ARod's future

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:33:19 -0400, McDuck wrote:

> Bismo and some others are hoping ARod opts out of the NYY contract and
> signs with the RS. Seems sooo unlikely, given that Texas pays $11

What's become of Big Bad Bismo these days. Haven't seen him around since
he got into a pissing contest with me, threw a hissy fit, and went running
home. Is he gone, or posting under a new name?

I, for one, would welcome Arod to the RS, even though I don't like him
much at this point. His talent is hard to ignore, even if he is a prick.



--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Keith Willoughby" <keith.RemoveThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
news:874pk6r4m0.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.RemoveThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
>> news:87hco6rfll.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>> You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
>>> the players, and then you can discuss the method by which you'd make
>>> that happen. Doesn't Steinbrenner also have enough money?
>>>
>>
>> While this was not posted to me, I'll take a whack at it.
>>
>> "You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
>> the players..."
>>
>> Because the owners OWN their teams and the players do not. It's as
>> simple as that for me. They are the ones taking the economic risk in
>> putting up their own capital to purchase and own the franchise and
>> whatever profit that they can make after paying salaries, etc. is fine
>> by me.
>
> Me too. What's that got to do with artificial salary caps, though?
>
>> I don't buy into this bullcrap that players should be getting ~50% of
>> the overall profit. They should make a fair salary, but they
>> shouldn't get to force open the owners' books to decide for themselves
>> what fair is.
>
> The players get their market value. Where's the problem? They only asked
> to see the books because the owners were crying poverty and wanted to
> institute artificial salary caps to restrict the players' market value.
>
>> Steinbrenner is an owner and as an owner he has a right to the profits
>> of his business.
>
> I entirely agree. My question was why the original poster would rather
> artificial measures to ensure the money go to the owners than the
> players. If players earning a lot offends her, why would she want the
> money to go to an owner, instead?
>
> [large snip]
>
> You're talking about competetive balance. I think the OP was just
> offended by baseball players earning $30m. They're different
> arguments.
>
> As it happens, I don't think there's a problem. Well-run small market
> teams can win, poorly-run large-market teams can lose. If MLB wants a
> form of revenue-distribution socialism, then that's up to them, but I
> don't think the players should have to pay for it when baseball is so
> profitable and when revenues are growing.


I disagree. "Well-run small market teams" ONLY have a chance when
they do absolutely 110% of everything perfectly. And they have to be
exceptionally lucky to have all of their cheap prospects get good all at
the same time, before they become too good and have been around long
enough that the small market team can long longer afford them.

I think that the idea that a well-run small market team can win is largely
a fallicy. IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams
have any real chance of competitive success in MLB.

And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you hate the NFL
and the economic model that they use that has provided an exceptional
level of competitive parity to every single team in the league.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"2007 Yankees" <yankees4life65.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> writes:

> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
> news:87hco6rfll.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>> He is as bad for the game as those owners paying too much for players.
>>> As much as I hate the word salary cap, I wouldn't mind seeing an
>>> individual player salary cap.
>>
>> You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
>> the players, and then you can discuss the method by which you'd make
>> that happen. Doesn't Steinbrenner also have enough money?
>
> I certainly don't want the owners to make more money then they already
> do

Well, either the owners will get more money, or the mediocre players
will get more money. I don't see the benefit of either. I'd rather ARod
got an extra $10m/yr than 5 middle-relievers get an extra $2m/yr each.

> and if I had a perfect system, I'd be talking to MLB instead. But I
> think for every team like the Yankees and Red Sox, who aren't afraid
> to spend money, you have the D'Rays and Marlins, who refuse to pay
> anything unless they are forced to. I think if there was an individual
> salary AND a minimum TEAM salary cap, it might not be so bad.

Again, that's just taking money out of the best players' pockets and
putting it in the pockets of lesser players. I don't see the
attraction.

> Forced some of them to spend some of that luxury tax money they get
> every year.

The luxury tax doesn't go to the teams. It goes to player benefits,
player development in other countries, and the industry development
fund. You're thinking of revenue sharing.

> And I guess GS has enough money....as do 29 other owners.

