• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Yankees Bottomless Pot

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
ESPN - Sources: Mark Teixeira, New York Yankees agree to 8-year deal

The Yankees have spent more than $400 million in salary in the last month, with $161 million going to left-handed pitcher CC Sabathia in a seven-year deal and $82.5 million on right-hander A.J. Burnett for five years.

The agreement with Teixeira gives New York the four highest-paid players in baseball -- third baseman Alex Rodriguez, shortstop Derek Jeter, Sabathia and Teixeira.

How much fun is it to be Brian Cashman?

Is there any skill involved in the job that he does, is it safe to say that the Yankees are in fact the "Evil Empire"?

Do you enjoy rooting for a team of mercenaries, is it a model that is to be admired.

Does it make you sick to think of how freely and loosely money is being spent in times like these?

New found hate for athletes and the absurd amount they make?
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
It's the people and the fans who really determine the amount the players make. Stop caring so much and stop paying the seat prices and the baseball business will come down a bit.

I don't really have any qualms. I'd rather see a business reinvest its income back into its own business to strengthen the product than to watch Florida or the Padres bleed talent and shed money at the expense of the quality of the product.
 

Willfrey

New member
Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
615
MBTI Type
IsTP
It pleases me that they've gone so long without a championship, and they didn't even make the playoffs last season.

(Go Mariners!)
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
Ah I sense much Yankee hate...

They've actually shed more salaries than they've taken on. In fact they've saved something like 20 million.
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
In terms of long term commitment and roster flexibility they haven't made any progress, but due to their massive financial clout they don't even need to concern themselves with that aspect. With those four players including Burnett their locked in at about 120 million for the next 5 years.

Not to mention they're asking the city of New York for 300 million dollars to help finance the stadium. They were going to trade for Mike Cameron and asked their GM to throw in cash to cover the difference, and were rightfully rejected in that trade proposal. It seems like every off season you can count on them spending at least 200 million dollars on free agents.
 

MacGuffin

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
10,710
MBTI Type
xkcd
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I no longer care.

/apathetic Yankees fan
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
In terms of long term commitment and roster flexibility they haven't made any progress, but due to their massive financial clout they don't even need to concern themselves with that aspect. With those four players including Burnett their locked in at about 120 million for the next 5 years.

Not to mention they're asking the city of New York for 300 million dollars to help finance the stadium. They were going to trade for Mike Cameron and asked their GM to throw in cash to cover the difference, and were rightfully rejected in that trade proposal. It seems like every off season you can count on them spending at least 200 million dollars on free agents.

Actually that's what I love about them. Consistent effort. If they fail it's not because they aren't putting their best foot forward. It's not like for instance how in the Brewers are blowing up their team and all you have to look forward to is them sucking. Again. After one good season, which came after all those sucky seasons after the last time they blew their team up.

They drop 80 million in salary and picked up 60 million at bargain rates when you consider the talent level of the 80 million dollar players. When you go from Giambi to Tex at 1st base that's a MAJOR upgrade and if on a per year basis you're paying him less than you've paid Giambi, that's a GREAT value in the long term, assuming you even keep the contract and don't end up trading him down the line. As for the pitchers the same rules apply. On a per player per year per talent level basis, major upgrade.

So if you want to rant against the capitalist system that we live in that allows them to use public money for a stadium and still charge that enormous ticket price, that's another question all together. I've never been to a Yankee game myself.

But if you want to talk about team management, Cashmen has done a great job since he was given control. He's kept all the young talent, upgraded through free agency, and cut costs. Whether or not the talent performs, well that's just sports ya' dig? At the end of the day as a fan, I like to know my team will always go all out to get the best available talent.

For the record I'm not one of those "We won the most championships in history" Yankee fans. I started following baseball by watching the boxscores on the local news the year of the strike. The Yanks were #1 in the division but the season ended. So when baseball came back I stuck with my team. I didn't find out about all that other stuff until after the fact.
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
First any mention of Cashman has to include his absurd budget. I mean realistically it is a hell of a lot easier to field a good team and look wise in free agency when you can constantly invest. I mean who wouldn't love to have his assets in a non sports involved way. I mean I'd love to buy new sports cars every year and get the latest tech gadgets.

