it. Now they spend, and you guys applaud them for it. Why not last year? The year before?

 

Answer this...why?

 

There is a threshold between as to how much the team can spend while maximizing profit. The Boston Red Sox, as en entity, is a product, to maximize their profit they can choose to exceed this threshold to maximize future earnings.

 

You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is.

[Dipre]

I'm not sure about baseball's finances being public. One of the biggest points of contention that they have had with the Players union has been the owners' steadfast refusal to open its books to the union.

 

Because what the owners don't want the players' union is exactly how much of that revenue they are pocketing.

 

Actual stadium expenses, as well as how much of the revenue from marketing and use of the sports brand are not completely detailed.

[a700hitter]

Read the legend. The revenue indicated as number 4 in the list on the lower area of the site consists only of stadium-related revenue.

The legend for revenue is as follows:

 

Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.

 

The legend for Gate Receipts is as follows:

 

Includes club seats

 

Which legend are you referring to?

[Dipre]

The legend for revenue is as follows:

 

Which legend are you referring to?

 

First one.

 

The point of mentioning it is that it doesn't include revenue from either marketing or other sports-related activities.

[Gom]

It's a dimwitted question' date=' do you really need it answered?[/quote']

 

Yes. Let's see you try to spin this one.

 

Last year, the Red Sox complained that the Yankees were spending like a drunken sailor on a three day pass to Shanghai [they did, no denying]. They claimed that they had a budget, and they were staying under their budget contraints.

 

What happened? You'd figure in bad economic times, they would stay the same, or cut payroll. Instead, they are looking at a probably 27%+ increase in payroll. The Yankees, with all their spending, didn't increase last year...they actually went down due to bad contracts coming off the books.

 

What happened between last year and this year that made all this difference? Or was it just more spin from your FO?

 

Let me give you an example that other FOs are also full of s***. Cashman came out and said that he didn't think Abreu would have come back for the money he signed for with the Angels, and the same was probably true of Damon and Matsui. That they would have been unhappy. Check http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2009/12/19/dollars-and-sense/

 

You know what?

 

It's f***ing horseshit. Swisher saved Cashman's ass by giving comparable production to Abreu last year. You really think Damon and Matsui would have wanted MORE to come back to the Yankees than what they settled for elsewhere?

 

It's just something to appease the fans. Only a true idiot would believe that. If your company was downsizing, and gave you an option to stay on for a reduced salary, at a place where you were comfortable, would go elsewhere for less or stay where you are? Is there anyone in their right mind that would believe that Abreu, Damon, or Matsui would take less to go somewhere else than the Yankees?

 

Get it? Stop believing what you read, and think for yourself.

[a700hitter]

First one.

 

The point of mentioning it is that it doesn't include revenue from either marketing or other sports-related activities.

The legend for Revenue #4 states the following:

 

Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments.

 

What makes you think that it only inludes stadium revenue? The number is net of the Stadium Revenue used to pay down the debt. It is not "Net Stadium Revenue".

[yankees228]

There is a threshold between as to how much the team can spend while maximizing profit. The Boston Red Sox, as en entity, is a product, to maximize their profit they can choose to exceed this threshold to maximize future earnings.

 

You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is.

 

Actually Dipre, in another thread, you got on me for saying this. Regardless, I don't disagree, but if you're going to apply it in this instance, then I think you need to apply it in other instances.

 

For example, if we're going to look at baseball as a business, then the Yankees should be able to reap the benefits of being the most successful team in baseball, financially.

[Gom]

There is a threshold between as to how much the team can spend while maximizing profit. The Boston Red Sox, as en entity, is a product, to maximize their profit they can choose to exceed this threshold to maximize future earnings.

 

You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is.

 

Once again...what happened that caused this increase? I know baseball is a business, probably better than anyone here.

 

It's a weak free agent class. They had no increases in revenue that we can see easily [no new stadium, network deal, increase in seating, etc].

 

What I'm saying is, if they did it this year, they could have done it all along. Which means their cries of poverty were ********.

Actually Dipre, in another thread, you got on me for saying this. Regardless, I don't disagree, but if you're going to apply it in this instance, then I think you need to apply it in other instances.

 

For example, if we're going to look at baseball as a business, then the Yankees should be able to reap the benefits of being the most successful team in baseball, financially.

Bingo. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[ORS]

Think about this Gom, the Yankees had a payroll as high as $220M at the end of the year within the last decade? Are they cheap now, since they are spending much less, or was that a one year expenditure due to necessity?

