The "Yankees Buy Their Championships" Argument Laid To Rest
by The Other Joe on Nov 5, 2009 7:36 PM EST
89 comments
I've read a lot in the past 8 hours about how the Yankees "bought another championship" from non-Yankee fans.
I'd like to address that and the entire financial aspect of baseball for a moment, if I may.
First and foremost, money obviously does not buy championships. If it did, every year the playoffs would consistently feature only the big-market, cash-rich teams -- which obviously is not the case. This year, the AL and NL Division Series featured teams with 2009 payroll rankings from 1 (NYY) to 23 (MIN). 3 of those teams were in the bottom half of that list, including the Rockies (18) and the Cards (17). Go back to 2008's World Series and you have to obviously talk about the $49 million dollar Rays, who were next to last. The Phillies spent $113 million -- where was the talk about the obvious disparity there?
Despite the rhetoric of the "baseball is a game" purists, the reality is that Major League Baseball is a business, plain and simple, and that business (like any other) is expected to make a profit. While I am sure that the majority of baseball's owners are indeed baseball fans, I seriously doubt that anyone would not consider their ownership to be an investment and attempt to manage it as one. What happens when a team is no longer making enough money? It gets sold or moved somewhere in an attempt to spark new life.
Any college business class will teach you that successful businesses invest in themselves, using a portion of their profits to grow. Likewise, successful baseball teams invest in themselves, knowing that a better team on the field will attract more revenue through attendance, merchandising, and media rights. George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees from CBS, who had mismanaged it into obscurity in the '60s for $10 million, and subsequently built it up by investing in it and making shrewd business deals such as selling the cable TV rights to Yankee games, inking deals with companies like Addidas, and creating the YES Network. In 2005, the Yankees were valued at $1 billion dollars. What most people do not know is that Steinbrenner initially tried to purchase the Indians, and when that deal fell through, he turned his sights on the Yanks. Imagine if he had been able to do for Cleveland even part of what he has done for New York and you are left to wonder how many people would be leveling their criticism in the direction of Ohio today.
The purists, with eyes agog at the spending of teams such as the Yankees and Red Sox cry unto heaven for a salary cap. There are two reasons why the owners refuse to implement one: First, it hampers the ability of owners to run their business as they see fit. Second, the small market teams (and those teams with bad management) are loathe to give up the revenue sharing money they get from the higher payroll teams. If you're the owner of the Marlins, say, why give up all that money? If you did, you might have to field a better team consistently to turn a profit. What did the Marlins do after they won the World Series? Pocketed all the cash and dismantled the team, selling off their higher-priced talent. In fact, when you look at the history of the Marlins and how badly they have been managed since then, you are rightfully surprised when they are in contention for the postseason; the amount of talent that they let get away since then due to cost is staggering. Meanwhile, the Yankees paid about 10% of their salary figure in a luxury tax in 2009; how much of that went into the pockets of the ownership of the Marlins?
So clearly, bad management, from the front office to the dugout, is a prime factor in bad results in the standings. But there's an intangible factor at play in championship-caliber teams - one that money cannot directly buy - and that's clubhouse chemistry. If you listen to what the majority of players, managers, and coaches say after a successful season, it's all about chemistry and working together as a true team, rather than a collection of individuals. Far too often in the past nine years, the Yankees spent gobs of cash signing players that never really meshed together; in those years, they ultimately did not produce what their payroll allegedly should have produced. Names like Brown, Johnson, and Sheffield instantly spring to mind when one considers the non-winning Yankee "teams". Looking back at the 2009 New York Yankees, you see that chemistry; you see it in the boy-like grin of Nick Swisher as he realizes that there's 4 balls to a walk and heads back to the plate. You see it in A.J. Burnett as he delivers another whipped-cream celebration to the face of a walk-off producer. You see it in Joe Girardi, who may have helped foster this camaraderie himself by canceling practice early in the season to go have a team bonding day at a pool hall. This also rings true for the 2004 Red Sox; and perhaps speaks to the intangible value of Johnny Damon.
One final word about George Steinbrenner. While he has shouldered the burden of building a $10 million dollar investment into a $1 billion dollar powerhouse, he has also been one of the more giving individuals baseball has likely ever seen. Try this: Google "george steinbrenner charity" and you'll get an idea of how many lives his generosity has touched over the years. Legends Field in Tampa wasn't renamed in his honor in an effort to keep the Yankees Spring Training home in that city or born of some other desperate effort to appease The Boss, rather it was in honor of the generosity he has shown to that community; quietly, largely behind the scenes, and largely unsung in discussions about baseball. Yet despite the mudslinging that is constantly hurled his way, not once has Steinbrenner ever publicly taken offense; not once has he addressed the media on how he should be recognized for his philanthropy - and clearly, he would be in the right to do so. Reportedly in declining health; when one day George Steinbrenner leaves us, Yankee fans will make up only part of those who mourn his loss.
