Hank Stienbrenner is a complete FOOL.

He's not a buffoon, someone who spells the word BAFFOON is a BUFFOON. And gimme a break on the bandwagon shit. What were the Sox drawing in the 90's? Team gets good, sells out every game. The Red Sox are the difintion of and textbook example of a Bandwagon Team

How many show up in the 3rd inning and split after 7? Word around the league is that the Dodgers actually have the worst fans in baseball

pjl44 wrote:

2007 Red Sox: $143 million
2004 Red Sox: $127 million
2000 Yankees: $92 million
1999 Yankees: $88 million
1998 Yankees: $63 million
1996 Yankees: $52 million

Source: http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx

I have many points about what has been brought up...

1. While I don't really care about either side of the argument about whether either team bought their championships. this chart is SO misleading. In 1996, a $52 million dollar payroll was ridiculous, much like a $143 million payroll last year. This chart reminds me of the old folks who say how much cheaper everything was when they were younger.

2, I think the young Steinbrenners are asses. They have all the attitude of their dad, with none of the personality. And he is way off base with his comments. The Red Sox are WAY more popular. They draw well on the road because their fans travel with them, kind of similar to the way you see Terrible Towels wherever the Steelers play. When I went to the Orioles-Red Sox game in Baltimore last year, the Inner Harbor was packed with New Englanders in Dice K and Big Papi jerseys.

3. As far as a salary cap, yeah it would be nice. But baseball certainly doesn't need one. There has been an incredible amount of competitive balance over the last 10 years, which proves a salary cap isn't really necessary. Sure, if I had a vote, I'd probably vote for one, but among all his bumbling in the commissioner's office, Bud Selig has managed to help the game become more level.

4. All that being said, I love hearing Red Sox fans (and staff) call the Yankees the "Evil Empire." Even though the playing field is (fairly) level, both teams have it better than the rest of the league. I hate hearing The Red Sox turncoat @$$ of an owner John Henry complain about the Yankees.

Ledbetterus wrote:

I would like to see official statistics on the Red Sux leading road attendance. Because I highly doubt it.

g under p wrote:

You want official, there's your fricking official statistics at MLB....Attendence Report For 2007 and I hope you can handle the truth!

this is 100% true, and can be entirely accounted for by the difference in seating capacity between yankee stadium and fenway park (the former having about 20,000 more seats than the latter).

if the yankees and red sox play nine games each at the other team's stadium over the course of a year, it adds up to 180,000 more road "fans" that the red sox draw than the yankees. that's 2,222 fans per game over an 81-game road schedule, which exceeds the reported difference of 1,414 in favor of the red sox. this is further illustrated by the fact that yankees road games in 2007 were filled to 83.4% capacity as opposed to 81.5% for the red sox.

if both stadiums were of equal size, the yankees would lead the league in road attendance.

it's one of those examples that demonstrates how you can use statistics to prove anything.

see, kids... your third grade teacher was right. math really is fun! well... maybe not. but it can be useful for pointing things out that the media refuses to acknowledge.

BetterManningNYG wrote:

this is 100% true, and can be entirely accounted for by the difference in seating capacity between yankee stadium and fenway park (the former having about 20,000 more seats than the latter).

if the yankees and red sox play nine games each at the other team's stadium over the course of a year, it adds up to 180,000 more road "fans" that the red sox draw than the yankees. that's 2,222 fans per game over an 81-game road schedule, which exceeds the reported difference of 1,414 in favor of the red sox. this is further illustrated by the fact that yankees road games in 2007 were filled to 83.4% capacity as opposed to 81.5% for the red sox.

if both stadiums were of equal size, the yankees would lead the league in road attendance.

it's one of those examples that demonstrates how you can use statistics to prove anything.

see, kids... your third grade teacher was right. math really is fun! well... maybe not. but it can be useful for pointing things out that the media refuses to acknowledge.

I'm going to argue this point. Your argument doesn't prove the Red Sox have an advantage by playing more road games in the Bronx. Those seats at Yankee Stadium would have been full anyway.

BetterManningNYG wrote:

this is 100% true, and can be entirely accounted for by the difference in seating capacity between yankee stadium and fenway park (the former having about 20,000 more seats than the latter).

if the yankees and red sox play nine games each at the other team's stadium over the course of a year, it adds up to 180,000 more road "fans" that the red sox draw than the yankees. that's 2,222 fans per game over an 81-game road schedule, which exceeds the reported difference of 1,414 in favor of the red sox. this is further illustrated by the fact that yankees road games in 2007 were filled to 83.4% capacity as opposed to 81.5% for the red sox.

if both stadiums were of equal size, the yankees would lead the league in road attendance.

it's one of those examples that demonstrates how you can use statistics to prove anything.

see, kids... your third grade teacher was right. math really is fun! well... maybe not. but it can be useful for pointing things out that the media refuses to acknowledge.