 

The fact is, one year swings in spending occur for every team, but are indicative of nothing more than increased need in the short term. The Red Sox have made the 2nd most money and spent the 2nd most over the last decade. They are behaving exactly as should be expected. This BS about any of us "believing" that they can't spend money, which is something they have neither communicated, nor something we believe is one of your typical strawmen. The complaint about fairness has been that they can't spend like the Yankees, which is something you agree with. So what the f*** are you talking about?

[Dipre]

The legend for Revenue #4 states the following:

 

 

 

What makes you think that it only inludes stadium revenue? The number is net of the Stadium Revenue used to pay down the debt. It is not "Net Stadium Revenue".

 

The fact that it's absolutely impossible for the net stadium income (tickets) to be higher than marketing, use of brand management and other sports-related activities.

 

The revenue stream has to be consistent with the valuation breakdown of the team. It's statistically impossible for it to happen otherwise.

[Dipre]

Actually Dipre, in another thread, you got on me for saying this. Regardless, I don't disagree, but if you're going to apply it in this instance, then I think you need to apply it in other instances.

 

For example, if we're going to look at baseball as a business, then the Yankees should be able to reap the benefits of being the most successful team in baseball, financially.

 

The problem is, that if you look at the percentages, the Sox still have a logical cost/benefit threshold to which they need to adhere, specially with an ownership group as big as this one, meaning that, if you go by revenues/spending capability numbers alone, the Yankees are in a class that no one else could ever attain, while many other teams can certainly match up to the Red Sox, that's why it's not a fair playing ground.

 

Once again...what happened that caused this increase? I know baseball is a business, probably better than anyone here.

 

It's a weak free agent class. They had no increases in revenue that we can see easily [no new stadium, network deal, increase in seating, etc].

 

What I'm saying is, if they did it this year, they could have done it all along. Which means their cries of poverty were ********.

 

Even with this year's payroll increase, and while they are below their luxury tax, they're still just below what i would consider their "spending" threshold, besides that, "cries of poverty" is a complete fabrication on your part.

 

Bingo. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

This would be a valid statement if you'd taken the time to analyze something instead of just, you know, saying the first thing that comes to mind.

 

The problem is, that in your effort to not become a "sheep" of the media or the, you've become a "sheep" of your own biased, illogical opinion. If you took the time to do a little research instead of faithfully contradicting everything everyone else says (Your MO) you could probably see the error of your ways. I won't hold my breath though.

[Gom]

Think about this Gom, the Yankees had a payroll as high as $220M at the end of the year within the last decade? Are they cheap now, since they are spending much less, or was that a one year expenditure due to necessity?

 

The fact is, one year swings in spending occur for every team, but are indicative of nothing more than increased need in the short term. The Red Sox have made the 2nd most money and spent the 2nd most over the last decade. They are behaving exactly as should be expected. This BS about any of us "believing" that they can't spend money, which is something they have neither communicated, nor something we believe is one of your typical strawmen. The complaint about fairness has been that they can't spend like the Yankees, which is something you agree with. So what the f*** are you talking about?

Yes, one year swings are inevitable. The Yankees payroll actually went down last year, even after signing CC, AJ, and Tex. The Red Sox are closing the gap on the Yankees payroll. All I'm saying is that the Red Sox FO is full of s***, and only an IDIOT would buy what they tell them. Consider yourself in either the enlightened or idiot group...it depends on which one you choose.

 

Don't believe me, dude...your own columnists up in Boston are saying the same s*** I am.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/12/10/fans_shouldnt_buy_red_sox_bridge/

 

He tells you not to buy a bridge. I tell you that you're sheep. Same s***.

 

f***ING THINK FOR YOURSELF.

[yankees228]

That's not fair though, if you're using the "it's a business" argument. Regardless of whether or not other organizations can match, in business, if you have an advantage, you're expected to take advantage of it.

 

EDIT: at Dipre

[Gom]

Honestly..forget my points. Debate the Boston columnist. He's basically saying you're idiots if you believe your FO.

[Dipre]

Yes, one year swings are inevitable. The Yankees payroll actually went down last year, even after signing CC, AJ, and Tex. The Red Sox are closing the gap on the Yankees payroll. All I'm saying is that the Red Sox FO is full of s***, and only an IDIOT would buy what they tell them. Consider yourself in either the enlightened or idiot group...it depends on which one you choose.

 

Don't believe me, dude...your own columnists up in Boston are saying the same s*** I am.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/12/10/fans_shouldnt_buy_red_sox_bridge/

 

He tells you not to buy a bridge. I tell you that you're sheep. Same s***.

