Sabathia Deal

I'm not a baseball fan and wouldn't normally care about what salaries they pay. But when as a NY resident and taspayer being asked to give tax breaks and other consessions for a new Yankee stadium, this upsets me.

Clearly the Yankees are able to afford these high salaries in part because they get the NYC government to build a stadium for them and give them numerous tax breaks.

We would all be better off if all state and local governments stopped building stadiums for wealthy baseball owners and stopped giving them tax breaks -- and used the savings to improve their infrastructure. The result would be that baseball players make about half of what then now make. I think they could get along quite well on that.

Yes I know a baseball team brings in other revenue for the city where they are located, but if no cities gave these breaks the basteball teams will still locate where they are today anyway. Do you really think the Yankees are going to move to the suburbs of NJ and risk losing thier NY fans? What salaries do you think they could afford to pay if they were located in the meadowlands? Surely considerably less than being located near the center of NYC.

bronco wrote:

What part of capitalism do you not understand?

The law firm my company uses pays 100 times more than the law firm our smallest competitor uses; we made the choice to go with our guys even though they don't win every game. .

The law firm your company uses pays you!? Let me know where that place is so i can retire and hire them to pay my salary.

look, the mlb is a business, and just like any other business the yankees would pay to get a person who would help their business, if youre trying to get someone for your business im sure you would pay a good amount for him if he would help you

The money a pro fanchise brings into a city far outweighs the assistence they get to build stadiums. Don't believe me? When was the last time the Yankees built a new stadium? 1923. How much money have they brought to the city since then? Billions and billions of dollars. It's silly to argue against it. Even if the city were to pay a billion dollars (which it is not, the public share is estimated around 250 million I believe), the city stands to make tens or hundreds of billions over the next seven or eight decades.

most studies would strongly disagree, it is not just the initial outlay of funding but the perpetual tax breaks vs the potential business use of that property. in addition there are the other infrastructure investments needed all at tax payer expensemost of the teams are owned by offshore companies so there is little if any local tax ever reinvested in the communityuse the google

fall down drunk wrote:

The money a pro fanchise brings into a city far outweighs the assistence they get to build stadiums. Don't believe me? When was the last time the Yankees built a new stadium? 1923. How much money have they brought to the city since then? Billions and billions of dollars. It's silly to argue against it. Even if the city were to pay a billion dollars (which it is not, the public share is estimated around 250 million I believe), the city stands to make tens or hundreds of billions over the next seven or eight decades.

[/quote]

The law firm your company uses pays you!? Let me know where that place is so i can retire and hire them to pay my salary.[/quote]

Obviously they pay their lawyers like the Yankees pay their players. Sheesh.

seriously?a) what "studies would strongly disagree"?b) perpetual business use of that property? have you ever been to the south bronx? what other possible businesses could be nearly as lucrative? what other business could create more local jobs? c) "in addition there are the other infrastructure investments needed all at tax payer expense" - i'll ignore this sentence b/c it's completely incomprehensible.d) most of the teams are owned by offshore companies. wow. first, this is not even remotely true. second, i thought we were talking about the yankees, so even if it were true, you'd be throwing a useless knuckleball.

soupy sales wrote:

most studies would strongly disagree, it is not just the initial outlay of funding but the perpetual tax breaks vs the potential business use of that property. in addition there are the other infrastructure investments needed all at tax payer expense

most of the teams are owned by offshore companies so there is little if any local tax ever reinvested in the community

use the google

soupy sales wrote:

most studies would strongly disagree, it is not just the initial outlay of funding but the perpetual tax breaks vs the potential business use of that property. in addition there are the other infrastructure investments needed all at tax payer expense

most of the teams are owned by offshore companies so there is little if any local tax ever reinvested in the community

You can study all you want, but reality would disagree with you.

The potential business use of that property? That's an entirely different argument and not relavent to what we're talking about. We're talking about the money the franchises bring to their host cities. It is very, very substantial. Perhaps some other business, if located on that land, would be even more beneficial. But that doesn't mean the city isn't benefitting big-time by hosting the franchise.

