Tim McG

True dat. But I'm willing to bet the ranch this is all just fo' sho'. The Steinbrenners will, as per usual, dump a shitload of money on him. Jeter stays.

"And don't call me Shirley." One of the all-time best at his craft. I, for one, will miss him very much. Rest in Peace, Mr. Nielsen.

Your 2nd linked article begins " Baseball fans love to blame players' multi-million dollar salaries for rising ticket prices. They're wrong." And it ends with: "When you have more sellouts, there's a perception of scarcity, people are more likely to buy early, such as season ticket plans or advance ticket sales," he said. "That's the heart of psychology of ticket buying. If they feel they can always walk up and buy tickets, that's a bad thing for the team." It is why I posted the link, Quincy. So you could get a better understanding of the cause. There is no doubting salary drives up the cost to see a game. You said it has nothing to do with it. This article only shows what the owners are doing to keep up with those costs and turn a profit and satisfy their investors. In short, this is the application, not theory. If, one might posit, player salary has nothing to do with higher ticket prices then why would there be this need to drive up revenue through a manipulation of the market? Why, then, did salary drive up ticket costs for the many decades before this new wrinkle? Besides, it is an opinion piece, not a factual reporting. Which brings me back to my original point. Maybe you should read the entire article, eh? Like I said, the "expert" is manipulating the market, but does not allow for the obvious cause: Player salary. Further, this is an article from four years ago. Player salaries have bumped up the cost of ticket prices since the 70s. This idea of shrinking the stadiums in order to manipulate higher ticket prices is a relatively new one and, as I have stated numerous times, is not the sole cause of higer ticket prices, concessions, sports items, etc, ad nauseum. Instead trying to find fault, I recommend trying to find the reasons.

You're right, it has nothing to do with a more AT&T being a modern ballpark on pricier real estate and certainly not a cotton-picking thing to do with there being a higher demand for Giant games over A's. (I've been to the Oakland Coliseum btw, but not AT&T). The A's have long had attendance problems even during the days of the Mustache Gang, hence one reason for there being lower prices. But I'm not continuing on with discussing economics as the disastrous steroid thread amply illustrated your difficulty with math & logic, and I have no desire for turning this thread into that. IT'S ALL BARRY ZITO'S FAULT! Then why bring it up, Quincy? I have never said ticket prices were the only things affected by player salaries. You did. And now you bail with an oh-so-typical insult because I have debunked your "evidence." Statistics/numbers crunching will only tell you what you want to discover. All Zito's fault...really? Whatever, Quincy. Like the owners don't pass on to the fans every single capital investment relative to payroll? Seriously, I see it is impossible to reason with you. To anybody else: The only articles I have found regarding ticket sales not affected by salary hikes date back a mere four years and always are a blog or OpEd piece. None of which discount the fact player salaries in fact have raised the price of tickets. Instead they state staduims are shrinking in size to manipulate the market into paying higher prices. Not at all the same issue and completely incongruent with past practices. An opinion is not factual evidence. I'm sorry. It just isn't. And as in a CNN/Money source the author quoted a stadium consultant whose sole purpose is to make money for the ownwers. What else is he going to say except agree with the presumption that smaller stadiums create a false impression of supply and demand in the pre-sales fan ticket buyer? He's on the owner's payroll, fer crissakes. And if the new stadium theory is the sword Quincy wants to fall on, then explain to me the reason why the LA Dodgers have set record attendance levels year after year? That stadium was built way back in the 60s. Quincy's "evidence" still does not eliminate the real cause of higher ticket prices: Player salary. Sources:Increased ticket prices Stadium size vs increases

As it involves sports and thus is more likely to keep the attention of young minds compared to other examples sports salaries & ticket prices are included in entry level economics since it touches upon so many fundamental concepts. In fact you could probably walk down the hall and visit your own school's class and catch it being covered on the right day. A basic university lesson plan. Hypothetical nonsense, Quincy. The "study" is attempting to disprove a negative through the use of theory and numbers crunching. I mean, the Brewers...really.? At one point it completely dismisses the cost of this new talent which brings in the fans relative to the increase of ticket prices. Instead relying on a theoretical examination of the issue without considering the fact prices go up when the talent is purchased. Additionally, this professor's "study" avoids the other revenue brought in through concessions sales, parking, memorabilia and sports apparel sales and the price increases there. Go to an Oakland A's game, Quincy. You'll get in the gate for a reasonably low price [using this professor's "study"] but lunch will cost you an arm and a leg. BTW...I recommend taking the BART. The parking fee will drain your wallet. Now then, BART it across the Bay to a winning franchise in the San Francisco Giants and you'll pay twice as much. Now why is that, Quincy...demand and supply? Please. We're paying for Barry Zito. Same thing happened when Barry Bonds joined the team. With all due respect, you're talking theory. I'm talking application.

