Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

A-Rod Link Perk

16 Feb 2004 by Matthew Linderman

Buck up Red Sox fans, at least you’ve got the Patriots. The Yankees get A-Rod and the rich get richer. My friend Tim suggests, “Teams like Detroit and Minnesota should be able to play against the Yankees with ten guys on the field. Maybe a ‘roamer.’”

Part of the deal is interesting though…

In exchange for the alterations, which devalue the present-day value of the contract by $5 million, Rodriguez will receive a hotel suite on road trips, have the right to link his website to the Yankees’ site and get a guarantee that the deferred money won’t be wiped out by a work stoppage.

When did linking your site to the team’s site become a perk worthy of millions?

17 comments so far (Post a Comment)

16 Feb 2004 | Paul said...

Since now. 37signals now owes me $1.47, or the market value of a link to my website.

16 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

Since when did playing a sport become a perk worthy of millions?

16 Feb 2004 | Jon Gales said...

I think "link" in this sense is not a hyperlink (I can link to the Yankees site and they haven't signed me yet). I think it's more like content sharing or technology sharing. He can piggyback on their work.

16 Feb 2004 | Benjy said...

The problem with your friend Tim's suggestion is that teams like Detroit and Minnesota haver enough trouble paying enough players to fill the 9 spots on the field. Adding more players to the field only increases their need to spend money they don't have.

The disparity between the haves and have-nots in baseball is getting ridiculous. When the Brewers are spending $30 million and the Yankees are spending $270 million ($200mm payroll + $70mm in luxury tax), they are no longer playing the same game.

What Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Oakland, etc. need to do is simply refuse to play for a season. Announce they are forfeiting every one of their 162 games. Until drastic steps are taken, the Yankees and Red Sox are going to be able to buy their way into the playoffs every year and other teams will never get a chance to compete.

Other sports have demonstrated how salary caps and better revenue sharing let all markets field competative teams. The Green Bay Packers hold their own against the NY Giants and Chicago Bears annually. The Sacramento Kings and Minnesota Timberwoves are among the best teams in the NBA. And fan bases for sports only grown when everybody truely believe that their team can win it all, if not this year then maybe next. But when they see it'll never happen then they lose interest in the sports and all teams will suffer in the end.

16 Feb 2004 | lisa said...

i think baseball should have gone out with the rest of the 20th century.

16 Feb 2004 | Tim said...

Anyone know what Alex Rodriguez' site's URL is? Google just turns up stat pages...arod.com and alexrodriguez.com time out...and I have a sinking feeling this isn't his site.

A friend and I were discussing this trade, and how Theo Epstein will have to "up the ante" now. And we were left wondering how the ante could be upped any more? Robots? Cyborgs? An army of robotic-zombie Ty Cobbs?

I wonder if George Steinbrenner uses Basecamp. I wonder what his milestones look like...

16 Feb 2004 | pb said...

Since people began being willing to pay for it. Get over it, Darryl. It's called free markets.

16 Feb 2004 | ~bc said...

Let's not forget, one thing that keeps the Yankees on top is that they constantly invest in players... winning players. Other team's ownership look at the team as an investment for their wallet. But baseball doesn't work that way. You have to spend to win.

PS- About Oakland (mentioned above), they proved you can win by investing wisely in players who don't break your budget. If you measure $ spent vs. final rankings in the last ten years, Oakland would be way ahead of the pack. You just need owners who are actually interested in baseball... and winning.

17 Feb 2004 | kageki said...

The big-market vs. small-market argument falls apart when you consider teams over the last 3 years like the Marlins, Angels and A's and from the other side of the equation, the Mets and Dodgers. On one hand you have teams wininng the world series (or pennant) with salaries 1/3 of the Yankees, and on the other hand teams with outrageous salaries failing miserably.

So why do the Yankees make the best deals while other front offices get hosed by rapacious agents?

17 Feb 2004 | land of the free said...

just stop buying tickets and watching the crap on tv if you don't like it. only problem is the rest of the usa is a bunch of walmart shoppin, boob tube watchin, hot pocket munchin lemmings. paris anyone?

17 Feb 2004 | gofuckyourselfahole said...

Yeah and you are really different from the rest of us, right Land of the Free? Riiiiight.

17 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

"Since people began being willing to pay for it. Get over it, Darryl. It's called free markets."

A highly subsidized free market.

As opposed to teams like the Brewers sitting out a season, I say they cap their own salaries at 60k a year. Whoever wants to play at 60k a year, can (there are a lot of minor league guys who'd love to play for that salary). Drop admission to $5, and still make a profit. At those prices, fans go just to enjoy baseball...not any particular team or player.

17 Feb 2004 | Benjy said...

I say they cap their own salaries at 60k a year.

The collective bargaining agreement with baseball's union would prevent this. I believe major league minimum salary these days is $300,000.

The issue with the economics of sports is that because of anti-trust exemptions, strong unions, etc. the economics seem to only go in one direction. The traditional options available to struggling businesses are not available to baseball franchises. They have to carry a certain number of players on their roster. There are minimum salaries (well above minimum wage). They cannot choose to shut down operations without league approval. They cannot choose to relocate without league approval.

17 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

As Tony Cornheiser pointed out just this morning, "small market team" is just a phrase invented by losers.

The Orioles sell out every game in a small market and have spent a lot. But not spent it wisely.

Angels? Won the Series on a not-too-huge budget.

It wasn't the money the made the Yankees win the Series last October.

(now THINK about that last sentence)

17 Feb 2004 | Benjy said...

While money doesn't have a 100% correlation to winning, there is a very strong one. There are always going to be excellently run franchises (Oakland) and poorly run ones (NY Mets) whose performance doesn't correspond to their payroll. But being able to buy any player you want sure increases the likelihood of winning compared to having to pour over thousands of of bits of data to find that one undervalued free agent. Other sports have done a much better job of leveling the playing field, keeping the fan base strong in all league cities.

BTW, calling Baltimore a small market team is kind of a misnomer seeing as DC is part of their market.

18 Feb 2004 | Brian said...

Baltimore hasn't been selling out too many games lately. They finally had to suck it up and go get some players this year... Tejada. A look at the A.L. East shows there is a major problem with baseball. 3 of the 5 teams have low attendance records. Watch a Toronto and Tampa Bay game and the place is empty. Aside from the major sports markets nobody wants to watch a loser. If these teams can't put a competitive team on the field and have the slightest chance of winning no one will show up.

The past three years teams with smaller payrolls have won. Attendance for those teams didn't go up until people jumped on the band wagon.

On the other end Atlanta has had a winning team for over 10 years and you can walk up and get a seat almost any day for any game.

A cap is needed. As each year passes the separation from top teams and bottom teams widens. How fun is it for fans to go into a season seeing teams like the Yankees, Braves and Red Sox loaded with talent.

"So why do the Yankees make the best deals while other front offices get hosed by rapacious agents?"

Yankees make the best deals? If you have a chest full of money it doesn't take much to get the best players. It is like saying Phil Jackson is the greatest coach. Must be tough coaching Jordan and Pippen and now Shaw and Kobe. Go coach the Magic and letís see your Zen magic. While we are at it send Brian Cashman to the Brewers as GM and lets see how he does.


30 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^