Anyone else watching the Yankees....

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

How is a person getting a salary for a service rendered money wasted?

Again, everything you are saying makes sense rationally. Obviously, getting a salary for service rendered is not money wasted. Obviously, the market has rationally decided that a guy in pajamas, swinging a bat at a ball and being rewarded millions of dollars for playing a game, calls for a multi-million dollar salary each year. What is going over, or under, your head is that somebody who works hard at saving lives, or governing people, or creating true artistic masterpieces, will never see anything like that money in their lifetimes. Neither the player nor the owner should enjoy such wealth in my opinion. It is based on a feeling of fairness, not objective economic or financial analysis (we have had this discussion before).

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Not a dime of your money goes to Stanton or Steinbrenner unless you willingly give it to them. If you'd rather it stay in your pocket, keep it in there.

Not exactly correct. The cost of providing Yankees coverage is included in my cable bill. Do I need cable TV? Not to live, no. But to the extent that I do desire that modest luxury, I am paying more for it because Steinbrenner and Stanton must be paid.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Why would you think they should "return" it?

I'm not looking for a refund. I would have preferred that it never got to this ridiculous magnitude of wealth in the first place.

Say, how did we get on these topics? The original point that I was making is what I just said to Westheim; that, given whatever the money involved, the team would be hampered in the future by this contract. Yes, that is going to be true to the extent that Steinbrenner is a cheapskate or a spendthrift. Holding that factor steady, Stanton is going to soak up a lot of whatever amount of money the Yankees decide to invest in salaries for years to come.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I don't think so

First, as mentioned above and previously, they are reaping the benefits of underpaying players now


And second,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...at-46-billion/

Remember, the value of a business comes for current revenues and future expectations of revenues (and other things). The Yankees may plead poverty. There's not much reason to believe that they are.

Good points in this post. I hardly feel sorry for the Yankees, financially.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

somebody who works hard at saving lives, or governing people, or creating true artistic masterpieces, will never see anything like that money in their lifetimes. Neither the player nor the owner should enjoy such wealth in my opinion. It is based on a feeling of fairness, not objective economic or financial analysis (we have had this discussion before).

Vote to raise taxes, specifically on the uber wealthy, cancel student loan debt. More funding for the arts
That will put more money in the hands of the people you want and take it away from those you don't.

Weird how the circle completes itself like that


EDIT: I am surprised that you are admitting that our current tax structure is wildly unfair.

Not exactly correct. The cost of providing Yankees coverage is included in my cable bill. Do I need cable TV? Not to live, no. But to the extent that I do desire that modest luxury, I am paying more for it because Steinbrenner and Stanton must be paid.

Backwards

You, and many others, are choosing to give Steinbrenner, Stanton, and many others, your money. If people chose to give them less, they would be "paid" less.

I'm not looking for a refund. I would have preferred that it never got to this ridiculous magnitude of wealth in the first place.

See my first two points

Stanton is going to soak up a lot of whatever amount of money the Yankees decide to invest in salaries for years to come.

The Yankees will pay Stanton what they agreed to pay him barring some possibilities, yes.

With a salary structure that more closely resembled his expected production, he'd be earning more now, leaving less of whatever amount the team decided to allocate to payroll.

[Déjà Bru]

It's remarkable how I can utter these statements:

I don't give a damn about Stanton's or Steinbrenner's money in particular.

Neither the player nor the owner should enjoy such wealth in my opinion.

I hardly feel sorry for the Yankees, financially.

and still root for the team regardless. To consider what Stanton will be making a waste, yes, but not on the semi-Marxist basis which it may appear to be. Instead, my chief concern is how the Yankees fare and how I believe Stanton will hurt their chances at excellence in the future.

I have rooted for the Yankees since before George Steinbrenner. I never admired the Steinbrenners and have cringed at times when they throw money around, especially when doing so really was a waste. Steinbrenner as a man was despicable and I wouldn't admire any organization that would hire, and fire, Billy Martin multiple times while letting Joe Torre and Joe Girardi go.

Yet I have always rooted for the Yankees in concept and I always will. Why? Because they are an embodiment of New York? Maybe out of habit? Heh, try rationalizing this! I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

[Westheim]

Now, I'm a Mets guy, but the Yankees being left with dead money around their necks isn't something that makes me cry, either.

They have more money than they can ever spend (whether they want to pay luxury tax etc. is another thing). Over here in Europe, you only ever see three teams' merch in the wild, in this order: Yankees, Dodgers, Red Sox. I know of a German guy on Youtube sometimes wearing a Cards shirt or cap, so he's the Cards' German weirdo. (Yes, there is one per team) I know of one (1) person in Germany into the Padres. You get the proportions.