Finally, here's the one question that none of those who decry the Yankees payroll can seem to answer: Since George Steinbrenner purchased the Yankees, they have won the World Series 7 times.
Who bought the other 20?
2 recs |
89 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Heres what Bought the other 20
The will to come out and play everyday without worrying about how much money they made. Look I dont care what anybody says. the Yankees won fair and square and thats it! Nice blog man
by DaddyPinStripes on Nov 5, 2009 7:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Because buying off the good players gurantees that they'll perform at the highest level.
Yankees all day.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby
by Onishadow14 on Nov 5, 2009 8:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
u said it the way it is.
baseball is a buisness and a good buisness invests in it self, george is a great guy who helps the community a lot more then given credit for, and who did buy the other 20?
this is a great blog, keep posting. GO YANKEEs…..27 TIME CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL
"Yes we lost and yes we are upset. But like all Champs we will bounce back."
Osi umenyiora
by donnybaseball23 on Nov 5, 2009 8:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Worry not everyone
Let them be jealous of our title
"We're only going to score 17 points?"
by Edgware on Nov 5, 2009 8:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This.
Yea, I know the Yankees payroll is twice as big as everyone elses. Sounds like a reason to go and petition your owner…chances are their richer than the Steinbrenner. Maybe tell him you’d show up at the Stadium if Halladay’s wearing the uni.
And yea..what was so ‘pure’ about last year’s WS? Why didn’t they harp on the fact the Phillies outspent the Rays by half a bean?
What a joke. Piss off with the payroll crap. After all…your killing our livers.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 8:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yankee fans should not feel bad about the payroll
The Yankees are simply playing by the rules of baseball. Do they have an advantage? Absolutey. But what would people have them do, voluntarily limit themselves to make it more “fair?” The Yankees have positioned themselves as the most profitable team in baseball so until baseball institutes a salary cap, they have the right to take advantage of that position.
by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 5, 2009 9:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And part of that argument is that the Front Office is as much a part of the team as the players and manager.
Not to belabor the point, but it’s not like Steinbrenner is dumping $200 million of outside cash into the team – it’s money that the business has attracted by developing a quality product for its consumers. Okay, so the Podunk Pineswingers don’t have the same market potential and therefore you can argue that they can’t develop the same revenue stream, even if they did everything right — granted. But tell me how the Padres, with an exclusive and decently sized market, can be almost rock-bottom in payroll (and spent about HALF what they did in 2008 this year). Back to the Marlins, who won an improbable World Series and then instead of parlaying that into greater success, held a fire sale, dumped all the talent, and pocketed the cash. That part of the Florida Marlins team let the rest of the team down.
by The Other Joe on Nov 6, 2009 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Every time I hear a Sox fan (or any other fan) complain about the payroll, I just offer them a ride.
This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons.
by Lord Duggan on Nov 5, 2009 9:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
This.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 10:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well said.
I suspect we’ll be hearing the payroll argument more and more too, as that’s the only thing that Yankee haters have left.
Just one thing:
George Steinbrenner bought the Yankees from CBS, who has mismanaged it into obscurity in the ’60s (the only decade in which they did NOT win a World Series)…
I believe you mean ’80s.
"He wasn't an astronaut! He was a comedian, and he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife!"
by Rumplestiltskin02 on Nov 5, 2009 10:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah
the Yanks won 2 titles in the 60s.
by Travis G on Nov 5, 2009 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DOH!
That’s what I get for trying to write at 2am on (wait for it) short rest. :D
Corrected.
by The Other Joe on Nov 5, 2009 11:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
SHORT REST!
Drink…
"Son, Nobody is half as good as Mickey Mantle"
by ntrokel on Nov 6, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To those that still think the Yanks buy their championships..
THAT IS
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 11:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good job
I also am tired of ppl saying that as well. But, when you look who it’s coming from, they are people who probably could not name more than 5 major league teams. I mean if you’re going to argue a point, be prepared.
@b$
by abs2sweet on Nov 6, 2009 1:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's sad these people dont realize...
Our owners aren’t even the richest in MLB…There basically angry because we run a better, more cohesive organization then they do…
Which brings in more profit then their team does…
Which enables us to re-invest into our team….And as we all know with every investment comes risk…..Igawa, Farnsworth just to name a couple of a literal many?
Fall back with the excuses….We are lucky enough to have a owner who’s principle mantra is ‘Championship or Bust’…Don’t me mad because your owner doesn’t have the same gusto….Yankees=G.O.A.T.
