Yanks get Mark Teixeira

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How the hell do you know why Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira signed with the Yankees? Honestly, who the hell are any of us to decide the reasons the players signed for? We don't know them.

None of that at all is evidence for how this is bad for baseball. Even if we say that these players chose a team placed purely on money (which we absolutely cannot say because we don't know the players), that says nothing about how it's bad for baseball.

---

Of course it does...hello what happened to 'For the Love of the Game'? You actually can't see how 'Show me the money!" is not good (I dont think i said bad)? Then we have nothing to talk about on this subject if you really can't see how three players choosing a team based purely on monetary considerations is not good for baseball.

As for not knowing why they went to NY...yeah and OJ was innocent and Clemens never did steroids. It's total coincidence they went to the highest bidder including Sabathia whose closest bid was...what? 40 million behind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Of course it does...hello what happened to 'For the Love of the Game'? You actually can't see how 'Show me the money!" is not good (I dont think i said bad)? Then we have nothing to talk about on this subject if you really can't see how three players choosing a team based purely on monetary considerations is not good for baseball.

---

No. I don't think that reasons players choose teams are "bad" or "not good" for baseball.

People just need to face the fact that baseball is a business. They also need to stop being hypocrites because they know damn well if given the choice between one sum of money and another, they'd likely take the larger amount.

Two of the top stars in the game going to a huge media market will only serve to increase profits. Given that these signings will also make for a more competitive pennant race in the division, it will be good for entertainment. Baseball's main goals are profit and entertainment of fans (as it is a business in the entertainment category). Free agents choosing a team based on monetary concerns does not negatively impact profit or entertainment.

Quote:

---

As for not knowing why they went to NY...yeah and OJ was innocent and Clemens never did steroids. It's total coincidence they went to the highest bidder including Sabathia whose closest bid was...what? 40 million behind?

---

Sure. If you want to believe everything that the rumor mill said was absolutely 100% undoubtedly true, and the rumored figures 100% perfectly accurate, go ahead and think this.

For the record, I don't doubt that these players chose the highest bidder. But, even if they did, that does not mean that they made their decision based purely on money. Obviously the money played a role in it, as it does for every free agent from the bottom up, but without knowing the players firsthand, we do not know their full reasoning behind their decision. It's THEIR decision. It affects THEIR life. It's a completely personal decision and fans need to stop their bitching. If you don't like it, don't support the game. It is YOUR support that floods the sport with revenue which then causes players to ask for more money (as they absolutely 100% deserve to).

http://www.coolhunting.com/images/tissue_ring.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No. I don't think that reasons players choose teams are "bad" or "not good" for baseball.

People just need to face the fact that baseball is a business. They also need to stop being hypocrites because they know damn well if given the choice between one sum of money and another, they'd likely take the larger amount.

---

I totally agree, but I also think that certain players with the competitive fire will do anything (even illegal) to give them an advantage of opponents to win. But about the money, yes I would take the highest amount someone offered me, you would be stupid if you dont. And the key difference is with the Yankees, players can sign these huge deals and also have a chance to win.

Other teams can offer these big contracts, we have seen the offers to Tex by Baltimore and Washington, but its more likely with their limited assets that they couldnt put the talent around a player like that as opposed to New York. Its really a quite easy decision to make.

Another thing too, is these players also pay a lot of taxes, so 10 million extra dollars can make a huge difference in a players decision.

So wait, now players wanting money is bad? You Yankee-haters are just reaching now.

What loyalty do these teams show to any of these free agents anyway? Teixeira came up with the Rangers, and then got shipped at the deadline to the Braves, and then a few years later they shipped him out to the Angels, who don't want to give him his fair compensation. Same with CC, and Burnett is hardly better off (considering he's rumored to be traded every deadline).

Like HGM mentioned, back before free agency when teams would just hoard talent and you saw the same 5 teams win everything, THAT is bad for baseball. But that is not happening right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

http://www.coolhunting.com/images/tissue_ring.jpg

---

You'll need that more than I.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

You'll need that more than I.

---

because....?

And until the Yankees strategy on getting these free agent players works and they get a ring, I wouldnt be all up in arms about this either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

So wait, now players wanting money is bad? You Yankee-haters are just reaching now.

.

---

You didn't read anything i wrote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

because....?

---

Oh, wait, you support the Angels right? They'll be perrenial playoff players. I thought you supported the Dodgers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Oh, wait, you support the Angels right? They'll be perrenial playoff players. I thought you supported the Dodgers.