30s-40s and overcast.

A-Rod's contract is a de-escalator--by the time he turns 39 in 2014, he'll be earning $21 million a year. Nobody will argue the point that his contract was ludicrously excessive, but it does tail off as time goes on. Goodspeak, I think Hal Steinbrenner is a more hardnosed businessman than Hank, who "negotiated" the A-Rod contract; hence the hard line last year with Damon and the unwillingness to give DJ an A-Rod-like contract in 2010/11. And nobody should be terribly surprised that somebody at Derek Jeter's level has the kind of pride, ego, and competitive drive that he has, even to the point where he may allow it to supersede team goals in terms of continuing to play shortstop or asking for more money than he's objectively worth... Cal Ripken, anyone? The biggest mistake anybody's made here so far (putting aside the novel circumstances of negotiating a contract in the age of Twitter) is Close taking the battle public with his "baffling" remark (and presumably DJ can be blamed for that as well, since I doubt Close would say anything without Jeter signing off on it to some extent). Cashman's response may have been too stinging, but Close should have realized that as much as Yankee (and some other baseball) fans love Jeter, they are not going to be too sympathetic to an aging player coming off the kind of season that DJ had using such a high starting point as a contract demand. Good point. Let's just say that the Steinbrenner Family's past practices do not inspire confidence in Hal's remark. Personally, I think he's just rattling the sabres in an effort to price down Jeter's demands. He'll fork out the money just like the Steinbrenners always have. I understand the Giants are working hard to keep Juan Uribe. ********************************************************** I have mixed feelings about that since his feilding is great but at the plate he hits into a lot of rally-killing DPs. He's basically a mistake ball hitter. Go wide and/or in the dirt and he'll keep swinging at the ball until the catcher throws it back. Hang one, and he'll go yard. ********************************************************** Dan, In reference to the post you deleted: "City Journal offers a stimulating mix of hard-headed practicality and cutting-edge theory..." AKA, ironnclad inuendo. Pssh. Figures.

Wow. This from the man whose state government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the teacher and other public employee unions, who have driven CA into a perpetual state of bankruptcy. Any worries about those working stiffs who are on the hook for your salary and pension? Not surprisingly, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Dan. The borrow-and-spend republicans and anti-tax bigots have run this state into a ditch. Teacher unions...? Public employee unions...? What a Tea Party fueled crock of shit. And how you make the connection to player salaries is astoundingly ridiculous and completely off point. Please don't bother to respond. I haven't the time for such nonsense.

You're blaming the players for the high price of parking? Although they're well compensated I wasn't aware they were in charge of that. The salaries the players are paid does not cause high prices. It's the ticket prices that lead to higher salaries. Google around, there are loads of economic studies about this. C'mon, Quincy. Players aren't involved...? You mean to tell me that their hold-outs, demands to be traded if they don't get that huge bump in salary and salary arbitration are all promoted by the owners? And ticket prices, concessions and parking fees don't go up when the salaries do? Really? No offense, but have you purchased tickets within the last few years with any regularity? I'd sure like to know the sources of these studies.

Happy Birthday, Brooks! Nice early B-Day gift this year, huh Hope it's a fun day!

Don't know what it's like out there, but here, the NBA & NFL are already there, based on ticket price/per game. Granted, fewer games per season, but still... Good point. The nosebleeds at Candlestick Park for 49ers games will run you $65 bucks a piece. Parking is $50 bucks. Amazing. I mean, when SRO tickets for the World Series start at $500 dollars each, there is something very wrong here.

Two concerns that have baffled me for decades: #1 Just how much money does a player have to make to play a kid's game any way? I mean, when Huff inked a $22 million dollar deal with the Giants, the press used words like "only" and treated the dollar amount as if it were no big amount of money. #2 Since when do the Steinbrenners give a rat's ass about how much they pay their players? Suddenly, they have grown a conscience? Please. This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about? What are we thinking about, to concern ourselves with any of this? Well, for starters, the average fan is being priced out of the ballpark. The nosebleeds in ATT Park are $30 bucks a toss. A beer and a hot dog will run you close to $20 bucks. And parking? An unbelievable $35. In addition, if the players continue to demand crazy money it serves not only as an insult to those of us who make barely a fraction of their salary, it sends a clear message to us fans that we don't matter...unless we have the money to pay for a ticket. The sport has become elitist and out of touch with their [unemployed] fans. The NBA and NFL aren't far behind.

