links for 2008-12-31
-
I love Consumers Union (and Consumer Reports) and I appreciate Consumerist, but I have a hard time reconciling these two under the same umbrella
« November 2008 | Main | January 2009 »
I was never much of a physical force growing up. Slowest in the 440 at school, always a few pounds overweight, I was more of a thinker, and made my way by being clever and omniscient, not all-powerful.
Which is why sometimes it's hard for me to root for the New York Yankees. I get tired of seeing them outspend the league, overspend on players, and basically pummel the free agent market into submission every winter. Defending my team's actions is tiresome, particularly since I don't always agree with the maneuvers, despite being a loyal fan for 30 years.
More importantly, where has it gotten them? The most-expensive-ever Yankees of this season are the first in 13 years to miss the playoffs. The Yanks of the late 1990s achieved four World Series championships in five years with a foundation of homegrown talent. Since then the Yankees have proved (like the Orioles did a decade earlier) that a team can't simply buy a championship.
The Yanks are determined to try, which is fine. But what particularly galls me is the level of disparity. Their 2008 payroll was 51% higher than the second-highest team and 140% more than the league average. I don't exactly dislike the Yanees' ability to spend, but come on. The system is surely broken that their budget can be $209 million when the average team is spending $90 million.
Major League Baseball needs to reconcile the Yankees' payroll in a way that simultaneously appeases the players' association and other owners. So the Yanks paid $26 million in revenue-sharing: that's barely 12% of payroll, and didn't slow them at all. At the same time, MLB must also continue to address parity; the Florida Marlins' $22 million payroll, at 10% of the Yankees', is equally embarrassing.
In lieu of a hard salary cap, which will be too hard to fit into baseball's current economic model, perhaps a tether is in order. What if the maximum spend were set at, say, 200% of the previous year's median? That would give wealthier teams room to pay, while preserving a realistic upper limit. It would allow the less wealthy teams to spend less, as is their wont. It might also realign teams' responsibilities--the Yankees would suddenly have tens of millions of dollars of their own money freed up for other things. Like paying for their new stadium without begging for more public funds.
Last year's median spend was approximately $80 million (between the Brewers' $81 million and the Indians' $79 million). If the tether were in place, the cap for the 2009 season would be $160 million. That's more than $21 million higher than the payroll of every other team in baseball, but a good $40 million below the Yankees' expectations. It would have allowed them to sign CC Sabathia or Mark Teixeira or A.J. Burnett but probably not all three. Which in turn would put, say, Teixeira in Washington, boosting the Nationals' payroll by $20 million, which raises the median price, bumping the 2010 tether, and so on.
This is just one of many ideas, and it may not get noticed beyond this blog. But it would sure be nice to do something about this imbalance. Because like the bully in many a Hollywood tale, the Yankees keep proving that might does not make right. A little fiscal restraint might do them, and the rest of baseball, some good.
(A bit delayed; December will post promptly after New Year's.)
Grewsome
Trisemic
Scoriate
Learier
Finfishes
Parerga
Roupily
Vinifera
Althorns
Eyedness
Gleeked
Emeroids
Finings
Thelitis
Stanged
Agravic
Worrited
Frank Bruni writes today how restaurants have shifted from blase to dismayed at his canceled reservations.
I've been warily surveying my own neighborhood, and my actions, too. Our neighborhood Italian joint of choice is still jam-packed, even at 5:30 in the evening. But this is a restaurant that can serve two people a three-course meal with a glass of wine for $70. One might expect it to thrive, which so far, it is.
I've had a couple of fancy dinners the past few weeks where there's been no second seating--by 9 p.m. the restaurant has scattered empty tables. Ruby Foo's in Times Square defied this trend, but countless other restaurants are starting to feel the strain.
At home, I'm ordering in less frequently; the urge to save money is trumping the 20-minute neighborhood quickie once or twice a week more than it used to. (Also, there's no good Chinese food near me. An open letter to the restaurant owners of New York City: please open a decent Chinese place on the Upper West Side! Everything uptown is mediocre at best, and heaven knows all these people should stop eating at Saigon Grill.)
The city in general is going to look far more bleak next spring than it does right now. Come February, I expect a rash of store closings, restaurants and otherwise, which will leave the city pockmarked like my local stretch of Broadway. One can only hope things don't get that bad.
Sports Illustrated has a fabulous short take this week on CPM rates and Super Bowl ads. In short: on a per-viewer basis, a $3 million Super Bowl spot gets an advertiser more bang for the buck--by a good 35 percent--than a $435,000 slot on a typical Sunday Night Football broadcast. The sheer viewer numbers for the big game actually make broad-based marketing a relative bargain.
While it's hard to swallow the thought of six-million-dollar-a-minute advertisements in the penny-pinching 2008 holiday season, an advertiser like, say, Doritos, which can gain a position of strength in a recession, is well suited to a Super Bowl ad.
Fun videos and gewgaws from assorted other blogs in my reader:
~ Bio-Bak, one of the more insane (and fun) personal sites I've seen in many years--it reminds me of Superbad (which I kind of miss)
~ This guy sings "Thriller" in 64 a capella parts... it's quite a montage
~ And then there's this guy, who custom built a drum kit to play Guitar Hero 3, then beat the hardest setting. hoo wee!