Ellsbury to Yankees

[User Name]

3-4 years is a pretty good-sized window.

 

Not window for winning, but rather getting f***ed because of the roster crunch. The way Sabathia's going (Jacko's inane rationalizations aside) plus Teixeira and A-Rod's albatross, all it would take is a couple flops to f*** them over. And if the 2012 Red Sox and 2013 Yankees are any indication, this is Murphy's Law's favorite situation.

[User Name]

Great! Tanaka is back in our hands! This is good

 

Rakuten Golden Eagles May Not Post Masahiro Tanaka

By Steve Adams [December 5 at 12:00pm CST]

 

Rakuten Golden Eagles president Yozo Tachibana addressed the Japanese media today and indicated that the team may not necessarily post Masahiro Tanaka in light of the new posting system's $20MM maximum bid, according to a report from Sponichi (Japanese link). Dylan Hernandez of the L.A. Times elaborates in his most recent article and offers translated quotes from Tachibana.

 

"There's a possibility we won't take the next step," said Tachibana. As Newsday's David Lennon noted on Twitter today, the Golden Eagles may think that retaining Tanaka is more valuable than the $20MM maximum posting fee, which is a mere fraction of the $75MM+ posting fee that was rumored under the old system.

 

Hernandez notes that the Golden Eagles will be under "immense public pressure" to post Tanaka despite the new rules. That wouldn't guarantee anything, however. Tanaka failing to hit the market after this long, drawn out process would be a major impact to interested teams who are now dreaming of their increased chances to land the highly touted ace. The Yankees have been prioritizing Tanaka but would have to turn elsewhere to fill out a rotation in need of a significant boost.

 

Should Tanaka stay in Japan, the cases for Ervin Santana, Matt Garza and Ubaldo Jimenez would only be strengthened, as their primary competition would be off the market.

 

Per MLBTR. How does this make your smug-ass self feel, monsieur Jacko?

[iortiz]

This is the main point where i think you and i differ. I think the Yankees have a (rather high) spending limit, but it is there nonetheless. There will come a point when all of these crappy contracts will catch up to them, and a couple of 2013 seasons will be needed to clean house and get s*** in order. We'll see.

While they have spending limits, do not forget that they are who frequently set the market boundaries. My point all along is that they act like classic rich people. If they badly want something they will get it, no matter what, money can buy almost anything, and if they get tired at some point of it they will replace it just like that and will find a way to be in shape again. They have repeated this, over and over again. It has been the history of their broad success. Hell, I do not have access to their books but I fully believe that even a 300 MUSD payroll team are "peanuts" vs the money they are making in their overall NYY business, so… If I were a NYY fan I wouldn't be worry at all about Ells contract and eventually if they overpay Cano… As I said if something goes wrong, don't worry, They will find a way to be in shape again. IMO they want to win it all in 2014, at whatever cost hahahahahaha

Edited December 5, 2013 by iortiz

[User Name]

While they have spending limits, do not forget that they are who frequently set the market boundaries. My point all along is that they act like classic rich people. If they badly want something they will get it, no matter what, money can buy almost anything, and if they get tired at some point of it they will replace it just like that and will find a way to be in shape again. They have repeat this, over and over again. It has been the history of their broad success. Hell, I do not have access to their books but I fully believe that even a 300 MUSD payroll team are "peanuts" vs the money they are making in their overall NYY business, so… If I were a NYY fan I wouldn't be worry at all about Ells contract and eventually if they overpay Cano… As I said if something goes wrong, don't worry, They will find a way to be in shape again. IMO they want to win it all in 2014, at whatever cost hahahahahaha

 

Actually, their income and expenditures are all available at the Forbes website for the past few years. Their profit margins are easy to calculate, and their spending power, while great, is not as big as you may think, especially calculating lux tax hit considerations. They are spending this year because they'll lose more money if they don't, not because they necessarily want to.

[Palodios]

Per MLBTR. How does this make your smug-ass self feel, monsieur Jacko?

 

That's crazy. So apparently 20 million isn't enough for the Eagles to trade Japanese-Kershaw. Maybe this agreement will do more harm than good for the game.