 

f***ING THINK FOR YOURSELF.

 

Right before the Sox signed John Lackey and Mike Cameron. The writer had to eat crow, and so do you.

[Dipre]

That's not fair though, if you're using the "it's a business" argument. Regardless of whether or not other organizations can match, in business, if you have an advantage, you're expected to take advantage of it.

 

EDIT: at Dipre

 

The problem is, that in this instance, it's also a hybrid. Teams have the need to both maximize profit while keeping competitive, and it creates a sort of balance limiter between earning/spending that won't allow any team to completely reach another height when it comes to competitive advantage.

 

Except for the Yankees.

 

It's a business, but it's also a sport.

[Gom]

Right before the Sox signed John Lackey and Mike Cameron. The writer had to eat crow' date=' and so do you.[/quote']

 

Even more reason to NOT believe what they tell you. They say one thing, and do another. They're hypocrites, and you believe them. How can you not see this?

[yankees228]

The problem is, that in this instance, it's also a hybrid. Teams have the need to both maximize profit while keeping competitive, and it creates a sort of balance limiter between earning/spending that won't allow any team to completely reach another height when it comes to competitive advantage.

 

Except for the Yankees.

 

It's a business, but it's also a sport.

 

You're changing your stance. This was your quote...

 

"You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is."

 

Going by this statement, you should have no problem with what the Yankees ability to spend money. Now if you want to amend your initial statement, that's fine, but my argument only had to do with that statement.

[ORS]

Right before the Sox signed John Lackey and Mike Cameron. The writer had to eat crow' date=' and so do you.[/quote']

 

The Sox FO pretty much sank the main point of that CHB article pretty quick, and now Gom wants to align his credibility to it.

 

LOL!!! I f***ING LOVE IT!!![/summer's eve]

[a700hitter]

The fact that it's absolutely impossible for the net stadium income (tickets) to be higher than marketing, use of brand management and other sports-related activities.

 

The revenue stream has to be consistent with the valuation breakdown of the team. It's statistically impossible for it to happen otherwise.

Team value includes the value of Fenway. That is the 22% ($182 million) in the pie chart-- the value of Fenway. Similarly, the portion of the pie chart called "Market" is according to the legend the "Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size." It is not the portion attributable to it's marketing efforts net of ticket sales. I think you are mixing apples and oranges.

[Dipre]

Even more reason to NOT believe what they tell you. They say one thing' date=' and do another. They're hypocrites, and you believe them. How can you not see this?[/quote']

 

So you're "out-of-the box" thinking didn't allow to come with the idea that they were trying to keep their transactions quiet to avoid the typical Yankee drive-up or last minute-swoop?

 

Both Cameron and Lackey were players that also interested the Yanks, so to sign them, the Sox needed to do so without letting the Yanks get involved, and they executed perfectly.

 

Face it, not only are you stretching, but your argument lacks a logical base, and it contains many instances of subjectivity on your part.

 

This brings me to three things:

 

1) You're making a lot of stuff up.

 

2) You're stretching to the point of being pathetic.

 

3)You base your argument on opinion, not an actual grasp of either team's current economical structure or situation.

 

This brings me to the grand conclusion:

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, and about 80% of your argument consists of baseless, illogical babble.

 

You can respond to this however you want, i don't care, but i won't lose another brain cell reading your posts or letting you call me "sheep" or whatever other name you're going to make up.

 

When you're ready to join the rest of us in reality, give me a nudge.

[Dipre]

Team value includes the value of Fenway. That is the 22% ($182 million) in the pie chart-- the value of Fenway. Similarly' date=' the portion of the pie chart called "Market" is according to the legend the "Portion of franchise's value attributable to its city and market size." It is not the portion attributable to it's marketing efforts net of ticket sales. I think you are mixing apples and oranges.[/quote']

 

No.

 

Here's the deal.

 

You're looking at the "Red Sox team" and i'm looking at the "Red Sox brand".

 

Under that assumption, i believe we were both correct. You on your initial point, which i misunderstood, but me in my assessment of the Red Sox as a brand. I came to the conclusion when checking the Revenue/Salary ratio, and seeing a consistent interaction between the two.

[ORS]

Going by this statement' date=' you should have no problem with what the Yankees ability to spend money. Now if you want to amend your initial statement, that's fine, but my argument only had to do with that statement.[/quote']

You can acknowledge baseball is a business while recognizing that what they sell, the entertainment of sporting competition, would limit the amount of inequity they can have in the system to make the product credible.

[Dipre]

You're changing your stance. This was your quote...