I saw a Mets item on a human body other than mine *once* over here. And that was a on a black guy, speaking English, in a KFC, two miles from a U.S. Army base.

That is a long-winded way of saying that all that merch they sell all over the world is gonna pay for a 37-year-old Stanton much more easier than the Mets are going to pay for a 40-year-old Cano. The soft cap is a different beast, but, eh...

[Déjà Bru]

You know, I was thinking of you when I was writing my previous post. Have you ever asked yourself, especially given distance and geography, why you follow the Mets even though they have caused you such angst in recent years? Why do those guys like the St. Louis Cardinals and San Diego Padres? It's an interesting topic.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Steinbrenner as a man was despicable

Yet I have always rooted for the Yankees in concept and I always will. Why? Because they are an embodiment of New York? Maybe out of habit? Heh, try rationalizing this! I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

The owners of Wal-Mart might do things that many people do not agree with but those same people will still shop at Wal-Mart.

Sports is a little different than consumer goods, of course, but all businesses strive to make people believe that they are more than businesses and using those businesses is more than just a businesses transaction. Sports, for reasons that are probably obvious, are better at doing this than many other types of companies - few people probably remember the first time they went to Wal-Mart, more will remember their first baseball game.

Yes, they use the methods you mentioned, and more

There's a reason they are the New York Mets not the Citi Bank Mets. There's a reason the Yankees are associated with the Bronx. There are reasons the Rockies, DBacks, and Marlins were all associated with their states and not cities. And why the Marlins rebranded as "Miami".

There's a reason for the "true fan" narrative - "I was there through thick and thin. I'm a Yankee fan (I'm a Ford guy. I'm a Toys R Us kid)". It's all branding and getting people to incorporate a product deeply into their lives.



As a kid growing up in the US, I had favorite football, basketball and baseball teams. As an adult I had favorite football, basketball and baseball teams. Living in Europe, where those three sports weren't as ubiquitous, I stopped paying attention to NFL and NBA almost entirely. And I got more into baseball. But, in a different way. I disassociated myself from it, in part. Sports, especially football and basketball, weren't as important a part of who I was. When I met people they didn't ask me within the first few minutes about who "my team" was (They sometimes asked about futbol, but, I didn't have a team). In still have a favorite baseball team. But not in the same say that I used to. Baseball the sport is more important to me than it was. Allegiance to one team, much less important. Being a baseball fan became a part of my identity. Being a Dodger fan, became a less important part.

MLB and individual teams want people to be fans of teams. Want people to identify with specific teams. If you identify as a Yankee Fan, you "have to have" Yankee gear (members of social groups very often dress in a certain way from MAGA hats to rosaries to all black with eyeliner to suits and ties to whatever). Fana declaring loyalty to a team is a way for that team to get money from the fan

[Déjà Bru]

This reminds me of the discussion about the new name for the Washington football team. People scoffed, but it's a savvy move to delay picking the nickname in order to poll, study, and arrive at an optimal name that will instill identification with and loyalty to the team. (All the more reason why the old name was ill-advised.)

I sometimes wonder what would happen if, say, I moved to Colorado and lived close to Coors Field. I think what would happen is, while I would still take an interest in the Yankees, I would start rooting for the Rockies. It's just natural to want to belong to something and have it succeed as a reflection upon yourself, I guess. Locality is foremost but not the only criterion.

Interesting that you say, when you lived in Europe, you lost your former associations with specific teams and became more of a fan of the sport. I wonder, though, if that took some of the joy out of it.

Even in OOTPB, I always start as the Baltimore Orioles. Of 1901. Two years of that, and they become the New York Highlanders and ultimately the New York Yankees. I have tried all fictional teams (instead of the usual historical teams and fictional players) but even then, I played as the New York Knights!

Eh, it's not a bad habit and I don't go overboard with it. (Whatever some people think is a "typical Yankees fan," I am not it.) I don't think I am ever going to change . . . barring a move to Colorado, maybe.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

This reminds me of the discussion about the new name for the Washington football team. People scoffed, but it's a savvy move to delay picking the nickname in order to poll, study, and arrive at an optimal name that will instill identification with and loyalty to the team. (All the more reason why the old name was ill-advised.)

And why they delayed so long in getting rid of the old one.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if, say, I moved to Colorado and lived close to Coors Field. I think what would happen is, while I would still take an interest in the Yankees, I would start rooting for the Rockies. It's just natural to want to belong to something and have it succeed as a reflection upon yourself, I guess. Locality is foremost but not the only criterion.

