The Texas Rangers cultivated financial hardship--Slate, 11/18/03...and Boras on '60 Minutes'

• An 11/18/03 Slate article discusses financial aspects of the Texas Rangers trading Arod. The author, Allen Barra, notes Boras and Arod were interviewed on '60 Minutes' in March 2001, the interviewer focusing on money for awhile.

(Slate, Barra): "And the Texas Rangers don't need the money.

• The myth that they do is one of the most cherished in sports, one carefully cultivated by the Rangers and Major League Baseball and swallowed almost whole by the country's baseball press—

and the rest of the press, too—as exemplified by Lesley Stahl's question to A-Rod's agent, Scott Boras, during the March 25, 2001, edition of 60 Minutes:

"Do you ever feel," Stahl asked Boras, "that you have gone too far [in getting a $250 million, 10 year contract for his client]? Do you ever say, 'Oh, my God! This is—this is gross. This is so out—a quarter of a billion dollars'?"

"So 'out' of what, exactly, Ms. Stahl? If your ratings allowed your agent to get you the same kind of deal, what would you reply to one of your 60 Minutes colleagues who drilled you with 'Do you ever ask yourself if it's gross?' "

"Are you embarrassed?" Stahl asked Boras and Rodriguez.

They shouldn't have been, Lesley, but you should have been for asking the question.

Americans are always embarrassed about the subject of the big money paid to professional athletes because, at heart, we know they're paid that because it reflects how much more we care about them than the things we say are more important. The notion that the Texas Rangers and owner Hicks were bamboozled by Boras in the Rodriguez deal should have been dispelled long ago. First of all, with deferred payments and the interest that began accumulating on the Rangers' money before Rodriguez was even paid his first salary, the sum the Rangers pay A-Rod every season surely comes to considerably less than $25 million.

Second, and more to the point, the Rangers didn't exactly reach into their pockets to pay Rodriguez.

• They had the money for his contract because Fox Sports Net bought the 10-year cable rights to the Rangers and Dallas Stars hockey games for $250 million, and paid another $250 million for both teams' local broadcast rights for 15 years, according to some sources (Forbes reported the latter deal at $300 million). The Rangers, presumably, got the lion's share of that money.

The TV deals boosted the value of the team, as reported in Forbes, by 16 percent, and the addition of A-Rod beefed up their revenues considerably. The Rangers jacked up their ticket prices by an average of 10 percent for Rodriguez's first season, 2001, and finessed several new endorsement deals, including a sponsorship pact with Radio Shack.

• The question that should have been asked three years ago (in 2000) was not "How can the Rangers afford to pay Alex Rodriguez $250 million?" but "Why don't the Rangers use some of the money produced by those deals and the acquisition of Rodriguez to buy some pitching?"

Why then are the Rangers willing to part with the most valuable property in baseball? Possibly because, at this point, there's more money in dealing him.

• The TV contracts are in place for several more years, and the Rangers will continue to receive the money whether they're paying his salary or not.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that any money saved by dumping A-Rod's contract would be pure profit—minus the cost of a new shortstop.

• Maybe the Rangers can get Royce Clayton back. Clayton was the man A-Rod replaced in 2001. In 2000, he hit .242 with 14 home runs to Rodriguez's .316 and 41 home runs. This past season, Clayton hit .228 with 11 home runs and made $1.5 million. You get what you pay for."
• From Slate article by Allen Barra, "Trading Alex Rodriguez," 11/18/03

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Tony Massarotti Schools Jack Curry on "Closers"---Especially Post Season Closers

"At this time of year, after all, closers are not asked merely to close games. They also are asked to pitch in extra-inning affairs and tie games such as Sox-Angels Game 2.

• During the height of the Yankees dynasty, longtime New York pitcher David Cone joined the Red Sox for the 2001 season. At the time, the Yankees had won three straight World Series and 4-of-5, and
• Cone was among many who believed Rivera was the biggest key to the Bombers’ run of championships.

Rivera, Cone argued, was the “X-factor.”

Sox fans, too, witnessed that reality firsthand. In 2003, just before Aaron Boone hit his game-winning home run against Tim Wakefield [stats], Rivera gave the Yankees three scoreless innings of relief.

• The Red Sox simply could not match up."

From Boston Herald column by Tony Massarotti, "Gives Sox Rivera-Like Advantage On Indians--Pap the New X-factor," 10/11/07

• Yet again, Jack Curry (NY Times) minimizes Rivera by referring to him as a "9th inning" pitcher: "Torre did not have the angst other managers had because Rivera, the best postseason closer ever, handled the ninth inning."