Two concerns that have baffled me for decades: #1 Just how much money does a player have to make to play a kid's game anyway? I mean, when Huff inked a $22 million dollar deal with the Giants, the press used words like "only" and treated the dollar amount as if it were no big amount of money. Um...huh? #2 Since when do the Steinbrenners give a rat's ass about how much they pay their players? Suddenly, they have grown a conscience? Please. This whole "due compensation" bullshit [pressumably because of a limited window of opportunity for players to be physically capabale to play] has ruined the game and is bad for our country. The player's priorities are crazy nuts and especially in this current economy where vast numbers of working stiffs are either unemployed or under employed. What are they thinking about?

Atta kid, Erik! Here's to a long and happy life together....congratulations!

Hey! Looks like Aubrey Huff will be back with the Giants for at least two more years!

Add my name to the very long list of well wishers, Rolf. We have sparred, you and I, on the various Jazz BBS's over the years. But I have come to know you as a good hearted man and now, one who loved his wife very much. I am so very sorry for your loss, Rolf. And I pray for you and your family to find peace in this difficult time. A toast to you and your wife, my friend. Tim

Nathan Bedford Forrest Forrest Tucker Forest Whitaker

Clifford Brown Lee Morgan Blue Mitchell

Good point. Where we live now triple digit heat is the norm for us, too. Though the humidity rarely gets above 40%. However, my wife's family hails from the New England area. Those 90/60 days when we have visited weren't terribly pleasant either. I remember golfing in Reading, PA and being dripping wet before I teed off on the first hole...I was squishing in my shoes by the end of the first nine! Too much for this California boy. I think cooler heads [if you'll pardon the pun] will prevail. Texas would be nuts to let Lee go, IMHO.

Rain....and plenty of it! Highs in the low 50s today.

Like the Philly heat is better? I love Nolan Ryan, but I think he may have his signals crossed here. If Cliff Lee goes away, the Rangers will become just another also-ran in the AL West. He stays.

Considering that Koufax & Gibson faced Aaron and Mays I don't see why you're making a such a big deal about Jackson. I loved watching Reggie, but as the all-time strikeout leader it's not like he was in the class of Aaron or Mays. Um. I'm not the one making a "big deal" about Reggie Jackson. I might suggest going back and reading the previous exchange. But that's just me.

I agree. The Jackson years were different from today's games, too.

Cliff Lee stays in Texas. You saw it here first.

Not suprising....he had an absolute stellar year on the mound. He deserves it. He had a GOOD year, but still nowhere near the 1.53 ERA Doc posted in 1985. Now, that was some serious quality pitching! And he was only 21. All this talk about Halladay, Lincecum, CC, Santana makes me laugh. None of them even compares to Seaver, Gibson, Carlton, et. al. Good point. However, I would argue the batters are that much better than they were back in the day. A pitcher has to be much more of a craftsman with his pitches these days. The days of just having one or two pitches [fastball/curve] have been replaced by pitches [sinkers, sliders, spilters, slurves, off speed stuff, etc] that rely on much more movement and placement. No doubt guys like Seaver, Gibson, Carlton, Drysdale, Koufax, Juan Marichal, etc would have been an anchor for any of today's pitching staffs, but they would have a hard time with guys who are a tough out. A straight-up hard thrower gets lit up a lot more often now. Just my two cents... Oh, really? Really. I know I will regret this...anywho....Gibson had a great slider, probably wouldn't have thrown Reggie any fastballs unless it was up in the zone, with 2 strikes. In 1968 he threw 304 innings, and completed 28 games. If he was playing today, he'd have a 20 Mil a year contract, and teams wouldn't risk him blowing out his arm, and there would be 4 other starters in the rotation. So, he wouldn't have to pace himself quite the same way. And he'd be in better shape in this era, as would be Koufax, etc, etc, etc.... Sandy would throw Reggie 3 curveballs better than he ever saw in his life, wouldn't take the bat off his shoulder, and would walk back to the dugout shaking his head. Another of lifes mysteries solved by me! Nah. Koufax would beat Jackson that way once. The next time he'd rip it into the bleachers. Gibson would feed Jackson nothing but hard stuff on the outside trying to get him to chase one. Maybe even a little "chin music" to get him off the plate. If he goes inside or hangs one on him, Jackson would knock the ball clear into the next week. Then the next AB, Gibson would plunk him. That is the true Gibson.