I have never lived in Los Angeles
I have lived in New York and Washington DC

I certainly developed an emotional connection to the Nationals. I was there while they were terrible but were starting to build an identity around Ryan Zimmerman. So, while I was unhappy the Nationals beat the Dodgers in 2019, it gave me some feels to see Zimmerman and the Nats win.

Nothing like that happened with the Mets or Yankees. Though I lived in N.Y. after living en Europe and changing my relationship with baseball.


Similarly, when the Astros started getting interesting around 2015, I was a "fan" of theirs. Even in 2017. I was disappointed the Dodgers lost but happy for the Astros.

Similarly the Royals before that when their vaunted farm system began to pay dividends.

Interesting that you say, when you lived in Europe, you lost your former associations with specific teams and became more of a fan of the sport. I wonder, though, if that took some of the joy out of it.

I don't think so

I can say that the previous version of me would have fit in better around here. I don't say that with lament.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I can say that the previous version of me would have fit in better around here. I don't say that with lament.

Eh, I'd say you're doing alright these days, now that we know how to take you. Which is, not too seriously when you choose to be confrontational. Your arguments are more effective without the confrontation, in my opinion, but regardless you do make some good points. There are diamonds in the rough! Your choice, of course, but the less rough, the more the diamonds will shine.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Eh, I'd say you're doing alright these days, now that we know how to take you. Which is, not too seriously when you choose to be confrontational. Your arguments are more effective without the confrontation, in my opinion, but regardless you do make some good points. There are diamonds in the rough! Your choice, of course, but the less rough, the more the diamonds will shine.

And yes, I know there are two sides to this story. As I can attest, that approach works well in reverse when being confronted. Remember, none of us knows the others so it really doesn't matter what each of us thinks. There is no winning or losing, just a bunch of guys gabbing away at each other. Sometimes you teach, sometimes you learn, but most times it's just a way to pass the time, hopefully pleasurably.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Imagine the $325,000,000 were paid out over 13 years but with Stanton receiving $1,000,000 a year for the first 5 years and 320,000,000 over the last. This would be the ideal situation for the owner. They get to keep the money for longer before giving it to the player. If they keep it, they can invest it and use it to make even more money. If they give it to the player, the player can invest it and earn the return.

Also imagine being the team paying him $5M for first five years - 5 years where he should be relatively productive. They get five good years out of him and then trade him away to someone willing to pay the remaining $320M. The first team signed him to a "ridiculous" contract but the second team, in this case the Yankees, foot the bill for his less productive years.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

someone willing to pay the remaining $320M.

Right
I must have missed any point you were trying to make

The Marlins backloaded the contract exactly as I've said owners are incentivized to do

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

Also imagine being the team paying him $5M for first five years - 5 years where he should be relatively productive. They get five good years out of him and then trade him away to someone willing to pay the remaining $320M. The first team signed him to a "ridiculous" contract but the second team, in this case the Yankees, foot the bill for his less productive years.

I believe this comes close to the point that I was trying to make, although I did sidetrack myself into the "ridiculous amounts of money" discussion.

In three years with the Yankees so far, to use a totally non-Sabermetric measure of value to the team, Stanton has failed to hit as many home runs in total as he did in 2017 which presumably is what got the Yankees all hot and bothered.So they have already missed years of what they anticipated from him and will now begin to pay him even more money as he goes into his decline.

Well, optimistically, maybe he will recover some of that earlier form and appear to earn his salary for the next few years. Let's hope so. We just got done with Jacoby Ellsbury.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I believe this comes close to the point that I was trying to make,

That Stanton hasn't performed to expectations since the trade?

Well, no.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

That Stanton hasn't performed to expectations since the trade?

Well, no.

Obviously not all trades work out

But, if the Marlins had structured the contract to pay more up front (meaning the Marlins would have paid more, and the Yankees less), then the Yankees would have had to give up more in trade to get Stanton.

All of this stuff pretty well equalizes.

Teams have different needs on the field and different needs financially. Both of those factor into any deals they make

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

That Stanton hasn't performed to expectations since the trade?

Well, no.

I mean, 38 homers, 100 RBI, .852 OPS in 2018 is nothing to sneeze at; I'll take that level of production from my superstar players. But if that is the high mark of his time with the Yankees, then the contract (that is, the acquisition of the contract) will have been a waste, IMO.

Look, I would like to be wrong. If he hits 60 homers and knocks in 150 runs next year, then I am liable to be contrite here for a while. If he tails off again, though, I will be tempted to grouse once more.Each productive year from here on will entitle me to less and less grousing.