"Handled the 9th?" This is a common method used to minimize--if not openly lie--about the work of Mariano Rivera. Even a Boston newspaper columnist knows better than this. David Cone knows better. In addition, referring only to his post season role as "official closer" allows one to erase the work he did in 1996 as late inning reliever with key Wins and Saves throughout the year. He pitched 3 days in a row in the 1996 World Series. Following the ESPN/MLB model, Curry categorizes Rivera's accomplishments separately in the "post season." I wonder whom he has in mind for "regular season?" On the Gravy Train is Jack Curry.

• From NY Times article by Jack Curry, "Rivera Puts Some Spin on Plans for Future," 10/11/07.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Joe Torre should've ignored the Ian O'Connor article

If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it.... Ian O'Connor calls Mike Francesa's show at WFAN to tell Mike he's got a big "get," and it's off to the races. This is what Steinbrenner has always done. So what? Why give the time of day to parasites who want to hang around men's dressing rooms all day and become famous by using your name? P.S. Mo Rivera is now unemployed.

• IAN O'CONNOR INTERNATIONAL CELEBRITY, BON VIVANT, ON TELEVISION AS RESULT OF NEGATIVE ARTICLE RE: YANKEES:

"Yesterday, on SNY's* Daily News live, (Ian) O'Connor said Steinbrenner sounded like The Boss he had interviewed in the past." (SNY is the NY Mets tv station)

• Quote from NY Daily News column by Bob Raissman, "Boss' Bluster Turns Out to be Blunder as Bombers Bumble," 10/9/07

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Dreaming of Yankee bats, 2001 and 2004 cases in point

Waiting for bats to come alive can be a poor use of time: 2001 World Series (7 games)

• Runs scored by Diamondbacks: 37

• Runs scored by Yankees: 14

2004 ALDS (4 games)

• Runs scored by Minnesota: 17

• Runs scored by Yankees: 21

BUT, 2 of the 4 games were 1-run games won in extra innings (12 and 11 innings). Baseball-Reference.

• ***Both extra inning 1 run games featured 2 inning appearances by Mariano Rivera, Game 2, 8th and 9th innings; Game 4, 10th and 11th innings.

***Rivera pitched in all 4 games of the 2004 ALDS, twice for 2 innings, twice for 1 inning.

• He received 1 Win.

• He received no "Saves."***

***So, according to ESPN, Mo would've been bad because it's only "Saves" that count.***

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

"Staggering" negativity in NY from media & fans--exec. to Joel Sherman

9/21/07, NY Post:"As a rival executive (of the Yankees) said recently,

• “...It is staggering the amount of negative noise that comes in New York (from media and fans) when your team spends that much money, has their expectations and has their history. It is bad anywhere, but in New York it is so much louder and so much more relentless. To stay the course, to stay yourself, I really admire that.”"

From Joel Sherman's NY Post column, 9/21/07, "Steadiness and Sturdiness."

• -----------------------------------------------------

The NY Post ran the following grabber in the banner on top of its sports page on 9/23/07:

• "So this what a $200 million tiara looks like sitting on top of a pig's head. While the Yankees' 12-11, 10-inning victory over..."

Anybody can make the human experience worse. This was copy from NY Post beat writer, George King.

• Then this item from Phil Mushnick's NY Post column about how you've been told by our cultural leaders that bad language is fine. But they didn't say you'll still get bashed if you're a Yankee:

"All the Yankees' Shelley Duncan had to do was write "Red Sox Stink!" instead of the word he used, and his autograph, to that 10-year-old Boston fan, would have been cute instead of vulgar. But at 27, it's not Duncan's fault.

• He was raised at a time when multimedia and sports marketing strategists decided that good is bad, bad is good, and worse is even better.
• Reap, sow."

From Phil Mushnick's NY Post column, 9/23/07 "Race Against Time."

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Deep Perspective on Papelbon lands in shallow end of the pool on Yankee radio

The NY Daily News has a showcased appearance on every Yankee radio game. Personnel from the newspaper are generously introduced into the close, friendly environment by John Sterling for the purpose of lending exclusive, inside information for avid Yankee listeners, I think. I'm not sure if the appearance is sponsored (paid for) by the News, as that's not mentioned.

• Today, John asked the NY Daily News reporter what he thought about the Yankee-Red Sox game last night (8-7 Yankee win). First, his answer was the kind I'm accustomed to hearing across ESPN/MLB platforms and internet. A stab at the Yankee listeners as well as the player mentioned. Beyond that, it offered nothing that his privileged insider status supposedly brings with it. Instead of answering with any specifics about Papelbon (which we had earlier received from Suzyn Waldman, thanks Suzyn), he opened his showcased expert interview by putting down Mariano Rivera. Apparently, the Daily News knows neither the Yankees nor Rivera's agent will complain, so not to worry. He's gone this route before.He says:

"You may be seeing with Papelbon what you've seen with Mariano Rivera," that is, "the players are getting used to seeing him," as the "Red Sox have done well against Rivera."