Cut costs from what level, I mean that's a little rhetorical trick... come on. From 200 million... that's such an enviable achievement. I don't think the argument is whether the Yankees can acquire or retain talent. It's more so the fact that they don't have any perceived limits when it comes to things. Part of the challenge and thrill of doing anything is figuring out how to exploit the limitations of the system. In Cashman's case I guess you could say he is skilled at overpaying to get what he wants, but that to me does not take any particular skill. Market inefficiency... once again when you consistently purchase the top name free agents at exorbitant costs I don't think it requires any particularly keen insight.

Resource allocation?

when you don't have any limits and can consistently re up without worrying about future ramifications then that's not an issue.

How do you rate and compare Cashman against the other 29 GMs in baseball. Is it possible. Because somehow I don't think they worry and deal with the same issues. It's not simply a matter of them not caring about their teams either...
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
First any mention of Cashman has to include his absurd budget. I mean realistically it is a hell of a lot easier to field a good team and look wise in free agency when you can constantly invest. I mean who wouldn't love to have his assets in a non sports involved way. I mean I'd love to buy new sports cars every year and get the latest tech gadgets.

Cut costs from what level, I mean that's a little rhetorical trick... come on. From 200 million... that's such an enviable achievement. I don't think the argument is whether the Yankees can acquire or retain talent. It's more so the fact that they don't have any perceived limits when it comes to things. Part of the challenge and thrill of doing anything is figuring out how to exploit the limitations of the system. In Cashman's case I guess you could say he is skilled at overpaying to get what he wants, but that to me does not take any particular skill. Market inefficiency... once again when you consistently purchase the top name free agents at exorbitant costs I don't think it requires any particularly keen insight.

Resource allocation?

when you don't have any limits and can consistently re up without worrying about future ramifications then that's not an issue.

How do you rate and compare Cashman against the other 29 GMs in baseball. Is it possible. Because somehow I don't think they worry and deal with the same issues. It's not simply a matter of them not caring about their teams either...

I can't put no simpler than this. Don't hate the player hate the game.

What you're complaining about is just a symptom not the disease. So to my logic, if I want to complain about the Yankees bottomless coffers I may as well do something about the Federal Reserve bank.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't want to think about all of that when I'm watching baseball. As an observer of the sport, they do their best to put the best product on the field. It's not their fault capitalism means some will have more than most.

This is the system we live in and they just so happen to be the beneficiary of that fact in the sport of baseball. There's a team like them in every league. For that matter the Redsox, Mets, and A's aren't that far behind in payroll. What's 20 million between friends?
Most teams aren't the Rays. They usually keep sucking at that budget.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
The only thing worthwhile about baseball is these pics I just found:

1273251945_c0ac40f102.jpg


1274119940_b6ad6f413f_o.jpg


baseball-not-faceball.jpg


pic3941.jpg


Tagged+and+you_re+out.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
7,312
MBTI Type
INTJ
I find it hilarious that a Red Sox fan started this thread. It's like Donald Trump calling a Saudi prince ostentatiously wealthy.

That said, it's disgusting and it's wrongheaded and it is terrible for the game. Whenever you have a competitive endeavor, the FIRST thing you must ensure is competitive balance...a fair playing field. If you don't have that, then to an extent your game is fixed. The other three major team sports all have salary caps. But the MLB players' union (long considered the strongest labor union in the USA) and the ownership of the rich teams will never allow it.

Whenever this point is raised, people say "Well, the Yankees haven't won since 2000, and the Marlins won twice since 1997." Which is true, but is only an anecdotal argument. The Marlins won through shrewd management and talent evaluation. But they had to break up the team both times because they couldn't pay it. The truth is that on balance, the rich teams consistently have a better chance.

The teams say that they're individual businesses and that they can spend whatever they like in a free market. Which sounds nice, but isn't true at all. If Burger King went out of business, McDonald's would have a party because they are truly independent. But the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets of the world need other teams to play against. A pro sports league isn't 30 or so independent businesses, it's a cartel. And it needs to start thinking of itself that way. They should think of themselves as 30 equal shareholders in a common business, or else this is going to keep happening.

And the worst part isn't that a Yankees fan enters the season knowing his team can win the World Series. It's that a Pirates fan or a Royals fan goes into a season knowing they can't.
 

PuddleRiver

It's always something...
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,923
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w6
I no longer care.

/apathetic Yankees fan

Kinda the same here, for now. Everything's weird for me right now. Joe's gone, Bernie's gone, hell, it's like I don't know anybody anymore.

I'll see how it goes.
 