 

"You fail to see baseball as a business, and that's exactly what it is."

 

Going by this statement, you should have no problem with what the Yankees ability to spend money. Now if you want to amend your initial statement, that's fine, but my argument only had to do with that statement.

 

No.

 

You're putting words in my mouth.

 

This is not what is being argued here.

 

We're not arguing competitive disadvantages of the Yanks versus the Sox, the discussion is about whether or not the Red Sox spend to their capacity.

 

If we were going to the Yankees vs league argument, i would be quick to tell you that the sizable advantage they have is unfair, but they're simply taking advantage of a flawed system. This has always been my stance, and i highly doubt you can prove otherwise.

[Spudboy]

 

The Sox FO pretty much sank the main point of that CHB article pretty quick, and now Gom wants to align his credibility to it.

 

LOL!!! I f***ING LOVE IT!!![/summer's eve]

 

:lol::lol:

 

Do I smell vinegar?

[Gom]

So you're "out-of-the box" thinking didn't allow to come with the idea that they were trying to keep their transactions quiet to avoid the typical Yankee drive-up or last minute-swoop?

 

Both Cameron and Lackey were players that also interested the Yanks, so to sign them, the Sox needed to do so without letting the Yanks get involved, and they executed perfectly.

 

Face it, not only are you stretching, but your argument lacks a logical base, and it contains many instances of subjectivity on your part.

 

This brings me to three things:

 

1) You're making a lot of stuff up.

 

2) You're stretching to the point of being pathetic.

 

3)You base your argument on opinion, not an actual grasp of either team's current economical structure or situation.

 

This brings me to the grand conclusion:

 

You have no idea what you're talking about, and about 80% of your argument consists of baseless, illogical babble.

 

You can respond to this however you want, i don't care, but i won't lose another brain cell reading your posts or letting you call me "sheep" or whatever other name you're going to make up.

 

When you're ready to join the rest of us in reality, give me a nudge.

 

I get it...when they complained last year, their claims were legitimate. They couldn't possibly spend more than what was allocated in their budget.

 

When they complained this year, and then swooped in and made signings, they were coy and smart and involved in misdirection. Somehow, their budget will increase by 27%, in a year where they were swept out of the first round, and didn't add in any appreciable revenue stream, and didn't lose any bad contracts.

 

I get it. Thanks for clearing it up. I thought they were just full of s***, and that you were sheep.

 

I was wrong. It's so obvious, how could I not have seen it?

 

You made more sense when you cried like a baby and ran away.

[yankees228]

You can acknowledge baseball is a business while recognizing that what they sell' date=' the entertainment of sporting competition, would limit the amount of inequity they can have in the system to make the product credible.[/quote']

 

My only point was that when someone makes such a definitive statement about baseball being a business, then it should apply to other areas, one of which being the example I provided. Regardless, Dipre has since (at least it appeared) clarified his stance.

 

As for the credibility of the product, obviously, we disagree. However, similarly to the argument that Gom continues to revisit, I don't think anything would be gained by delving back into it.

[Gom]

ORS...I've ALWAYS said that the Red Sox have the ability to spend, they just choose not to. You go with whatever they do.

 

Explain to me, genius, where did this increase come from that would allow them to increase payroll so dramatically?

 

Could it have been there all along, and you were too ignorant to see it?

 

How is it the obvious can't be seen? Maybe this is what happens when the gene pools are not that different.

[ORS]

I get it...when they complained last year' date=' their claims were legitimate. They couldn't possibly spend more than what was allocated in their budget.[/quote']

Is this really what you think? That they didn't sign Teixeira because of overall budget?

 

Did it occur to you that their offer to Teixeira would take them up to approximately the level they are at right now? Furthermore, is it possible that the budgeting allocation they were talking about was what they valued Teixeira's services to be worth, and not overall spending?

 

There are a lot of inaccurate assumptions in your thinking, but we've pretty much established that's regularly the case.

[a700hitter]

No.

 

Here's the deal.

 

You're looking at the "Red Sox team" and i'm looking at the "Red Sox brand".

 

Under that assumption, i believe we were both correct. You on your initial point, which i misunderstood, but me in my assessment of the Red Sox as a brand. I came to the conclusion when checking the Revenue/Salary ratio, and seeing a consistent interaction between the two.

Revenue is revenue whether from ticket receipts, TV, radio or merchandising. Let me ask this. Revenue is indicated as $269 million and $176 million was attributable to ticket receipts. That leaves a difference of $93 million. it is your position that the $269 million is only stadium revenue. What type of stadium revenue would this $93 million come from?