• He's told us nothing about Papelbon, but has put down Rivera (who did very well against the Red Sox Friday night). There's no comparison whatsoever between the 2 situations he cites. Papelbon has scant plate appearances v the Yankees. In addition to regular seasons going back to 1995, Rivera has faced the Red Sox in 2003 and 2004 post seasons. Last night Mariano struck out Jason Varitek. That doesn't mesh with the Daily News reporter's point.

Going into last night's strike-out, Varitek had faced Mariano 37 times, according to Baseball-Reference, regular season and post season (2003 and 2004) .

• Going into last night, Papelbon had faced Jeter 9 times, Abreu 7 times, and Arod 5 times.

This evaluation was not something the reporter "simply saw or heard," as might be claimed. This was taking up very finite moments on Yankee radio. It was not something said on a blog. And it was quite specific. The comparison served no purpose for the program's audience.

• I wrote down another statement the Daily News reporter made. I'm not concerned about the topic of Youkilis in general, and won't waste time on it. But in this very focused--sponsored or not, I don't know--high profile appearance, he said Youkilis was "hit by Proctor and then by Chamberlain." Neither John nor Suzyn corrected him. With all the reports on the Joba-Youkilis incident, I've never read that Chamberlain "hit" Youkilis. He was suspended for throwing dangerously but he did not "hit" him.

This is what was said on my Yankee radio broadcast. It's on tape and a matter of public record. I don't have the time to "rip" people, have posted several articles about the excess of negativity and general rudeness on the internet and don't intend to contribute to it. Nor am I a nit-picker.

• One more thing--I'm pretty sure there's a difference in the value of showcased interviews in a high-profile, highly emotional, world wide organization's broadcast--such as the Yankees--and a person's "blog." One's appearance in this venue naturally confers importance, validity and a sense of history to one's words. Not to mention the graciousness and professionalism provided by John Sterling and Suzyn Waldman.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Tyler Kepner does not take the bait from Charley Steiner today

Charley goes through Yankee happenings, brings up Clemens, his condition, etc. He concludes saying Clemens can be viewed as a 4th or 5th starter. Fine, whatever. Then he gets to his main job, taking a deep breath and with relish,

• "This is where the Yankees are different from EVVVVERYYYBODY else..." referring to the salary being paid to a 4th or 5th starter. Charley assumes Kepner will join in with such a choice morsel tossed his way--ie, Yankee bashing, especially Yankee payroll bashing.

BUT...CURSES! Tyler Kepner doesn't take the bait, saying in part,

• "Well....Chien-Ming Wang is being paid the minimum," Kennedy and Hughes are obviously cheap, etc. This shows character on Kepner's part, ie, not surrendering to herd mentality.

P.S. Joel Sherman was with John Sterling for 9 innings at last night's Toronto game on Yankee radio. Conversation is worked in between pitches and action on the field with the interest of listeners in mind. This happens very well with Sterling and Waldman, and was fine for the 1 game Sherman subbed for Suzyn's night off. Mention was made of key Yankees needing to be re-signed for next year (for example Mariano, Posada, and Arod), and Sherman said, fortunately "the Yankees make a lot of money," and he's correct.

• This is different from the ESPN/MLB platform mantra, which is to bash the Yankee payroll. The spending is what got $100 million extracted from the Yankees and paid into thin air--no one is required to say how it was spent. Sherman's view acknowledges the potential available in the largest market--it's not automatic that a team in New York makes the most, spends the most, or even loses the most money. But the market provides that potential and in the case of the Yankees, they do earn a lot. It's also true they don't put the money in their pocket, but have an owner who's more concerned about winning.

Not that Joel Sherman alone will change existing baseball culture, but he gets credit for being accurate instead of going along with 24/7 Yankee bashing. This shows character rarely found in today's "guardians of the game."

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

NY Daily News comments about Andy Pettitte 8/26/07 don't check out

Extremely powerful columnist Bob Raissman's item is titled, "Doubletalk."

• "What Andy Pettitte said: "I love him (Joe Torre) to death. He is like a dad to me. He is a great manager and great to play for."
• What Andy Pettitte meant to say: "I love him to death. But remember, that didn't stop me from leaving him to go to Houston for more cash.""

First, the Astros' offer was $7.5 million LESS than the Yankee offer, per ESPN.com, 12/12/03

• "Pettitte took $7.5 million less to sign with the Astros -- the Yankees' last offer was for $39 million over three years."

Second, the Boston Red Sox offered Pettitte much more than Houston or the Yankees, $52 million over 4 years, and Pettitte turned it down.

