Yankees Randy Levine tells Brewers Owner: "Stop Whining"

• Lovejoy1984

  

  http://sports.espn.go.com/newyork/mlb/news/story?id=5060292
  
  He makes some great points mainly:
  
  "I'm sorry that my friend Mark continues to whine about his running the Brewers," Levine told ESPNNewYork.com in a phone interview Tuesday morning. "We play by all the rules and there doesn't seem to be any complaints when teams such as the Brewers receive hundreds of millions of dollars that they get from us in revenue sharing the last few years. Take some of that money that you get from us and use that to sign your players"
  
  ""The question that should be asked is: Where has the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing gone?"
• Footwedge

  Not one penny of the luxory tax goes to the smaller market teams. What a shame that one of the top executives would make such ridiculous claims. And "hundreds of millions of dollars"...another fraudulent claim.
  
  This link, although outdated to some degree, explains what really happens with the luxory taxes.
  
  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_the_Luxury_Tax_work_in_MLB
• Lovejoy1984

  

  I'll take the word of an MLB executive, to that of Wikipedia.
  
  If you can find me a better source than that I'll concede, but there is a reason Schools don't allow you to source Wikipedia as a reference in writing a paper
• jordo212000

  

  HighRoller74 wrote: I'll take the word of an MLB executive, to that of Wikipedia.
  
  If you can find me a better source than that I'll concede, but there is a reason Schools don't allow you to source Wikipedia as a reference in writing a paper

  That's just what I was going to say. Haha
• Footwedge

  From author Maury Brown...sports business analist....
  
  "Luxury tax money is redistributed, but not in the same way as revenue sharing. A portion of the collected money (anywhere from the $2.5 million-$5 million) is set aside for administration. After that, 75 percent of the remaining proceeds collected each year, with accrued interest, are used to pay benefits to players, with the remaining 25 percent set aside for an Industry Growth Fund."
  
  http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/season-preview/2010/269597.html
  
  
  The point being...the president of the Yankees needs to quit misleading the public. As for luxory taxes....none of the money goes to the other teams.
  
  Looks like Wikipedia is dead nuts right.
• Lovejoy1984

  

  I use wikipedia all the time, but I didn't want to take Wiki's word for it, because anyone can answer those questions
  
  And Like I said providing a better link would make me concede, because I'm not well versed on the luxury tax.
  
  Fact still remains the Brewers still get money at the end of the season, even if it isn't from the Luxury Tax, and they, like the Indians or Pirates refuse to use it on players.
• Footwedge

  HighRoller74 wrote:
  Fact still remains the Brewers still get money at the end of the season, even if it isn't from the Luxury Tax, and they, like the Indians or Pirates refuse to use it on players.

  Now this is a subject open for great debate.:idea:
  
  But Levine needs to keep his mouth shut regarding the luxory tax. The Yankees did not feed the coiffers of the Milwaukerr Brewers one bit.
  
  The Yankees starting infield will make more money in salary than the the overall payroll of about half the teams.
  
  The Yankees have made the playoffs for 15 straight years, excluding 2008.
  
  Many sports fans don't follow baseball anymore...simply because they are tired of the unlevel playing field. (How's that for a pun?)
• jordo212000

  

  Footwedge wrote: Many sports fans don't follow baseball anymore...simply because they are tired of the unlevel playing field. (How's that for a pun?)

  Link?
  
  Look, the teams do get some money redistributed to them, the exact name of the source is of little concern to me.
  
  I am not going to try and argue that the system is perfect, but if you draft well, develop your talent, and spend money in the right places, you can win in the majors.
  
  Why don't people get into a tizzy about the NBA? MLB has had more parity than the NBA over the past few years
• Footwedge

  Jordo...you are a Reds fan....the Reds have stunk ever since the new collective bargaining system went into play. Same with Pittsburgh.
  
  In baseball, a small market team cannot "build" a team and expect it to last. Doesn't work that way.
  
  When is the last time the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers or Phillies had a losing season?
  
  If I were rich, would I be more successful if my employees were 5 times more valuable than my competitors employees? And we can include any industry...not just baseball.
• jordo212000

  

  The Reds have stunk because they spent the money they had in the wrong places and made many other bad investments all while skimping on pitching.
  
  The Rays, Rockies, Marlins, A's (not as much now), Twins, Diamondbacks, and Brewers have all shown that well-managed clubs can compete against competitors with bigger wallets.
  