---

Haha, my team is neither & likely won't make the playoffs for another decade

I just have a sneaky suspicion if it was your team that signed tex, cc & aj that it wouldn't be bad for baseball. This doesn't go for just you, you were simply the last one to post on the subject if it being negative for the yanks to make the signings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

What loyalty do these teams show to any of these free agents anyway? Teixeira came up with the Rangers, and then got shipped at the deadline to the Braves, and then a few years later they shipped him out to the Angels, who don't want to give him his fair compensation. Same with CC, and Burnett is hardly better off (considering he's rumored to be traded every deadline).

---

Yep. Just reminded me of a section in The Hardball Times Annual that I read yesterday. I think fans that like to rag on player's for not being "loyal" really need to read this.

Quote:

---

[Jim] Pohlad stated about Johan Santana: "It's about what each party wants, and it's different in some cases. There's loyalty and wanting to stay in Minnesota, and it varies from player to player." It's nice to see he has his father's sense of avarice. The Pohlads were so loyal to Minnesota that they threatened for years to either relocate the club or contract it if they did not receive several hundred million dollars of corporate welfare.

Not content with being among the richest people in America, he now implies that a person who would have spent 13 years in professional baseball honing his skills, who had suffered the aches and pains and ups and downs that come with the territory only to become one of the few that actually get to the point where they could test the market and see what their skills are worth, should now subsidize him out of a sense of loyalty to a fan base that he himself never demonstrated?

When his magical left arm wears down, you can bet that fans will show him little loyalty and will clamor for his de facto firing so someone else can have his job.

Stop listening to the misguided media or greedy wealthy people looking for a subsidy from the working man. It is bad enough the locals gave the Pohlads a fortune in free money - now they have the gall to ask a man from Venezuela to spot them a few million that would not be put back into the roster but rather right back into their bank accounts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

Of course it does...hello what happened to 'For the Love of the Game'? You actually can't see how 'Show me the money!" is not good (I dont think i said bad)? Then we have nothing to talk about on this subject if you really can't see how three players choosing a team based purely on monetary considerations is not good for baseball.

---

So what exactly is GOOD for baseball? What the hell does "For the love of the game" mean exactly? Are you suggesting that Teixeira doesn't love the game? Sabathia doesn't love baseball because he wants to take the best offer?

It sounds like you're just nostalgic for the way baseball is "supposed to be" in some Field of Dreams-esque fantasy. Baseball has always been a business, and will always be one. It's just that, now, free agency has allowed for more player movement and the APPEARANCE of a lack of competitive balance. Looking back at WS appearances in history, baseball actually is more competitive now.

And in what fukking universe is saying "I'm a little disgusted with player's greed":

Anti-Yankees
Crying
Playing the payroll card
Accusing the Yankees of trying to buy the WS

Give me a fukking break people and learn some reading comprehension. I know you have all these arguments in your heads you want to break out at the slightest sniff of "Damn Yankees! Buying all the good players!", but try actually reading before you break them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

And in what fukking universe is saying "I'm a little disgusted with player's greed":

---

In what universe do you know these players and know their reasoning and wants and needs? In what universe is it "greedy" to want to get your fair share for your work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

You didn't read anything i wrote.

---

Frankly, it would be easier to comment on your point if you had one with more substance than "why doesn't everyone just love the game?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

Haha, my team is neither & likely won't make the playoffs for another decade

I just have a sneaky suspicion if it was your team that signed tex, cc & aj that it wouldn't be bad for baseball. This doesn't go for just you, you were simply the last one to post on the subject if it being negative for the yanks to make the signings.

---

I didn't say it was negative for the Yanks or that it was bad for baseball.. I said...again..."It's not good for Baseball". in counter to HGM saying it was good for baseball.

No if my team signed all three of those I'd be wondering what we're gonna do with Lowell and 6 starters. I'd think Burnett and Sabathia's contracts were horrible and be very concerned about their health. Which is exactly why the Sox were never serious about those two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

In what universe do you know these players and know their reasoning and wants and needs? In what universe is it "greedy" to want to get your fair share for your work?

---

Apparently, we should be disgusted that players with limited careers would want to get a bigger share of the billions of dollars in entertainment they provide while they still can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavelb1

I didn't say it was negative for the Yanks or that it was bad for baseball.. I said...again..."It's not good for Baseball". in counter to HGM saying it was good for baseball.