Your argument is like saying that eating a banana is a waste of food because eating spinach would be more healthful. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't take away from the fact that eating the banana is good for you.

fall down drunk wrote:

You comment on Joba shows you are an idiot. .

How does bringing up the fact Joba has concentration problems and tanked a playoff game make me an idiot? What's Joba going to do the next playoff game when the 17 year locusts swarm the field while he is trying to close a game out?

We all know baseball is a sport FAT people can excel at. Do you even watch baseball? I know there are a handful of people who have ate their way off the baseball field. I don't know why you are discounting David Wells. He did win 239 games in the majors. Babe Ruth comes to mind as not being very skinny. The Fielder family probably couldn't run a quick 5k.

Some guy who has a lot more free time than I do already put a short list together.

Here is another article that some guy with a whole lot of free time did some statistical analysis and found that FAT PITCHERS DO HAVE LONGER STAYING POWER!!!!!!

Rick "Big Daddy" Rueschel won 214 games.

Do I watch baseball? I cover the sport for a large metro newspaper.

Regarding Joba...you're an idiot because you suggested that the fluke situation of dealing with midges is more important to his success than his weight is. That is wrong. Joba has said he wouldn't be in the big leagues today if he hadn't lost all that weight. Also, he was considered top-three talent-wise in the draft but he slipped to the Yankees at 20-something because teams were worried about his weight. Why would teams worry so much abotu weight if it were a benefit? He was called another Sidney Ponson.

Like I said, he went from throwing 82 mph as a HS senior to topping out at 101 at age 22 because he shed 50 pounds. This isn't rumor. This comes from his high school and summer league coaches.

Concentration? Joba has performed extraordinarily well every step of the way with the lone exception being that midge game. His concentration was fine when he stared down Becket for seven one-hit shutout innings in Fenway and buzzed Youk for the hell of it again.

If you really believe the midges phenomenon proves he has concentration problmes or that he won't be a star based on that, you are an idiot. In fact, he is already a star.

You are right that baseball is a sport fat people CAN excel at (though, so are football and basketball). However, that does not mean fat people are better suited for sccess in the game. Additionally, the issue was longevity, and you have still failed to provide a list of pitchers 300 pounds heavy who performed as well at age 30-35 as they did at 25-30. I didn't dismiss Wells. I said he's an exception that proves the rule. Apparently, you are nto familiar with that phrase. The Fielders are hitters, not pitchers.

The first link you posted is irrelevant because it deals with SINGLE seasons. That's not the issue. The second link is interesting particualry because of this line "Survival rate is simply the percentage of 25 year-olds who were still pitching at 32."

Does 32 strike you as old for a pitcher? It shouldn't. Not by today's standards. Not when Mike Mussina wins 20 games for the first time at age 39 (and he's pretty small, by the way). Also, that analysis doesn't account for body fat, just total weight. Body fat, of course, is the issue.

The Yankees desperately needed to revamp their rotation, and they probably overpaid for Sabathia. He is the best pitcher on the market this year, but the big risk is his post-season performance. Not very good so far. Guys like Schilling and Beckett are worth a lot of money because they are proven performers at the top of the rotation in the post season, not because they win 19 games during the regular season instead of 15.

Sabathia could end up being well worth it, or he could be the pitching version of A-Rod in the post season.

fall down drunk wrote:

When was the last time the Yankees built a new stadium? 1923.

And the last time they had the City build a stadium for them was 1976, when the Yankee Stadium in use until this past September was built. And the Yankees have been stiffing the City on the rent ever since, coming up with completely fictional costs to offset their rent obligation.

There is no benefit to the city from the new stadium. You can't argue that it will revitalize an area, since it's across the street from the old stadium that had a larger capacity.

fall down drunk wrote:

The first link you posted is irrelevant because it deals with SINGLE seasons. That's not the issue. The second link is interesting particualry because of this line "Survival rate is simply the percentage of 25 year-olds who were still pitching at 32."

Does 32 strike you as old for a pitcher? It shouldn't. Not by today's standards. Not when Mike Mussina wins 20 games for the first time at age 39 (and he's pretty small, by the way). Also, that analysis doesn't account for body fat, just total weight. Body fat, of course, is the issue.