I know the idea; that it's expected by age 37 he's not going to be entitled to the big bucks that he's being paid if you look only at that period of his career. He's got to have several more good seasons with the Yankees to merit that consideration, in my book. Else it was a dumb trade.

Let me say one more thing. Just because I say it was a dumb trade doesn't mean that I think Cashman and Steinbrenner were dumb to make it. I would probably pull the trigger too, given the money being made available to me. Hindsight is 20-20 but it is a fan's right to grouse ex post facto, regardless. It's part of the game, and they know it.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I mean, 38 homers, 100 RBI, .852 OPS in 2018 is nothing to sneeze at; I'll take that level of production from my superstar players. But if that is the high mark of his time with the Yankees, then the contract (that is, the acquisition of the contract) will have been a waste, IMO.

Look, I would like to be wrong. If he hits 60 homers and knocks in 150 runs next year, then I am liable to be contrite here for a while. If he tails off again, though, I will be tempted to grouse once more.Each productive year from here on will entitle me to less and less grousing.

I know the idea; that it's expected by age 37 he's not going to be entitled to the big bucks that he's being paid if you look only at that period of his career. He's got to have several more good seasons with the Yankees to merit that consideration, in my book. Else it was a dumb trade.

Let me say one more thing. Just because I say it was a dumb trade doesn't mean that I think Cashman and Steinbrenner were dumb to make it. I would probably pull the trigger too, given the money being made available to me. Hindsight is 20-20 but it is a fan's right to grouse ex post facto, regardless. It's part of the game, and they know it.

This is where I'm glad that my fandom has changed

A "fan's right to grouse"? I mean ok, sure. Fans also have the right to buy team gear and set fire to it or to punch themselves in the face, but that doesn't mean those are productive activities one should be proud of.

If the team wasn't dumb to make the trade, then it wasn't a dumb trade. It was a trade that didn't work out.

I stayed up too late last night and some version of Card Sharks was on the TV that had been left on. If you're not familiar with the show...i can't really explain it to you but what I gleaned was: contestants answer Family Feud style questions and then guess if a covered card is higher or lower than an uncovered card.

Well, the right strategy is simple probabilities (I'm unsure if a 52 card deck is used or what). If a 2 is showing, the next card is almost certainly higher. Anyway the contestant last night lost when a queen was showing, they guessed lower, and an ace was the next card

Guessing lower wasn't a dumb guess. It was just wrong.

Same with Stanton. Just because he hasn't performed doesn't make it a dumb trade, just one that didn't work out.

Fans that grouse about that type of trade are the type of fans I'm glad I'm no longer associated with. Fans that recognize that stuff happens, but the trade itself wasn't the problem are fewer but more my kind of person.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

If the team wasn't dumb to make the trade, then it wasn't a dumb trade. It was a trade that didn't work out.

I am learning to hone my vocabulary while conversing with you, which is a good thing. Recall what I said about Cashman and Steinbrenner, that I probably would have done the same thing given the availability of the money. They weren't dumb to make the trade (although . . . the length of the remaining contract, again . . . ill-advised in general?) but it may yet in fact turn out badly (although that's not established, it is trending that way the past two years). It is in that sense that I described it as a potentially "dumb" trade. Words have meanings and, not that those gentlemen would care an iota about my opinion, it is not fair to tag them indirectly with that epithet.

My main fear, that Stanton will tie up future free agency money disproportionately to his performance, is probably groundless. The Yankees seem to be able to absorb such bad financial tidings with little difficulty. I remember talking about A-Rod's contract in a similar manner, then came Ellsbury, and now this. It goes on and on, thanks to us willing consumers.

Is Cole next? Huh. Quick quiz: Who is the last Yankees superstar to deliver on his long-term contract, in your opinion? Inflation-adjusted, of course.

Feh. I'm not going to worry about Yankee finances anymore.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

(although . . . the length of the remaining contract, again . . . ill-advised in general?)

My main fear, that Stanton will tie up future free agency money disproportionately to his performance, is probably groundless.

Again, the long contract helps the Yankees free up free agency money (in the nearer future. And ties it up in the further future). Now, $30 million a year is superstar money. But, in the further future (look at me being all optimistic) it won't be.

The Marlins and Stanton could have made a 5 or 7 or 10 year deal that would have been just as valuable for Stanton but would have cost the team much more in terms of being able to afford free agents because (the owners expect huge returns on their investments), as I said, they would be paying out $40 or $50 million a year instead of $30 million.

Is Cole next? Huh. Quick quiz: Who is the last Yankees superstar to deliver on his long-term contract, in your opinion? Inflation-adjusted, of course.

This is definitely out of my area of expertise off the top of my head,