---

If it's "not good", than what it is? There's only two options bad, or it doesn't matter, in which case, we shouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

Frankly, it would be easier to comment on your point if you had one with more substance than "why doesn't everyone just love the game?"

---

THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT! It was just a lukewarm comment on greed and how I was mildly disgusted. I didn't say I hated the Yankees or the players and even said I can see the flipside in the players wanting to make as much as they're worth.

HGM said it was 'good for baseball' because it causes a tighter AL East race, and my response is a romantic notion that 'greed is never good'. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sorry.

You really think it's good if the Yankees succeed in buying a World Championship? That's good for baseball?

No. It's good for the Yankees, not good for everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

You really think it's good if the Yankees succeed in buying a World Championship? That's good for baseball?

No. It's good for the Yankees, not good for everyone else.

---

Please point to me where I said that. I'd also like to just repost what I originally said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Please provide evidence that this is "terrible for baseball." If anything, it's going to provide for an absolutely riveting 3-way race in the AL East, which, I think, is great for baseball.

---

An absolutely riveting 3-way race in the AL East is good for baseball. That is what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Please provide evidence that this is "terrible for baseball." If anything, it's going to provide for an absolutely riveting 3-way race in the AL East, which, I think, is great for baseball.



All the anti-New York guys do is whine about the Yankees buying players, and then whine some more because their team can't (even if their team does. We all know that the Yankees are the only team that buys free agents!), and then rub it in Yankee fans faces when the Yankees don't do as good as expected. That's SO much better.


Jealousy?


Really. So quick we forgot the 1,000 run 2008 Detroit Tigers...:rolleyes:


Well said. It's just that the Yankees have changed things with their offense, so people are ready to claim it's so great, while Boston has stood pat, creating an "illusion" that the Yankees are passing them in terms of offensive talent, when in reality, they're not.


It's not really relevant since it's not happening, but moving Youkilis to third might actually serve to IMPROVE his status as an "MVP candidate", because a) his bat is more valuable at the other corner and b) he's a good defensive third basemen.


To root for your team winning? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the last time the Yankees won the World Series was 2000. The last time they were in the World Series was 2003. This millennium, 8 different teams have won the World Series. EIGHT in 9 years. Sorry to be so blunt, but stop bitching about the Yankees.


You know, I'm really REALLY sick of this nonsense. This free agent stuff has been happening MORE recently, and competitive balance has been IMPROVING.

From 1936-1964, the Yankees won 22 American League pennants. During a 29 year stretch, the Yankees were the AL representative in the World Series 76% of the time.


Yeah. This never happens in baseball. Nope. :rolleyes:

Yay. More money in the pockets of the owners, instead of letting them spend it to improve their team!


What he said.

---

it never really happens. other then the rays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

You really think it's good if the Yankees succeed in buying a World Championship? That's good for baseball?

No. It's good for the Yankees, not good for everyone else.

---

They succeeded? Bud Selig announced that he's canceling the 09 season and awarding the Yanks the WS? That's kinda strange.

They've been trying since about 2002, hasn't succeeded once. The only team I can recall that blatantly attempted to buy a championship, and succeeded, was the 1997 Florida Marlins. I don't think anyone really feels that it's a successful championship model. Hell, look at the Red Sox, even they realized that player development is a more prudent model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raveneye217

it never really happens. other then the rays.

---

2008 Tampa Bay Rays, 2003 Florida Marlins, 1999 Arizona Diamondbacks, 1991 Atlanta Braves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raveneye217

it never really happens. other then the rays.

---

And the 03 Marlins. And the 02 Angels. And 06 Tigers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

They succeeded? Bud Selig announced that he's canceling the 09 season and awarding the Yanks the WS? That's kinda strange.

They've been trying since about 2002, hasn't succeeded once. The only team I can recall that blatantly attempted to buy a championship, and succeeded, was the 1997 Florida Marlins. I don't think anyone really feels that it's a successful championship model. Hell, look at the Red Sox, even they realized that player development is a more prudent model.

---

And even the Marlins were a wild card.

Excellent comment over at Baseball Think Factory:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suff

It's not surprising that people are crying "salary cap" right now, given the dollar amounts and the fact that the Yankees signed the top 2 biggest-name free agents (and #3 was signed by the Mets). But if you look at it, this offseason is really just an anomaly. The Yankees' 2009 payroll is still going to be lower than 2008. They just happen to have a phenomenal incentive (missing the playoffs) and opportunity (all those expiring contracts) at the same time that most teams are trying to cut back or are hesitant to make major commitments. It looks bad, but it's not part of some systematic problem.