Last edited:

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
This post is largely split off from a fascinating thread over at Sons Of Sam Horn, a fantastic RedSox Forum (Baseball in general really) by the way, which provides much better analysis than I could hope to achieve on any consistent basis.

yankee stadium - they need more money - Sons of Sam Horn

Mayor Bloomberg's aides secretly pressured city tax assessors to inflate the value of land under the new Yankee Stadium so the team could qualify for nearly $1 billion in tax-free bonds, city e-mails show. In March 2006, the city's chief tax assessor put the market value for the stadium site at $27 million, far lower than the Yankees wanted. A Finance Department official ordered him to redo the report. Within hours, he jacked up it up to $204 million. The bombshell e-mails raise a big question: Did city officials violate state law, which requires uniform valuation methods for all properties? "This is the smoking gun," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, who has spearheaded a state probe into the stadium deal. "The professionals did their job. The political appointees then ordered them to change the assessment - and they did." Bloomberg aides have told a state Assembly committee and a House of Representatives subcommittee they did nothing improper.

NY Daily News.


Once the Bids come in, the picture gets pretty clear pretty quick as to what the Project Cost is versus Project Budget. Expressed in percentages, less than 10% over budget is usually considered acceptable in that the project can be adjusted ("Value-Engineered" as we call it) to meet the budget w/o whoelsale design changes. This means using Pella windows vs. Marvin, Formica countertops vs. granite, etc.) Some of the owner's contingency can also be applied to this 10%, but is not always recommended (need a great owner and a great GC to do this). More than 10% over budget, and then value-engineering gets more difficult (for both owner and architect). At some point, VEing the project ceases to get the project back on budget, and so cutting SF is the next step. And depending on the amount of square footage cuts, you're into a major redesign of the project. From my experience, 20% over budget is considered, for lack of a better word, failure. Failure of the design team (owner, architect and engineers at minimum) to produce a project that meets the budget.

For comparison purposes, the New Yankee Stadium was supposed to cost $1.3 Billion (of which I believe $965 million is being covered by both tax-exempt and taxable bonds). They have recently asked for another $370 million in additional bonds. This represents approximately an increase in Project Cost of 28.5% (granted, over a two year period). Call it what you want.............

Here's where it gets interesting (to me anyway). "Project Creep" is when the Project Cost, over a period of time, rises. Now, there are many factors that can contribute to Project Creep. In my experience, it usually can be traced back to poor decision making on the part of the owner. Typically what happens is you have an owner with a project way over budget. You tell them how may dollars need to be cut from the project with a list of options for getting them there (cut X amount of SF, vinyl windows instead of wood-clad, etc., etc.). The owner then does any of the following:
- fails to agree with any of the proposed changes/cuts
- agrees to some of the changes/cuts, but the others are too painful "we NEED those executive washrooms" etc.
- agrees to changes/cuts, but not at same value/size (i.e., they'll go from granite countertops to Corian, instead of granite to plastic laminate)
- agrees to changes/cuts, but then adds back value/size somewhere else in the project ("ok, we'll reduce Staff Lounge by 300 SF, but we need another 600 SF conference room")

It's easy to see why this happens. You get an owner committed to spending X dollars, and then design a project based on what they want/need. When the realization hits that they don't have the funds for the design they like and want, it becomes hard for them to accept something less (and yes, this all assumes a diligent architect keeping the owner informed and on task, otherwise they too, share the fault).

In my opinion, this is likely part of the cause with the budget overruns on the new Stadium. I would find it too hard, though not impossible to believe an experienced firm like HOK dropped the ball this badly. Or that the contractor(s) estimated so poorly. The extensive use of Indiana Limestone and granite on the exterior facades indicates an expensive, well finished building. Hard not to have the inside of the stadium not follow the precedent set on the outside, as evidenced by the replica frieze (upside down picket-fence) below the upper decks made out of copper. (As an aside, the fact that they're essentially replicating the original Yankee Stadium exterior prior to the 1970's renovations is a great indicator of potential cost. A complete cop-out from a design standpoint, but that's another post).

I have zero problems with the Yankees sinking hundreds of millions into their team. The system is broke, and the rules suck - but they play within the system and it's rules. That they're holding their hat in their hand asking NYC for more money while they shell out $420-whatever million this off-season - while the global economy is in the shitter - that's a serious problem. It seems to indicate a disconnect between team/roster-related expenditures and organization-related expenses. I think it's comical that guys like Buster Olney and Steve Phillips get on ESPN and talk about how the Yankees haven't done anything wrong by signing CC, AJ and Tex, yet gloss over or ignore broader issues like the current economy or the cost overruns on the new Stadium.
I'd be curious to hear/know if anybody has any inside knowledge of the new Stadium project (that they could share) relating to the cost overruns. My post is based entirely on personal experience and knowledge. I'd love to have someone clarify or expand on parts of my post.