• Widely reported including by Jack Curry, NY Times, 2/25/07, (posted on this blog 2/24/07)***

• ***UPDATE 3/28/08: The reference to Andy Pettitte's offer from the Red Sox has been deleted in the Jack Curry NY Times article of 2/25/07. I noted this on a 3/19/08 update of a 2/19/08 post referencing this erroneous characterization by the NY Daily News. The Red Sox offer to Pettitte is referenced in 3 other sources including here on ESPN.com on 12/12/03.***

Third, it was Torre's superiors in 2003 who called the shots--not Torre.

• The Yankees left Pettitte no choice when they failed to make a simple phone call to the pitcher in the exlusive window allowed them after the 2003 post season. Andy had spent his entire career in the Yankee organization, had pitched very well for them especially in the post season just passed, didn't get in bar fights or pitch drunk. He was rumored to have an elbow problem, but the Yankees could have addressed the issue in a phone call if that had been their concern. Their were open rumors that Steinbrenner wasn't big on Andy and had tried to trade him over a long period of time, at one point to the Phillies. Andy had no reason to think the Yankees wanted him so of course looked at an offer from his home town.

Perhaps the Yankees need to do more in terms of media relations, so misunderstandings like this don't occur in the future. Bob Raissman is an extremely powerful sports media columnist and his words about Andy Pettitte have now gone all around the world.

• Item from NY Daily News by Bob Raissman, end of column, 8/26/07, "Tiki's Rip of Eli Creates Rush of Coverage"

P.S. According to the website, RegrettheError.com, the New York Daily News does not have an online 'Corrections' page (nor an ombudsman of any kind). Therefore, if at any time it's concluded an error has occurred, it may be noted in the paper version but not the online version. So far, there's at least a difference in facts reported among media.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

This may explain MLB/ESPN's revving up Yankee-bashing

On Mr. Steinbrenner retreating and YES Network shares being shopped:

• "The fate of the Yankees is no provincial concern. For Major League Baseball, the Yankees are a moneymaking machine. Not only do they pay more than $100 million a year in revenue sharing and MLB payroll taxes to baseball's 29 other teams, they also rain cash on any rival they visit.

"The Yankees drew an average of 38,000 fans to their away games last year, the most of any team and 10,000 more than the MLB average. Yankee star power also helps MLB negotiate rich TV deals, and it's no coincidence that ...

• baseball's resurgence coincided with the most recent Yankee glory era, which started in 1996.
• Says one National League team president: "The Yankees' competitiveness is important to everyone."
• No one has been more crucial to that competitiveness than George Michael Steinbrenner III."

From Fortune Magazine article, money.cnn.com, 8/3/07 by Jon Birger and Tim Arango.

• (This is the first time I've ever seen this team, rather than the homerun contest, given credit for the renaissance of baseball. It's not something I'd wondered about, actually, but is interesting). sm

I've noticed a more emphatic, emotional, and scripted delivery in recent months on Yankee/money bashing across MLB/ESPN platforms:

• Tim Jurkjian recently,"TheYankees.....can.....spend.....more.....than.....anyyyyyyyyy...
• .other......team......."

Yet, from the Fortune article, "Right now the Yankees hardly make money because their payroll is so excessive." Two Yankees sources tell Fortune the team hasn't paid out profits to limited partners in nearly ten years." (from the article, "The Yankees Face Life After George").

• Even Charley Steiner on XM has amped up his Yankee/money bashing, doing it twice in one show the other day, the 2nd time giving it the slow, deliberate, dripped with scorn delivery ESPN/MLB seems to require now of its employees who like their jobs...

"...NO...other.....team.....can do......what the Yankees.......(sigh)......can do......"

• MLB veteran Mark Feinsand was a guest on Steiner's show the other day. He offered what he said was a different slant, approximating the following:

"I would have to disagree with you on that, Charley, in one way. The more important advantage the Yankees have had is the ability to sign the young players like Jeter, Rivera, and Pettitte, when no other team in baseball could have. No other team.....could've afforded.... to keep their good young players, they would've had to...... let all of them..... go. So that's what I'd say is an even bigger advantage, Charley."

• I've thought about Feinsand's statement a lot, saying he was offering a differing reason for Yankee luck/advantage than "having more money," but it seems he's saying the same as the rest--just making it sound even crueler and more "unfair." (Not an insight he gleaned from his advantage as a privileged clubhouse insider). Feinsand's career and influence will continue to skyrocket with this exclusive inside information to the masses. I guess he doesn't know the signing and re-signing details of the 3 players he named explained in Joel Sherman's well documented book, "Birth of a Dynasty." Feinsand lends his deep MLB background as a showcased regular guest on Yankee radio broadcasts graciously hosted by John Sterling & Suzyn Waldman.

Perhaps the MLB guys view, as the article suggests, Mr. Steinbrenner himself as the dollar-draw and these as the waning days of that experience. (sm)

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon