Good to see the Yankees' luxury tax bill decrease. The less money the Yankees pay, the less extra profit the other owners will have to spend on payroll.

It's those teams that don't spend on payroll no matter how much luxury tax they get that tick me off. How can the Marlins have a payroll of $14 million when they get over $30 million from revenue sharing? Where's the rest of the money going? It's not supposed to go into the owners' pockets, but I think there's some creative accounting going on. How does Pittsburgh get $25 million more in revenue sharing than they used to have, yet their payroll goes down?

It was a great year in this community and I look forward to the next with all the exciting signings.

A happy and a safe holiday season and Merry Christmas to one and all.

2 Yes, its a MASSIVE fuck'p that there is no MINIMUM team cap. For George and NY to finance parity and fairness is great... to put money DIRECTLY into other owner's pockets is sick.

You would think the the Players Assoc. would be behind a minimum, or a rule that dictated that Lux.Tax revenues go directly into salaries. This would help stop firesales, and allow players to possibly stay with the 'home' team, instead of needing to leave for a few extra mil.

Baseball is a business and owners should be allowed and encouraged to profit from it. But however you look at it, fans fund the whole show, and we should get some concessions (and I don't mean a stale hot dog). It is also the 'American Pastime' and plays an important role in our culture. Owners should be expected to put a competative team on the field and make all attempts to build a winning team.

Of the 97mil George has been 'taxed', I wonder how much as been directly pocketed. Socialized Health Care, OK..... Socialized Baseball??????

/Holiday rant

I am actually not that bothered by the fact that some teams don't field competitive teams. Some didn't in the old says (St. Luois Browns, eg), and some don't now. But then, I am not all that convinced that 'parity' should be a goal, either. I think sports leagues are most entertaining when there is a cluster of good teams that are more or less stable (at least for a number of years)--these become the flagship franchises of the league, the teams that everyone can root for or against, etc. The NBA was at its marketing best when they had a few stars placed strategically on a few really good teams. The problems with the NFL's MNF have much to do with parity, as it has become impossible to predict what will be marquee matchups from week to week, let alone season to season.

So, if the Pirates, et al want to pocket the luxury tax cash (basically, the payoff that 'rich teams' make to keep them in the league so that a full schedule can be played) and accept perpetual doormat status, so be it.

The Pirates payroll's going down; Sean Casey & Jeromy Burnitz are off the payroll.

Damn, that was a long sentence.

As for Pittsburgh...I don't just mean this year. I mean since 2001, when they completed their new stadium. They're pulling in an extra $25 million a year via revenue sharing since then, and their payroll has gone down.

And, thanks to all the posters for comments cogent and funny.

Happy Holidays!

As for Pittsburgh, I guess my point is that buying FA's aren't the be-all end-all. Tying that into the payroll discussion, I would rather a team that isn't going anywhere spend that $$ in scouting, development, or whatever, than doing something crazy, like signing Gil Meche.

The Pirates have bigger problems than not siging FA's

http://tinyurl.com/y8jx9v

Pittsburgh...check out this article:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05121/497194.stm

"Pirates' profit is there, but where is it going?"

===
It is not difficult to circumvent the way revenue-sharing spending is reported, some experts say. Owners easily can disguise which money goes where by saying that it all is lumped into one central pool. From there, they can do anything with it.

Two leading economists believe that approach is common.

"Revenue sharing has enabled teams to put more money into player payroll. But the fact is, a lot of them are not doing that," said Andrew Zimbalist, noted author and professor of economics at Smith College in Northampton, Mass. "You could be paying off debt. You could be paying front-office people. You could be expanding your facilities. Or you could be taking profits. That's what's happening in some places, and I wouldn't be surprised if McClatchy was doing it."

Allen Sanderson, economist at the University of Chicago who studies baseball's inner workings, said low-spending teams now can find a way to profit from being losers, thanks to revenue sharing.

"You have owners who are doing the right thing and making their teams better, and you have owners at the other end," he said. "You could have an owner who says, 'Hey, I can go to the bar and put nine drunks out on the field and maximize my profit.' Even a bad baseball team wins 40 percent of its games. Why should he spend an extra $50 million to win that extra game or two each week?"
===

I can understand not going out and filling your cart with A-Rods or Giambis. But some teams won't even keep the talent they developed. A lot of Yankees fans think there must be something wrong with Gonzalez, since Pittsburgh's trying to get rid of him. The only thing wrong with him is that he's arbitration-eligible.