There's one fool-proof way of reducing player compensation, and that's
if everybody who can't stand ballplayers earning $30m/yr stopped giving
any money to MLB teams or their advertisers. The reason ballplayers earn
so much is that they're responsible for the creation of wealth in a
multi-billion dollar industry. The reason ARod is going to get $30m/yr
is because people are willing to spend $40 to watch him play, or $200 to
buy his jersey, or $3 for a box of cereal with his picture on.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"We are not the only experiment"
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking DeleteThis @lan.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.07.15.01.23.10.385571@lan.invalid...
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:33:19 -0400, McDuck wrote:
>
>> Bismo and some others are hoping ARod opts out of the NYY contract and
>> signs with the RS. Seems sooo unlikely, given that Texas pays $11
>
> What's become of Big Bad Bismo these days. Haven't seen him around since
> he got into a pissing contest with me, threw a hissy fit, and went running
> home. Is he gone, or posting under a new name?

Yeah, I wish that Bismo would come back. I really liked most of his posts.
It wasn't necessary for him to lose control and throw a "hissy fit", as you
appropriately put it, then stick his virtual head in a virtual ostritch
hole.






>
> I, for one, would welcome Arod to the RS, even though I don't like him
> much at this point. His talent is hard to ignore, even if he is a prick.
>
Sometimes, it's just the laundry that matters.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Keith Willoughby" <keith RemoveThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
news:87wsx2o2ln.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
> "Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith RemoveThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
>> news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>>> I don't know much about football.
>>
>>
>> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>
> There's more to sport than American sport, and there's more to the world
> than America. I'm British.


Like I said in Bob's post, I didn't know that you weren't American.

That said, it would really behoove you to learn about the NFL economic
model, which you can do without really understanding the sport specifically.

The NFL is by far, the most successful and popular American teams sports
league. And this is the case because of their economic model that places
a premium on competitive and economic parity. Since every team is limited
to spending the same amount on payroll, and all share equally in the immense
TV revenues, sucess or failure has nothing to do with any inequality of
resources.
The only degree to which resources impact on success or failure is in how
your front office manages those resources on its various players, etc.

And since everyone has the same resources and payroll cap, success becomes
more about good personnel management, good coaching, and the on-field
performance
of the players.









>
>> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
>> in serious question.
>
> What do you think of Sunderland's chances of avoiding relegation this
> year?

What's a Sunderland?

Sounds line some kind of sandwich.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:

> "Keith Willoughby" <keith DeleteThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
> news:87hco6rfll.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>> You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
>> the players, and then you can discuss the method by which you'd make
>> that happen. Doesn't Steinbrenner also have enough money?
>>
>
> While this was not posted to me, I'll take a whack at it.
>
> "You first need to explain why you'd rather the owners get the money than
> the players..."
>
> Because the owners OWN their teams and the players do not. It's as
> simple as that for me. They are the ones taking the economic risk in
> putting up their own capital to purchase and own the franchise and
> whatever profit that they can make after paying salaries, etc. is fine
> by me.

Me too. What's that got to do with artificial salary caps, though?

> I don't buy into this bullcrap that players should be getting ~50% of
> the overall profit. They should make a fair salary, but they
> shouldn't get to force open the owners' books to decide for themselves
> what fair is.

The players get their market value. Where's the problem? They only asked
to see the books because the owners were crying poverty and wanted to
institute artificial salary caps to restrict the players' market value.

> Steinbrenner is an owner and as an owner he has a right to the profits
> of his business.

I entirely agree. My question was why the original poster would rather
artificial measures to ensure the money go to the owners than the
players. If players earning a lot offends her, why would she want the
money to go to an owner, instead?

[large snip]

You're talking about competetive balance. I think the OP was just
offended by baseball players earning $30m. They're different
arguments.

As it happens, I don't think there's a problem. Well-run small market
teams can win, poorly-run large-market teams can lose. If MLB wants a
form of revenue-distribution socialism, then that's up to them, but I
don't think the players should have to pay for it when baseball is so
profitable and when revenues are growing.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Let's look at what you could have won.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

In <f7btmv$20pq$1@pyrite.mv.net>, Fred Burton wrote:

> Oh, give me a break.   How can you knowledgeably talk about the
> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????