---

Another good comment:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cardsfanboy

seriously?? what team is really affected by this signing, considering that the Yankees are paying more to revenue sharing than the Marlins are spending in salary, shouldn't the focus be on "why aren't they spending money" instead of concentrating on the Yankees who are doing everything in their opinion to win?

My team, (the Cardinals) are 11th in payroll while being in the 24th(optimsist assesment) best market, so that tells me the money is there to spend if you have non-corrupt ownership that wants to win. #### a salary cap, enact a salary floor that is dependent on a teams record (if you finish below .500 for two consecutive seasons and then don't improve by a minimum of 5 games, you must spend a certain amount on salary, also you must also spend a certain amount on draft bonuses etc. make the ####### crappy teams spend money, not whine about how an organization that wants to win spends their money, it's ####### silly worry about teams that want to win, while ignoring the teams that are actively trying not to win.

---

Dayn Perry:

Quote:

---

The real danger — and here's where the "risky" part comes in — is that the Yankees' winter extravagances will leave Commissioner Bud Selig spoiling for a fight. The last two collective-bargaining sessions have been notable for peace and ease, but that could change next time around. If enough outrage is ginned up among small-market owners, then the drive for a salary cap may resume.

But baseball manifestly doesn't need one. Salary caps do nothing to promote competitive balance, and all they do is guarantee owner profits. The hazard, then, is that the latest case of Yankee fatigue will inspire owners to go to war for the hard cap. The Players' Association won't go for it, and a labor stoppage could follow. That, obviously, would be bad for baseball. Once more with feeling: What baseball needs is more revenue sharing and guarantees that the money will be spent on player development, draft bonuses and payroll and not used to line the pockets of owners. If this whole affair leads to bloodless institution of those policies and not a salary cap, then it will all have been worthwhile.

---

I will only be in favor of a salary cap in baseball only if they put a minimum spending cap as well. Right now its a screwed up system, only because owners are pocketing luxury taxes instead of using it for spending on players, which was the point of the luxury tax to begin with.

The NBA has a salary cap (& floor) & is widely renowned as the sport w/ the least competitive balance/parity

Great analysis of the signing, mostly about the salary stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Great analysis of the signing, mostly about the salary stuff.

---

That's a great article. it's a little disgusting (actually a lot disgusting) when owners like Loria and Pohlad scream bloody murder about how they can't compete and pay these players like the Yanks. Every major league owner is a billionaire. However, they would rather pocket the luxury tax, beg for a new stadium, and try to win with a 5 dollar payroll. With the revenue sharing, luxury tax, and huge increase in baseball attendence in the last few years, there's no excuse for "small market" owners like Loria and David Glass to sit there and pretend like they can't afford their $25 mil payrolls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

it's a little disgusting (actually a lot disgusting) when owners like Loria and Pohlad scream bloody murder about how they can't compete and pay these players like the Yanks.

---

Exactly... and (some) fans still don't understand why their favorite players don't have "loyalty" to the hometown team? You give what you receive.

Yea, well said. This is something that I've been considering for a few years now... There definitely does not need to be a salary cap in baseball.

The thing is, you gain from being good (fans, advertising, etc...), and you gain from being bad (Higher draft picks, revenue sharing, etc...). The place not to be is somewhere in the middle.

So, I think that the important thing to do is to make the middle pay more, while at the same time giving the bottom a more secure "safety net" without providing revenue. That's easily accomplished by increasing the amount received by middle teams through revenue sharing mechanisms (revenue sharing and luxury tax), decreasing it for lower tear teams, but at the same time having the league guarantee portions of pre-arbitration salaries including draft pick signing bonuses.

Alternatively, you can enforce a "weak" salary FLOOR. By weak, I mean the following. Teams aren't mandated to pay at least the salary floor. However, only teams ABOVE that floor will get the benefits of revenue sharing and the like. This is (just one) way to ensure that small market teams actually invest the revenue sharing money into their clubs instead of pocketing it.

If there was a salary floor of $75MM, the Marlins would sign Bonds to a 1 year $50MM deal.

Yea, that's not a bad idea... it has the large benefit of being easily understood, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moot

If there was a salary floor of $75MM, the Marlins would sign Bonds to a 1 year $50MM deal.

---

Good! problem solved...