That's the point I was about to make

Fighting Hellfish wrote:

1. I think the biggest point to be made about those years is that the Yankees payroll wasnt the highest in the league for much of that time. That team was mostly homegrown, with a few free agents sprinkled in , along with a couple brilliant trades (O'Neill for Roberto kelly or Tino & Jeff Nelson for Mike Blowers and Sterling Hitchcock)

2. I agree with you about Hank. george had the right to be somewhat obnoxious, as he bought the team for $12 millon, and turned it into a billion $ industry. Hank is just a member of the lucky sperm club. he should take a lesson from hal, and stay in the background. But I disagree about the Sox being more popular around the country. Everywher eyou look, some actor, rapper, basketball player, whatever is sporting a Yankee hat. Lebron james plays for Cleveland, grew up in the area, an dhe was rooting for NY

3. A salary cap may help the sport a little, but I think a salary floor is needed more. How many teams have $12-$30 million payrolls, and collect $70 million in bvaseball welfare? They're knocked out of contention on Opening Day, but the owners don't care. They made a $50 mil profit without selling 1 ticket.

4. John Henry is prrof that it pays to be friends with the corrupt interim commissioner for life, Bud Selig. 3 groups put in bids for the Sox, and Bud saw to it that his pal, who put in the lowest bid of all, got the team. While he still owned another team, and had a 1& interest on a 3rd team (The Yankees as you alluded to)

My real problem with John Henry is that he's a turncoat. When he was in Florida, he complained that more revenue sharing was needed. Now in Boston, he bitches because he has to share his massive revenue, while still complaining that the Yankees have an unfair advantage. I hate turncoats more than anything. Him and Urban Meyer.

As for revenue sharing, I think the amount should be the same, but it shouldn't go directly to the teams. Each receiving team should have a bank account where the money is directly transferred. Any withdrawals should have to be signed off by one rep from the team and one rep from baseball, and that money goes directly to baseball resources. That way owners like Bob Nutting can't pocket the money

Pearls&Stones wrote:

1. While I don't really care about either side of the argument about whether either team bought their championships. this chart is SO misleading. In 1996, a $52 million dollar payroll was ridiculous, much like a $143 million payroll last year. This chart reminds me of the old folks who say how much cheaper everything was when they were younger.

I only posted those numbers to address the point that "it isn't even half of what the Yankees spent on talent." It's hilarious that there's still a bunch of Red Sox fans who think of their team as a bunch of scrappy underdogs.

Pearls&Stones wrote:

I'm going to argue this point. Your argument doesn't prove the Red Sox have an advantage by playing more road games in the Bronx. Those seats at Yankee Stadium would have been full anyway.

i'm not quite sure i follow...

last year, the yankees and red sox met 18 times. nine games were at yankee stadium and nine games were at fenway park. so that part is completely equal.

now, it's an absolute given that all yanks/sox games are going to sell out regardless of where they're played. so based on seating capacity, that's 37,000 fans per game at fenway park and 57,000 at yankee stadium (those aren't exact numbers, but i'm pretty sure they're close enough).

the 37,000 people at fenway park are considered to be yankees road fans. the 57,000 people at yankee stadium are cosidered to be red sox road fans.

so after 18 games between the two teams, the red sox have somewhere around 180,000 more road fans than the yankees (the actual number may be slightly less than this, but not by enough to disprove my argument).

Who gives a shit who drew more one the road? The whole point of the matter is over the last four years the Red Sox have been a better team than the Yankees.

As far as complaint on the payroll, that is what good business owners do. They sink the revenue that they earn back into their business. They will always explore more options to gain more revenue to pour back into the team. People shouldn't be mad because they take advantage of the fan base.

Take a look at the douche in Minnesota. He used Santana to land him a new ballpark and then had him traded. That guy has more money then John Henry and Hanky boy and he doesn't sink his money into the product. If I was a Twins fan I would be pissed. That guy could easily pour some of his own money to make that team a winner but he chooses not to. Once you start winning on a yearly basis you will bring in more fans.

I can't really remember an empty stadium that a winning team played in........well except for Atlanta.