You happen to be familiar with the economics of European football,
Fred? If not, how can you knowledgeably talk about the economics of
sports?

--
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:53:43 -0600, Steve Robbins
<srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote:

>McDuck wrote:
>> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better. <g>
>>
>> Bismo and some others are hoping ARod opts out of the NYY contract and
>> signs with the RS. Seems sooo unlikely, given that Texas pays $11
>> million of the current contract and would pay nothing if ARod signed
>> with the RS. Hard to see how any team could bid successfully against
>> NYY. Only if ARod was determined to leave NYY would there be any
>> chance of him leaving --- unless he wanted to go back to Texas <g>.
>>
>> I've speculated before on whether there is any rule preventing Texas
>> from agreeing to pay, say $8 million to the RS if they sign ARod. That
>> would cut down on the payment Texas would have to make and would allow
>> Boston to be more competitive in the bidding with NYY. But I assume
>> that such a move is tampering or something --- illegal, whatever the
>> method.
>
>Not that I think Hicks will go there, but why shouldn't Texas make a run
>at him. The first $29 mil is basically free.

Right. That was the inference of my "want to go back to Texas" remark.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> writes:

> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.TakeThisOut@flat222.org> wrote in message
>> As it happens, I don't think there's a problem. Well-run small market
>> teams can win, poorly-run large-market teams can lose. If MLB wants a
>> form of revenue-distribution socialism, then that's up to them, but I
>> don't think the players should have to pay for it when baseball is so
>> profitable and when revenues are growing.
>
>
> I disagree. "Well-run small market teams" ONLY have a chance when
> they do absolutely 110% of everything perfectly.

Well, I'm not sure that's true. From Mike Jones's work on TV market size
as a proxy for market size at

http://home.nycap.rr.com/nickandaj/marketsize.html

the small-market teams include the Twins, Diamondbacks, As, Cards, and
Padres, who have been successful in multiple years recently, and the
Brewers, who have turned it around to some extent this year.

Also, small market teams cost less to buy. For the owner, that's their
balance. You don't buy a local chain of stores and moan that it doesn't
have WalMart's market. Your return is linked to your investment. If you
manage your chain well enough, maybe it'll start to rival
WalMart. Granted, baseball is different to retail, but I don't think
it's different enough to throw out the market and replace it with
socialism.

> And they have to be exceptionally lucky to have all of their cheap
> prospects get good all at the same time, before they become too good
> and have been around long enough that the small market team can long
> longer afford them.
>
>
> I think that the idea that a well-run small market team can win is largely
> a fallicy.

It's being done right now. Only the badly run teams are perennial
losers. A remarkable number of different teams have been in the
post-season in the last, say, fifteen years.

> IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams have any
> real chance of competitive success in MLB.

Name me, say, the ten teams you think have no chance of competing. See
if they'd be the same ten you'd have named five years ago. Remember when
the Twins were supposed to be contracted?

> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you hate the NFL
> and the economic model that they use that has provided an exceptional
> level of competitive parity to every single team in the league.

I don't know much about football.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Keith Willoughby" <keith RemoveThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
> "Fred Burton" <fburton RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith RemoveThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
>>> As it happens, I don't think there's a problem. Well-run small market
>>> teams can win, poorly-run large-market teams can lose. If MLB wants a
>>> form of revenue-distribution socialism, then that's up to them, but I
>>> don't think the players should have to pay for it when baseball is so
>>> profitable and when revenues are growing.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. "Well-run small market teams" ONLY have a chance when
>> they do absolutely 110% of everything perfectly.
>
> Well, I'm not sure that's true. From Mike Jones's work on TV market size
> as a proxy for market size at
>
> http://home.nycap.rr.com/nickandaj/marketsize.html
>
> the small-market teams include the Twins, Diamondbacks, As, Cards, and
> Padres, who have been successful in multiple years recently, and the
> Brewers, who have turned it around to some extent this year.
>
> Also, small market teams cost less to buy. For the owner, that's their
> balance. You don't buy a local chain of stores and moan that it doesn't
> have WalMart's market. Your return is linked to your investment. If you
> manage your chain well enough, maybe it'll start to rival
> WalMart. Granted, baseball is different to retail, but I don't think
> it's different enough to throw out the market and replace it with
> socialism.
>
>> And they have to be exceptionally lucky to have all of their cheap
>> prospects get good all at the same time, before they become too good
>> and have been around long enough that the small market team can long
>> longer afford them.
>>
>>
>> I think that the idea that a well-run small market team can win is
>> largely
>> a fallicy.
>
> It's being done right now. Only the badly run teams are perennial
> losers. A remarkable number of different teams have been in the
> post-season in the last, say, fifteen years.
>
>> IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams have any
>> real chance of competitive success in MLB.
>
> Name me, say, the ten teams you think have no chance of competing. See
> if they'd be the same ten you'd have named five years ago. Remember when
> the Twins were supposed to be contracted?
>
>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you hate the NFL
>> and the economic model that they use that has provided an exceptional
>> level of competitive parity to every single team in the league.
>
> I don't know much about football.


Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????

This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
in serious question.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:36:44 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>"Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
>news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>> "Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:

>>
>> I don't know much about football.
>
>
>Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>
>This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
>in serious question.
>
And your lack of understanding of the economics of cricket puts all
you have said into question. <g>

Anyway, please don't tell those of us in the Detroit Lions region that
all football teams have a good chance to win. In a number of respects,
by the way, there is more competitive balance in baseball than in
football.

Anyway, anyone who follows football even casually knows that the NFL
salary cap is primarly designed to make owners, even terrible owners
like the Fords, extremely rich, at the expense of the players. It has
some useful effects on competitive balance, but that is not central to
its design.

>
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton venit, vidit, et dixit:
> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.RemoveThis@flat222.org> wrote...
>> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:

<snip>

>>> IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams have any
>>> real chance of competitive success in MLB.

>> Name me, say, the ten teams you think have no chance of competing.
>> See if they'd be the same ten you'd have named five years ago.
>> Remember when the Twins were supposed to be contracted?

>>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you
>>> hate the NFL and the economic model that they use that has
>>> provided an exceptional level of competitive parity to every
>>> single team in the league.

>> I don't know much about football.

> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????

> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've
> said in serious question.

Unless you're particularly knowledgable about the English Premier
League (among others), I think you're probably being unfair here.
There are lots of sports to follow -- you can hardly blame Keith
for not following one of the them, even if it is one that you
yourself follow.

Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer


--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!
IF22: Cliff wins best film, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"Can't complain; had his chance, and in modern parlance, blew it."
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Bob-Nob" <bobnob15 DeleteThis @SPaMol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns996DBE07ABDD2bobnob15aolcom@207.217.125.201...
> Fred Burton venit, vidit, et dixit:
>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith DeleteThis @flat222.org> wrote...
>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams have any
>>>> real chance of competitive success in MLB.
>
>>> Name me, say, the ten teams you think have no chance of competing.
>>> See if they'd be the same ten you'd have named five years ago.
>>> Remember when the Twins were supposed to be contracted?
>
>>>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you
>>>> hate the NFL and the economic model that they use that has
>>>> provided an exceptional level of competitive parity to every
>>>> single team in the league.
>
>>> I don't know much about football.
>
>> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>
>> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've
>> said in serious question.
>
> Unless you're particularly knowledgable about the English Premier
> League (among others), I think you're probably being unfair here.
> There are lots of sports to follow -- you can hardly blame Keith
> for not following one of the them, even if it is one that you
> yourself follow.
>
Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
of NFL economics.

I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
economics (at a layman's level, that is)?



Kieth, for the record, the NFL has a hard salary cap, total sharing of
all TV revenues, and no guaranteed contracts... and it is the most
successful
professional team sports league in North America, by far. Every team
competes on an equal economic level and success or failure is strictly a
matter
of good management and on-field performance.

MLB could learn a LOT from the NFL economic model.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future