  Since 2000, World Series winners: New York x2, Philadelphia, Boston x2, St Louis, Chicago, Florida, Anaheim, Arizona (8 different winners)
  Since 2000, NBA Finals winners: LA x4, Boston, San Antonio x3, Miami, Detroit, (5 different winners)
  
  Again, I ask, why no outrage towards the NBA?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I, like many others, have stopped following baseball because it's a broken system. It favors only a few elite teams and basically uses all the others as minor league teams to supply those elites with players.
  
  That's a fact.
• jordo212000

  

  Writerbuckeye wrote: I, like many others, have stopped following baseball because it's a broken system. It favors only a few elite teams and basically uses all the others as minor league teams to supply those elites with players.
  
  That's a fact.

  8 different world series winners since 2000. Does 8= a few?
• hrspeedmerchant

  Footwedge wrote: Jordo...you are a Reds fan....the Reds have stunk ever since the new collective bargaining system went into play. Same with Pittsburgh.
  
  In baseball, a small market team cannot "build" a team and expect it to last. Doesn't work that way.
  
  When is the last time the Yanks, Red Sox, Dodgers or Phillies had a losing season?
  
  If I were rich, would I be more successful if my employees were 5 times more valuable than my competitors employees? And we can include any industry...not just baseball.

  Spot on. Until baseball economics are changed the large market teams will alway be dominant. This is not to say that in any given year a small or mid-market team will not perform well. Some teams, like the Twins, or the Indians of a few years ago, will even produce for longer periods, but they are still at a disadvange in sustaining that success.
• sleeper

  

  I don't really care about this thread, but I just want to add that FOR THE MOST PART Wikipedia is very accurate since the moment some CLOWN decides to fuck up an article you have 20 or so people passionate about that particular subject ready and willing to change it. The real reason you aren't allowed to cite wikipedia at colleges is those colleges WANT you to use the library resources so they can continue to get funding.
• Little Danny

  

  jordo212000 wrote: The Reds have stunk because they spent the money they had in the wrong places and made many other bad investments all while skimping on pitching.
  
  The Rays, Rockies, Marlins, A's (not as much now), Twins, Diamondbacks, and Brewers have all shown that well-managed clubs can compete against competitors with bigger wallets.
  
  Since 2000, World Series winners: New York x2, Philadelphia, Boston x2, St Louis, Chicago, Florida, Anaheim, Arizona (8 different winners)
  Since 2000, NBA Finals winners: LA x4, Boston, San Antonio x3, Miami, Detroit, (5 different winners)
  
  Again, I ask, why no outrage towards the NBA?

  This thread puts in a unique position of actually agreeing with Footwedge and disagreeing with Jordo. Sorry Jordo, but the correct answer as to why no outrage towards the NBA is because a whole heck of a lot more people care about MLB than those who care about the NBA. Baseball was America's Past Time adored by people all over the country, of all ages, races, etc. NBA has a much smaller amount of people (primarily men under the age of 35, and people in large metropolitan areas). If you want to look at the history of the NBA, it has always been dominated by a few select teams who have won virtually all the championships (LA, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Philly, San Antonio, Houston make up for nearly all of the titles since the inception of the NBA).
  
  I realize their have been eight different WS winners this decade, but everyone of the teams except for Florida and AZ would be categorized as large market teams. In addition, if you expand the list of teams to teams who made the playoffs since 2000 you would find it consists almost entirely of large market teams. Finally, even though a Florida can compete on a given year, we all know that they do not have the financial means to sustain that success and end up losing all of those players to the larger market teams eventually.
• Footwedge

  jordo212000 wrote: The Rays, Rockies, Marlins, A's (not as much now), Twins, Diamondbacks, and Brewers have all shown that well-managed clubs can compete against competitors with bigger wallets.
  

  Of those teams you cited, how about listing the number of playoff appearances they have made since 2000. Or better yet, the number of winning seasons.
  
  My guess is that the teams you listed probably won less than 45% of their games collectively since 2000.
  
  Other than the Marlins, none of them have won it all.
  