[iortiz]

Actually, their income and expenditures are all available at the Forbes website for the past few years. Their profit margins are easy to calculate, and their spending power, while great, is not as big as you may think, especially calculating lux tax hit considerations. They are spending this year because they'll lose more money if they don't, not because they necessarily want to.

Are the NYY a public company?

[User Name]

Are the NYY a public company?

 

They're private, but their $$$ numbers have been made available through the Forbes website for years now.

 

http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-yankees/

 

If you dig around this website for a bit, you'll find whatever money-related numbers you're looking for.

[iortiz]

They're private, but their $$$ numbers have been made available through the Forbes website for years now.

 

http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-yankees/

 

If you dig around this website for a bit, you'll find whatever money-related numbers you're looking for.

 

Seems like they are not including the TV revenue which is their major income, isn't it?

[User Name]

Seems like they are not including the TV revenue which is their major income, isn't it?

 

Yeah you can find TV revenue as well if you dig into their income chart for past years, unless it's been removed, which i doubt.

[iortiz]

Yeah you can find TV revenue as well if you dig into their income chart for past years, unless it's been removed, which i doubt.

 

If the TV revenue at least matches the "team" revenue (which I doubt it, I believe it is a lot more), then… even a 300 MUSD team is not an issue at all.

[Spudboy]

I don't know anything about the posting process. Does that Japanese team get to keep only 20 mil. from one team? As I said, I have no understanding of this process. Where does the 20 mil. from each team that bids or posts go? Do they get to keep their 20 mil. if they are not the eventual winners? Do they lose the 20 mil. if they negotiate with the player and don't sign him? I think that was the case when the Sox went after Dice K but I'm not sure. Can someone please explain this s*** to me?

[User Name]

If the TV revenue at least matches the "team" revenue (which I doubt it, I believe it is more), then… even a 300 MUSD team is not an issue at all.

 

Actually, it is. And no, it isn't. You can ask a700 whether or not TV revenues are higher than gate receipts for MLB teams, and he will promptly tell you that no, they aren't, even for the Yankees and Dodgers. Their total revenue for 2012 is the 471 million presented by the Forbes website (Net stadium revenue includes all of the revenue that is directly generated by the Yankees' on-field product, including concessions and TV money).

 

Besides their 236 million dollar payroll obligation, they also had expenditures in the form of NYS payments, and the lux-tax hit which i read somewhere averages out to around 20 million dollars.

 

That's nearly 300 million dollars in expenditures. Do you really think they would further increase spending and cut into their (relatively low) profit margin? I highly highly doubt it.

[User Name]

I don't know anything about the posting process. Does that Japanese team get to keep only 20 mil. from one team? As I said, I have no understanding of this process. Where does the 20 mil. from each team that bids or posts go? Do they get to keep their 20 mil. if they are not the eventual winners? Do they lose the 20 mil. if they negotiate with the player and don't sign him? I think that was the case when the Sox went after Dice K but I'm not sure. Can someone please explain this s*** to me?

 

Only the team that negotiates with the player pays the bid, and if they are unable to reach an agreement with the player, the player returns to his team, and the money is returned to the bidder.

[RedSoxNC84]

Jacko, which song more exemplifies the traits you have as someone who saves lives: Hero by Chad Kroeger or My Hero by the Foo Fighters?

 

Definitely Chad Kroeger. He's not cool enough for the foo fighters

[RedSoxNC84]

That's crazy. So apparently 20 million isn't enough for the Eagles to trade Japanese-Kershaw. Maybe this agreement will do more harm than good for the game.

 

It's 20 mil and whichever team has the lower record get priority. I think it's more fair because it gives low ranking teams a chance

[iortiz]

Actually, it is. And no, it isn't. You can ask a700 whether or not TV revenues are higher than gate receipts for MLB teams, and he will promptly tell you that no, they aren't, even for the Yankees and Dodgers. Their total revenue for 2012 is the 471 million presented by the Forbes website (Net stadium revenue includes all of the revenue that is directly generated by the Yankees' on-field product, including concessions and TV money).

 

Besides their 236 million dollar payroll obligation, they also had expenditures in the form of NYS payments, and the lux-tax hit which i read somewhere averages out to around 20 million dollars.