Should be interesting to see if the Marlins keep Willis and Cabrera. A lot of fans seem to expect them to be traded when they get expensive, but with revenue-sharing, they can afford to keep them if they want to.

Until MLB undergoes an independent audit, I won't believe a thing they say about "losing $$"

As for teams not keeping the talent they develop, I'd have to know the reasons they don't. Maybe they have better alternatives in the system. One thing I've liked about the Marlins is that despite the "fire sale" they had, they get talent in return (unlike the Padres who did something similar in the early 90's). Look at some of the names they've recieved in turn for the people they moved.

As for Gonzalez, maybe there is something wrong with him, maybe there isn't. They're testing the waters and putting the Sox and Yanks against each other. If played right, the Pirates could do quite well (given their FO history, they probably won't).

"Quote From Stupid Redsox Fan named Bombdiggz"

The sox haven't just thrown money at the problem. They have spent money to fill holes where they don't have much organizational depth. In a similar way acquiring another young pitcher and locking him up allows them to not rush the bucholz/bowden/masterson/bards of the organization. The ability to be able to let talent fully develop is great and if the talent comes along faster then the veteran can become a trade chip.

Let me just throw in the fact I love how the Yankees are bringing Phillips along. Although he could certainly contribute this year, they've acquired enough veteran SPs that they don't need to count on him to contribute this year.

Are you kidding me? Phillips? How about Melky, Cano, Wang.

If they were willing to trade, I'd love for the Yanks to grab one of their non-Willis starting pitchers.

Marlins - 1997 WS Winners
Moises Alou, OF
Gary Sheffield, OF
Cliff Floyd, OF
Devon White, OF
Mark Kotsay, OF
Bobby Bonilla, 3B
Edgar Renteria, SS
Luis Castillo, Inf
Jeff Conine, Inf
Craig Counsell, 2B
Gregg Zaun, C
Kevin Brown
Al Leiter
Rick Helling
Livan Hernandez
Robb Nen

Then they had a firesale.
However, 6 years later they were back to having a very good lineup (although not as good as 1997... and we should have beat them!)

Marlins - 2003 WS Winners
Pierre, CF
Castillo, 2B
Rodriguez, C
Cabrera, LF
Lee, 1B
Lowell, 3B
Conine, DH
Encarnacion, RF
Gonzalez, SS

Then they had a firesale.
However, due to good trades and a good farm, they still manage to field a decent team on a team salary of less then Jeter's salary.

Imagine if there FO was like the Yankee FO... signed their great players to long contracts, made good trades, and continued to have good youth.

What could they be if they had 1/2, or a 1/3 of the Yankees payroll.

Imagine if after we won in 1996, ot 97, or 98, if we dumped Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, etc... because we didn't want to spend money.

When I was a kid, Pittsburg has some great teams and players.... Clemente, Clendenon... later Bonds and Bonita... and many more. No they are a laughing stock. Imagine if TB (another pathetic team salary) could add/go out and get a Zito, or Clemens, or Schilling (in their primes), maybe add Pudge too.

There should be a salarly minimum of 40-50 mil, that escalates as player salaries escalate. Yes, the Yanks and Sox would still maintain an advantage, but at least the other teams (and their fan base) could have a little more to look forward to.

Closer Gonzalez says rumors not true, he's home

Let's say the Pirates decided to step up, and signed the premium FA on the market. They may make a splash with the fans, true, but I'd be willing to wager that they'd still finish in the middle of the pack. Baseball is not a game where one player can make that much of a difference. It simply isn't set up that way.

The only problem (if in fact there is one) is a situation like 1992 when David Cone was able to slip through waivers because Baltimore or Milwaukee couldn't afford to put in a waiver claim; they didn't want to be stuck with his salary (regardless, I do not understand how the rest of the NL and most of the AL couldn't block the trade, or maybe they tried, but I don't know).

Tampa Bay is another organization that is starting to get their head out of their collective asses. It'll be a while before they catch the Yanks or even the Sox, but at least they're on the right path.

Fielding a competetive team in MLB requires a combination of luck and skill. Signing a FA helps, but isn't the be-all end all.

So what if Florida has periodic 'fire sales', so long as they remain competitive and even the WS with some regularity?

Maybe if you picked a different example...

What does gall me a bit is the practice of accepting more money in revenue sharing than the franchise is actually spending on player payroll, then complaining that the team can't remain competitive because of discrepancies in payroll.