Particularly keen insight from "EllisBurksIsLouRawlsCool" a poster on the sight who is a professional who works for a small architect/construction firm.


I think it astonishes an obvious layman like myself in terms of the massive financial commitment the Yankees seem so ready to deploy. Most certainly in times like these, in fact just the other day I was curious as to how a unionized professional sports franchise is sort of sectored off from the overall economy. Maybe somebody with more financial acumen can describe such overall phenomena and how it relates specifically to the Yankees and other professional sports teams. I mean it seems like the Yankees routinely spend unprecedented amounts with no apparent effect. The past couple of years with the A-Rod fiasco and the new stadium talk, construction and completion, economic situation, public reaction, national media attention... it just seems almost surreal. I now no longer feel the passionate distrust and contempt for the especially "New York" like Yankees. The arrogance, audacity, and superiority (both on a fiscal level and idealistic level) is no longer unsettling. It's just come to be accepted but reality does have it's limits, you have to be bound by something... right?
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
I have zero problems with the Yankees sinking hundreds of millions into their team. The system is broke, and the rules suck - but they play within the system and it's rules. That they're holding their hat in their hand asking NYC for more money while they shell out $420-whatever million this off-season - while the global economy is in the shitter - that's a serious problem. It seems to indicate a disconnect between team/roster-related expenditures and organization-related expenses. I think it's comical that guys like Buster Olney and Steve Phillips get on ESPN and talk about how the Yankees haven't done anything wrong by signing CC, AJ and Tex, yet gloss over or ignore broader issues like the current economy or the cost overruns on the new Stadium.
I'd be curious to hear/know if anybody has any inside knowledge of the new Stadium project (that they could share) relating to the cost overruns. My post is based entirely on personal experience and knowledge. I'd love to have someone clarify or expand on parts of my post.

Oh the Yankee hate is strong...

But your article makes my argument for me. The Yanks are playing within the rules of the game. Change the rules means changing the system we live under, i.e. down with capitalism.

Also it's hilarious you're complaining about the Yankee payroll when the Sox payroll isn't all that far behind...:cry:
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
The article actually spoke more towards the financing of the stadium and the apparent disconnect between those needs and the teams obvious lack of restraints when it came to payroll. The massive, unrivaled, bloated payroll was more of an ancillary issue.

MLB Salaries - CBSSports.com
Upwards of 60 million is not what I would consider close in my books. The RedSox are actually fourth in payroll by the way, behind those ever so magnificent Tigers. They're within earshot of a large number of teams anyways. The Mets, aforementioned Tigers, Mariners, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs, Whitesox... all within 10 million.

The Yankees Financial might doesn't just affect the RedSox either. If I recall there were a number of teams after all three of those free agents the Yankees signed this season, and all of them were pretty high up on their priority list's. Not to mention the fact that Hank publicly stated his very impressive bank account and lack of restraint when it came to it to each of the free agents. It has a very pronounced effect on every free agent. They know that it's almost a certainty that they can get extensive dollars and years when it comes to contracts... much more than most, if not all, teams can feasibly consider. The way the system is currently in place the Yankees have a massive influence on the overall market.
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
I don't dispute anything you're saying except to say, you might as well complain about the U.S. influence over the world, or Microsoft's putting Vista in every new computer like it or not, or McDonalds or etc... Capitalism baby....
 

Simplexity

New member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,741
MBTI Type
INTP
Brodsky said the subpoenas compel the officials to appear for questioning at a hearing Wednesday, and to provide documents the committee wants for its investigation into whether public money should be used for the new stadium in the Bronx.

Brodsky's move was criticized by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office.

"I guess it makes for good political theater because it's the Yankees, but when it comes to valuable taxpayer dollars, decisions should be made on return not rhetoric," said Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent. "The deal leverages a federal program and will result in New York City getting back more tax revenue than it will cost and the South Bronx getting thousands of new jobs and more than $1 billion in private investment."

Assembly subpoenas Yankees over new stadium - MLB - SI.com

The Yankees really know how to use their influence to get things done. It's no wonder why a lot of sports fans and teams hate them. They really embody their personel.
 
Top