  
  My best argument on this subject always goes back to the 97 Marlins, whenever Wayne Huizanga "bought" a World Series title, and then gutted his team. That same franchise that won it all...followed up with a 100 game losing season in 98.
• jordo212000

  

  The NFL, which is applauded for it's "parity" also has 8 different winners since the year 2000. Looks like the NBA is the league with parity issues
• jordo212000

  

  Little Danny wrote: This thread puts in a unique position of actually agreeing with Footwedge and disagreeing with Jordo. Sorry Jordo, but the correct answer as to why no outrage towards the NBA is because a whole heck of a lot more people care about MLB than those who care about the NBA. Baseball was America's Past Time adored by people all over the country, of all ages, races, etc. NBA has a much smaller amount of people (primarily men under the age of 35, and people in large metropolitan areas). If you want to look at the history of the NBA, it has always been dominated by a few select teams who have won virtually all the championships (LA, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Philly, San Antonio, Houston make up for nearly all of the titles since the inception of the NBA).
  
  I realize their have been eight different WS winners this decade, but everyone of the teams except for Florida and AZ would be categorized as large market teams. In addition, if you expand the list of teams to teams who made the playoffs since 2000 you would find it consists almost entirely of large market teams. Finally, even though a Florida can compete on a given year, we all know that they do not have the financial means to sustain that success and end up losing all of those players to the larger market teams eventually.

  Good points for the most part, I guess I just have a problem with the fact that the NBA "has always been dominated by a few teams...but less people care about the NBA, so it is okay."
  
  I use the past 10 years because I was trying to show the progress that MLB has made. Obviously revenue sharing, etc haven't been around forever.
• bucks36

  

  jordo212000 wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: Many sports fans don't follow baseball anymore...simply because they are tired of the unlevel playing field. (How's that for a pun?)

  Link?
  
  Look, the teams do get some money redistributed to them, the exact name of the source is of little concern to me.
  
  I am not going to try and argue that the system is perfect, but if you draft well, develop your talent, and spend money in the right places, you can win in the majors.
  
  Why don't people get into a tizzy about the NBA? MLB has had more parity than the NBA over the past few years

  The difference between the Yankees, Red Sox etc. and small market teams building a winner is that the small market teams have to draft well, develop young talent and make trades for minor leaguers and hope all of that pans out and the players become the players they were hoping they would be. On the other hand, the Yankees are playing fantasy baseball by signing the best free agents available and as many as they want.
  
  So don't say that every team has to draft well and develop talent. The Yankees DO NOT!
• BR1986FB

  Those millions are stashed away in a "calzone fund" for George Steinbrenner.
• jordo212000

  

  bucks36 wrote: So don't say that every team has to draft well and develop talent. The Yankees DO NOT!

  Derek Jeter, Joba Chamberlain, Robinson Cano, Jorge Posada, Phil Hughes, Brett Gardner, Nick Johnson, Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera... should I keep going? Those are the guys currently on the team. I would have to say the Yankees do develop their fair share of players
  
  That's not taking into consideration all of the guys who have been dealt for other talent (Melke Cabrera comes to mind)
• bucks36

  

  jordo212000 wrote:

  bucks36 wrote: So don't say that every team has to draft well and develop talent. The Yankees DO NOT!

  Derek Jeter, Joba Chamberlain, Robinson Cano, Jorge Posada, Phil Hughes, Brett Gardner, Nick Johnson, Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera... should I keep going? Those are the guys currently on the team. I would have to say the Yankees do develop their fair share of players
  
  That's not taking into consideration all of the guys who have been dealt for other talent (Melke Cabrera comes to mind)

  Do you want to compare what the Indians have drafted and developed, to what the Yankees have? It is just that the Yankees can afford to keep them.
• Footwedge

  jordo212000 wrote:

  bucks36 wrote: So don't say that every team has to draft well and develop talent. The Yankees DO NOT!

  Derek Jeter, Joba Chamberlain, Robinson Cano, Jorge Posada, Phil Hughes, Brett Gardner, Nick Johnson, Andy Pettite, Mariano Rivera... should I keep going? Those are the guys currently on the team. I would have to say the Yankees do develop their fair share of players
  
  That's not taking into consideration all of the guys who have been dealt for other talent (Melke Cabrera comes to mind)

  And just imagine, if Cleveland had Steinbrenner's market, and the Indians ownership had the New York market, Cano, Jeter, Petitte and and Mariano would have worn the chief Wahoo emblem for the last 6 years or so.
  
  Jordo...give it up. Everyone knows the playing field in baseball is grossly crooked and fundamentally unfair. It is so unbelievably bad, that the owners are giving serious consideration in breaking up the Bosox/Yankee cartel in the East, and discussing moving one of them to the Central...in order to give a fighting chance to the Tampas, Blue Jays and Oriokes of the baseball world.