IMO, revenue sharing should be a dollar-for-dollar system. For each dollar the Marlins spend on their payroll, they should get an additional dollar in RS, up to what they would normally be entitled. Right now, for instance, they'd be getting only $7.5 million rather than the full $30 million. That way, no team is fully subsidized by the Yankees and Sox.

24 Thats why I said they might have a dynasty. However, WS wins or appearences isn't what its about. The Yanks have had the best team (or damn close) over the last 6 years even though they have no WS championships to show for it. Winning the AL East 10 years of 11 speaks more about the team then WS wins (as it does for Atlanta). How many years have the Marlins finished under .500?

26 Fine idea. My complaint is not how they run their teams... its what they do the revenue sharing monies... which (I think) have a specific purpose in mind (and not to make multi-millionaires a few mil richer).

Are you guys being pedantic? In sports, which theoretically teaches 'fair play', do you believe that some owners should pocket (the Yankees') shared revenues, as opposed to improving their team? Was this the intention of revenue sharing? Should someone who owns a baseball team have the same responsibilities as someone who owns 1000 shares of IBM stock?

2006
NYY: $195M - 97W
MIN: $ 63M - 96W
DET: $ 82M - 95W
OAK: $ 62M - 93W

2005
NYY: $208M - 95W
BOS: $124M - 95W
CHI: $ 75M - 99W
CLE: $ 42M - 93W
CAL: $ 95M - 95W

2004
NYY: $184M - 101W
BOS: $127M - 98W
MIN: $ 54M - 92W
CAL: $101M - 92W
OAK: $ 59M - 91W

A lot of $$ spent with varying results

Whether or not I am a diehard ______ fan, it's irrelevant. In Pittsburgh's case, they told me they needed a new stadium to compete. They told me they needed revenue sharing to compete. They got it, they're not competing. What happened?

The whole revenue sharing concept was built on an extremely shaky foundation. Until teams open their books, no one will know if they're truly losing $$ or not. Like I said before, there is so much manipulation of the numbers (GAAP) that even if a team made $$ it can look like they're losing $$.

WRT the Yanks, I find it hard to believe that Steinbrenner has more $$ than Carl Pohlad. Tribune, AOL/Time Warner, Disney, etc

As for Atlanta:
91: 10th
92: 4th
93: 2nd
94: 1st (49M, Expos had 19M)
95: 1st
96: 1st
97: 1st
98: 1st
99: 2nd
00: 2nd
01: 3rd
02: 4th
03: 2nd
04: 5th
05: 6th
06: 4th

I'd also like to point out that the Yanks have taken on large contracts given by LA, PHI & TEX, among others

Merry Christmas everyone!

i miss bb news. suppan signed w/ the brew crew 4/42, option for 5th year...

the 5-dvd Yanks World Serious set is really good. can't wait til we win another ring...

http://buccoblog.mlblogs.com/

I gather he's against this Gonzalez trade, even though he reported it's a done deal...

http://major.jp/

Does it say Aaron Guiel is signing with the Tokyo Swallows?

(My Japanese doesn't go much beyond
"Nihon-go ga wakarimasen." ;-)

All this to say that for every critic who buries the Yankees for spending over/under $200 million a year on payroll, the core of that payroll comes really as back pay for the championships those players already won for them (though not deliberately post-dated), in other words, the Yankees are getting more value for their dollars than any team in the last ten years, period.

Just a thought >;)

There goes Guiel. Great having him while he was here. Too bad he can't find a regular platoon in the Majors. He's got a good enough bat to stick. He's absolutely tear up Japan next year. His quick swing will equal a bunch of home runs.

Do you know what's going to become of Bama's favorite, Karim Garcia? I heard he got cut.

Then again, maybe that comment isn't accurate; Seattle won 116 games with a team that was 6th in the league in payroll (behind NYY, BOS, CLE, TEX, TOR).

All in all, IMO there is too much focus on a how much a team spends, not how a team spends it.

None are really overpaid except Jetes, but few teams could afford this many quality players. These 6 guys make about 88 mil/yr, or more then (I'm guessing) about 2/3 of all MLB teams.

My complaint was not Yankee spending, but lack of (other) team development with revenue sharing monies.

I've been an ardent Yankee fan for 42 years. However, if you don't believe their economic advantage translates into a competative advantage, then you're just kidding yourself.

Here's a link to the SWB Yanks cap
http://tinyurl.com/y9dmqt

This is the old logo
http://tinyurl.com/y7twuy

Old SWB cap
http://tinyurl.com/y5nynf