The survival rate in that analysis also does not factor in how effective the pitchers were at age 32 compared to 25. It only states that they were still pitching at age 32, not if they were still pitching as well as they did hen they were younger. Not a useful study for your argument.

ghost of Jacob Ruppert wrote:

fall down drunk wrote:

When was the last time the Yankees built a new stadium? 1923.

And the last time they had the City build a stadium for them was 1976, when the Yankee Stadium in use until this past September was built.

Huh?

ripvanracer wrote:

[quote]Dusty Baker wrote:

sabathia will not be worth the money.

As said above, the pitchers who have to throw the splitter are the ones who are always injured and have short careers because that pitch puts to much strain on the ligaments of the arm and shoulder. quote]

The split fingered fastball aka splitter puts no more strain on the arm than a fastball. Its merely gripped differently than a fastball. In fact, the splitter has extended the careers of guys like Roger Clemens and John SMoltz

I believe the pitch you are referring to in regard to arm strain is the slider. This pitch can put tremendous strain on the arm and even guys with great sliders do not have them their whole career (Pedro, Kerry Wood, Brad Lidge - all have adapted their game after losing their A slider). The pitch can even prematurely wreck a career (Mark Prior, perhaps Francisco Liriano).

As far as Sabathia, its funny how you guys get sidetracked by weight. It is really a non-factor. You have guys as small as Pedro, Glavine, Greg Maddux and big guys like Clemens and Pettite pitching well for a long time.

The key to longevity is EASE OF DELIVERY. You look at Sabathias delivery and it is smooth and his arm usually stays in relatively the same slot. This is what the Yankees looked at in determining he was worth the risk.

In comparison, guys with *violent* deliveries often get hurt (Liriano, Eric Gagne). This is why the Giants are concerned about Lincecum and if I were the Mets I would never have given K-Rod 40 mil.

Unfortuneatly if I want digital cable TV I have to pay these outrageous salaries.

I didnt post them. they are better than yours (not that it matters). The Cubs will be infintely better than the Brewers this year.

I am still waiting for you to make a post about CC's 2009 versus Hardens on the front page.

rich garces wrote:

The split fingered fastball aka splitter puts no more strain on the arm than a fastball. Its merely gripped differently than a fastball. In fact, the splitter has extended the careers of guys like Roger Clemens and John SMoltz

I believe the pitch you are referring to in regard to arm strain is the slider.

While a wicked slider does put a tremendous amount of stress on the arm, the splitter is worse. When you split the fingers, it puts stress on the ligaments before you even throw the ball. This tightness during the delivery time after time leads to injuries. Compare it to having a tight IT band and trying to run.

You are correct about the slider being a dangerous pitch. People trying to keep little leaguers from throwing curves are also misinformed. The curve ball is not the problem, it is the slider that the pitcher SNAPS off. I threw a slow curve and not only never had arm problems, I could pitch all day because I threw so slow, there was no stress on the arm. I just aimed at the batters head and let the ball break over the plate. Most couldn't touch a pitch like that at that age.

As for Smoltz throwing the splitter to extend his career, that is why he is always injured. If your choice is to get your fastball crushed and stay healthy or throw the splitter and have a great chance of injury, you have to throw the splitter and hope for the best. The trend the last few years has been back to just throwing the fastball, curve, and change.

fall down drunk wrote:

Do I watch baseball? I cover the sport for a large metro newspaper.

.

I had a feeling there was an underlying reason behind your ignorance. That explains it.

I am not saying FAT is the way to go. (I weigh 135) What I am saying is that I have never seen it affect Sabathia in a negative way during his whole career with the Indians. There is a difference between being heavy (Sabathia) and being lazy (Colon). I watched Carlos Baerga eat his way out of second base and out of Cleveland.

Watch the strongman contests on E S Propaganda N and you will see the old flabby guys beat the young cut guys. A little fat on the outside doesn't make them any weaker.

Since you claim to be a sportswriter (why you would do that is beyond me) you should know that the heaviest recorded player in MLB was 295. Therefore, it would be impossible to list anyone 300 lbs in any regard.