 

That's nearly 300 million dollars in expenditures. Do you really think they would further increase spending and cut into their (relatively low) profit margin? I highly highly doubt it.

 

Since it is not a public company I have no idea. Sure, forbes provides you a decent outside-in but sometimes their analysis are far to be accurate in real life.

 

Either way… what I understand is that only the on-field product generates 471 in 2012, isn't it?. if so... Aside their players expenses, the other costs are symbolic. Assuming this is right, even a 400 M payroll team is not an issue considering that you still have to add the TV revenue, which I assume is a juicy business. These days a 18%-20% profit business is a very good point of start if you ask me. IMO the nyy business is far above that % the way I see the thing.

Edited December 5, 2013 by iortiz

[Palodios]

It's 20 mil and whichever team has the lower record get priority. I think it's more fair because it gives low ranking teams a chance

 

Did you just correct me by using the same number I posted?

 

Low teams don't get priority.

[User Name]

[/b]

 

Since it is not a public company I have no idea. Sure, forbes provides you a decent outside-in but sometimes their analysis are far to be accurate in real life.

 

Either way… what I understand is that only the on-field product generates 471 in 2012, isn't it?. if so... Aside their players expenses, the other costs are symbolic. Assuming this is right, even a 400 M payroll team is not an issue considering that you still have to add the TV revenue, which I assume is a juicy business. These days a 18%-20% profit business is a very good point of start if you ask me. IMO the nyy business is far above that % the way I see the thing.

 

The tv revenue is included in the 471 million figure. The average profit margin for MLB teams is usually closer to 30% than the 18-20% you present, since FO salary figures are not included in the general expenditure calculation. You are both overvaluing the tv profit and undervaluing the profit margin.

 

Also, Forbes' numbers are acquired from MLB and the teams themselves, and the figures are verified against each other. They are so accurate because they come straight from the horse's mouth.

Edited December 5, 2013 by User Name?

[RedSoxNC84]

Did you just correct me by using the same number I posted?

 

Low teams don't get priority.

 

Not correcting you just adding to it. Did they change the agreement or something? Before they were saying that the new system was going to give lower ranking teams priority in case multiple teams posted the same amount

[iortiz]

The tv revenue is included in the 471 million figure. The average profit margin for MLB teams is usually closer to 30% than the 18-20% you present, since FO salary figures are not included in the general expenditure calculation. You are both overvaluing the tv profit and undervaluing the profit margin.

 

Seems like they are not including the TV revenue which is their major income, isn't it?

 

Yeah you can find TV revenue as well if you dig into their income chart for past years, unless it's been removed, which i doubt.

 

I do not think they are including it. In the notes they only say "Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments."

 

Also, If the income via tickets/beverage/food/etc "stadium revenues" is above TV as some suggest, Do you believe that they are making say… only +-200 M via TV?

Edited December 5, 2013 by iortiz

[User Name]

I do not think they are including it. In the notes they only say "Net of stadium revenues used for debt payments."

 

Also, If the income via tickets/beverage/food/etc "stadium revenues" is above TV as some suggest, Do you believe that they are making say… only 200 M via TV?

 

A bit less actually. I read a write-up on team TV contracts a while back, and that's the estimate they had for the Yankees' YES Network.

[iortiz]

A bit less actually. I read a write-up on team TV contracts a while back, and that's the estimate they had for the Yankees' YES Network.

 

I'm gonna dig a bit more when I have time but I hardly believe it. Also in the notes they clearly regard the revenues only to "stadium revenues".

 

To put this is context, Las chivas rayadas de Guadalajara (Mexican soccer team) are making around 200 M via TV and they are far to be NYY.

Edited December 5, 2013 by iortiz

[Palodios]

Not correcting you just adding to it. Did they change the agreement or something? Before they were saying that the new system was going to give lower ranking teams priority in case multiple teams posted the same amount

 

Right -- that was something that teams had been discussing, but it sounds like now every team that bids the highest amount gets negotiating rights.

[RedSoxNC84]

Right -- that was something that teams had been discussing, but it sounds like now every team that bids the highest amount gets negotiating rights.

