Sabathia Deal

No, most reality is quite on my side..here is on policy paper (admitedly from a very conservative org)http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22496there have been several serious studies that show there is next to zero financial gain for a region from having a sports franchise when tax dollars are used for infrastructure and stadium. the dollars just do not net out

fall down drunk wrote:

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.

A = use the google, its your friend and allows you to see a variety of sources not just ones i would point you towards to prove my pointB = ANY business there that paid taxes would be better than one that pays noneC = perhaps you should go back to ENG101. parking garages, street lights, subway stops, roads, freeway exits... all are paid for by tax payers as part of a subsidized stadium deal.D = if the steinbrenners do not have a shell company that holds their dollars offshore they are idiots (and I am betting they are not). most large companies use offshore holding companies to own the brand while the USA subsidiary licenses the rights to the brand. completely legal but it significantly lessens (or eliminates) any taxes required

reckoner wrote:

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.

[/quote]

here are a couple decent starting points on stadium economics (there also good links at most conservative anti tax sites)

http://www.ocpathink.org/research-ideas/taxes-and-spending/?module=news&id=141

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-10-Sun-2005/opinion/1062735.html

both point to other sources that can be used as well

Again, I am a HUGE baseball (and yes, a yankee fan since the sad days of the early 70's) but it is insane public policy to use tax dollars to subsidize the business. its just a crazy circle jerk the owners use to enrich themselves.

soupy sales wrote:

its just a crazy circle jerk the owners use to enrich themselves.

I don't even think the owners benefit from these deals. They only want to do them so they can pay more money and get the best players. The end result is a system of WELFARE for pro athletes. If a stadium costs 500 mil, the teams could sell bonds at 5 or 6% and it would cost about 35 million a year to pay off the stadium in 30 years. With annual salaries of 70-80 million, they could simply cut salaries in half and pay their own way. I am sure Sabathia could make it on 80 mil over 7 years and the average player could squeak by on 1.35 million a year. Just because they are a pro athlete doesn't entitle them to enough money in a couple years to live the rest of their life.

You just misused the phrase per our request.

Secondly, Did you happen to see the Marlins GM say exactly what I said on this thread. If not check it out. HHe basically said the CC deal was ludicrous. Notice he didnt say this about any other deal only this one. So he seems to think there is a difference as well.

I love being right all of the time.

Huh? How did I misuse it? You requested I make a public thread about CC and Harden. That's what I did. If you really think that you can't interchange "our" and "your" in that statement, then you're a bigger idiot then I originally thought, which is saying something. In regards to the Marlins GM... really? You're going to take the word of Marlins GM about payroll? The guy whose highest paid player is Wes Helms? The team that perennially cuts their payroll so it's the lowest in the league? Obviously, he's going to think it's ludicrous; his organization never pays players anyway! So the Yankees overspent? Big deal. They overspend every year. Is that such a shock? Get over it. You're a Cubs fan. Your team has one of the highest payrolls in the MLB, so stop bitching.

The yankees didn't overspend, they just spend what is available for them to spend. Overspending would be paying the employees(players) more than you can afford to keep your business viable like GM does.

haha touche. Good point. I suppose by overspend I mean in contrast to what other teams would spend. In this particular case, for example, the next closest bidder was Milwaukee with 100 million, yet the Yanks basically bid against themselves and upped the contract from 140 to 160.

Burnett coupled with Sabathia certainly makes the yanks a very different team from this year

me o my wrote:

You just misused the phrase per our request.

Secondly, Did you happen to see the Marlins GM say exactly what I said on this thread. If not check it out. HHe basically said the CC deal was ludicrous. Notice he didnt say this about any other deal only this one. So he seems to think there is a difference as well.

I love being right all of the time.

What he said was that nobody is immune to the suffering economy. And, if he's correct, than he shouldn't worry ebcause such a deal with surely come back to haunt the Yankees at some point. His whining is misplaced.

This is what you focus on out of everything I said. I guess I should've expected that. You pitched in little league, so that makes you more of an expert than me, eh?

I meant players near 300 pounds (i.e. Sabathia), not exactly 300 pounds. Besides, if you think the official weight listed by teams is actually what these guys weigh, you prove you ignorance again.

Strongman contests have nothing to do with pitching. And your point about them has nothing to do with anything I sad. A little fat doesn't make them weaker. True. But that doesn't make them more immune to injury, either, which is what this argument was about until you started grasping at straws.

You're right that Sabathia's weight has not hurt his career (yet). And, again, as I said a couple of times, it is possible that it never will. But that would make him a rare exception to the rule, not the rule. Why is this so hard to understand?

You started this argument by claiming that being fat is beneficial in terms of staying healthy. You have not supported that claim in any valid way because there is no valid evidence to support it. Throwing out a couple of names from over a hundred years of professional baseball history does not validate your argument.

fall down drunk wrote:

You're right that Sabathia's weight has not hurt his career (yet). .

Congratulations. You beat me down. I don't have a couple years of my life to do a scientific study to prove to one sportswriter hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that being heavy and using that extra weight to help propel an object is an advantage. I mistakenly used anecdotal evidence of watching baseball for 40 years and seeing that bigger kids almost always through the ball faster than smaller kids. I have also noticed that skinny people run farther and faster than bigger people but that is a subject for another discussion.

ripvanracer wrote:

I mistakenly used anecdotal evidence of watching baseball for 40 years and seeing that bigger kids almost always through the ball faster than smaller kids.

oops, my editor missed "through" should be "threw"

flip wilsons lovechild wrote:

Burnett coupled with Sabathia certainly makes the yanks a very different team from this year

Yes, they should be an absolute lock to be 3rd in the division instead of having to hold off those pesky Blue Jays.

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.

As long as the Yankees spend money they have (and don't ask for bail-outs) more power to them.

That having been said, I'm an As fan.

Me too, I like a nice booty, but who's your favorite team.