 

So instead of one team posting the highest amount and getting sole rights, every team can post and get open rights? Sounds a little more fair, but still leaves teams with a higher payroll with advantage

[User Name]

I'm gonna dig a bit more when I have time but I hardly believe it. Also in the notes they clearly regard the revenues only to "stadium revenues".

 

To put this is context, Las chivas rayadas de Guadalajara (Mexican soccer team) are making around 200 M via TV and they are far to be NYY.

 

200 M pesos probably. Also, i'm doing some digging around of my own.

[SoxSport]

So instead of one team posting the highest amount and getting sole rights, every team can post and get open rights? Sounds a little more fair, but still leaves teams with a higher payroll with advantage

 

You will never see MLB without a payroll advantage for NY and LA. TV won't allow it. Neither will the Players Union.

The odd thing is payroll doesn't seem to correlate very well with championships or playoffs these days. Big money helps, but isn't a guarantee of success. Mainly because of the farm system.

 

The NBA has a similar "soft" cap setup which benefits NY and LA teams, which are always over the cap (excluding the Clippers).

 

The NFL has a hard cap, and there is parity in the sport--maybe the main reason why it's so popular. Smaller market teams can dominate from year to year. Art Shell went along with it when he was head of the Players Union. It doesn't prevent TV from showcasing the NY teams in their schedules, however, including the terrible Jets. It's embarrassing the way NFL TV keeps showcasing that team--and ignoring the Giants-- in their analysis shows.

 

A lot of people don't realize TV sets up the schedules of these sports--College football and basketball, too. The major source of revenue for teams--from advertising and our cable bills.

[User Name]

This website: http://www.forbes.com/teams/new-york-yankees/ explains part of the reason for misconceptions like yours regarding how much money teams make off their tv deals.

 

I quote:

The Rolls-Royce of the RSN model is the New York Yankees, who own 34 percent of the YES Network (full disclosure: I am co-host of Forbes SportsMoney on YES). The Bronx Bombers are the most valuable team in baseball, worth $1.85 billion, tying them with the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys for the top spot among American sports teams and placing them second in the world to Manchester United, the English soccer team worth $1.9 billion. YES generated a staggering $224 million in operating income and paid the Yankees a $90 million rights fee in 2011.

 

So in short, out of the 224 million YES generated in 2011, the Yankees only received a grand total of 90 million dollars, meaning your idea of just how much revenue the Yankees receive from YES network is a gross misconception, and jives a lot more with Forbe's 471 million dollars in revenue for the NYY.

[User Name]

You will never see MLB without a payroll advantage for NY and LA. TV won't allow it. Neither will the Players Union.

The odd thing is payroll doesn't seem to correlate very well with championships or playoffs these days. Big money helps, but isn't a guarantee of success. Mainly because of the farm system.

 

The NBA has a similar "soft" cap setup which benefits NY and LA teams, which are always over the cap (excluding the Clippers).

 

The NFL has a hard cap, and there is parity in the sport--maybe the main reason why it's so popular. Smaller market teams can dominate from year to year. Art Shell went along with it when he was head of the Players Union. It doesn't prevent TV from showcasing the NY teams in their schedules, however, including the terrible Jets. It's embarrassing the way NFL TV keeps showcasing that team--and ignoring the Giants-- in their analysis shows.

 

A lot of people don't realize TV sets up the schedules of these sports--College football and basketball, too. The major source of revenue for teams--from advertising and our cable bills.

 

No it isn't. As i posted above, you are clearly incorrect with the whole cable money crap you keep spouting over and over and over again. Forbes has it right, teams make most of their money from tickets and concessions. Even the Dodgers.

Edited December 5, 2013 by User Name?

[iortiz]

200 M pesos probably. Also, i'm doing some digging around of my own.

 

nope, USD (They signed with Televisa and recently with Univision), reason why I don't think the NYY are only making 200 MUSD via TV .

[User Name]

nope USD (They signed with Televisa and recently Univision), reason why I don't think the NYY are making only 200 MUSD via TV .

 

Read the post above. They make a hell of a lot less actually.