-Announcemen Forwarded To The Following: Boston Blowsox, New York Pets, Philadelphia Phonies, And Any Other Team Who Ain't The With The Empire.................
Getcha' Fuccin Rings Up........
by NYYWinsRings27 on Nov 6, 2009 4:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
By the way..
Great blog
-Announcemen Forwarded To The Following: Boston Blowsox, New York Pets, Philadelphia Phonies, And Any Other Team Who Ain't The With The Empire.................
Getcha' Fuccin Rings Up........
by NYYWinsRings27 on Nov 6, 2009 4:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Phils fan that didnt jump off the bridge yet.
I unfortunately felt what happens when you run into a team that pays 70$M per year than you. But, while it is completely legal and within all rules, and the Yanks are doing what they can to put a good product on the field for fans to support them.
With that said, I think the most interesting thing about football, basketball, etc is the supposed parity that comes through. Every few years, you see new teams going up and down, and it makes things more interesting.
Now I’ll take a Phils Yanks WS every year, but I understand why other people who are not in our position have a right to complain. It is hard for a team like the Marlins, who draft well, to sign their marquee players, once they become marquee players because there are teams from the northeast and west coast who are willing to pay and overpay for that talent. And the luxury taxes the yanks pay to the terrible teams are just pocketed by the terrible owners of those teams. It’s a shame.
Oh and fuck the DH, it’s the most outrageous rule in all of baseball, and really does not even qualify as baseball. Ridiculous.
by ajr142 on Nov 6, 2009 9:02 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
There is parity - no one has repeated as world series champs since the Yanks in the late 90s.
2000 – Yankees
2001 – Diamondbacks
2002- Angels
2003 – Marlins
2004 – Red Sox
2005 – White Sox
2006 – Cardinals
2007 – Red Sox
2008 – Phillies
2009 – Yankees
by t2kcru on Nov 6, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So is it coincidence that NYY won 8 of the last 10 AL East titles?
?
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 9, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely not...
They fielded teams ranging from great to so-so to just plain lucky.
The other AL teams didn’t.
That’s the whole point of the post.
by The Other Joe on Nov 10, 2009 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Parity" is a fallacy, though
Baseball is unique compared to the other major sports, because the gap between the very best teams and the very worst is much smaller. Think about it: few MLB teams win or lose more than 60% of their games, compared to the NFL (the model of parity) where good teams go 12-4 while bad teams often go 3-13..
Also, despite sending the fewest number of teams to the playoffs each year, 23 of the 30 MLB franchises have made at least one playoff appearance this decade, and 19 of the 30 teams have been there twice.
The problem in baseball is poor resource allocation. Look at the Brewers. One minute they’re signing mediocre veterans like Jeff Suppan to 4 year contracts (with an average annual salary that equals about 15% of their total payroll), the next their owner is complaining that he can’t re-sign CC Sabathia. You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t spend your money wisely (regardless of how much or how little you have) you will lose. The concern is not that the Yankees and Red Sox have money, it’s that they are now using it wisely in conjunction with scouting, drafting, and player development.
The Phillies had huge financial advantages as well. They Adam Eaton and Geoff Jenkins a total of $13 million this year to go home and not play for them, and spent another $16 million to get 90 innings out of Brett Myers and JC Romero. Yet they still had the payroll flexibility to trade for Cliff Lee.
At the end of the day, it is what it is. It’s only been since ‘02-’03 that the Yankees have had a payroll that was miles away from everybody else, and they have exactly one championship to show for it. Money doesn’t buy championships, but wise resource allocation earns them.
by 3460kuri on Nov 6, 2009 9:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
completely agree, it’s not how much you spend, its how you spend it, but unfortunately, for a team like the brewers, they knew they couldnt re-sign CC so they tried to run him into the ground just to make the playoffs. I’m sure they would have loved the opportunity to keep CC around, but when players know that if the brewers offer X, they know the yankees can offer Xplus and they have a better chance of winning. The phillies were stuck with Brett myers for years and had to let Curt Schilling go in a trade because we knew we couldnt afford to let him walk for nothing, but there was no way we could sign him to another big deal.
But I dont think you can argue, that the Yanks, Sox, Phils, Angels, Dodgers, etc. have a much greater resource pool so teams like us can afford to make the mistake of Adam Eaton or jaret wright and not be hamstrung by that bad signing for years after. If the Nationals made a signing like that, they would be screwed for years to follow. We can look past it and still compete.
and i understand your point with comparing nfl and mlb, but baseball is a grind. Players get pulled for rest, ace starting pitchers dont pitch every game, but an NFL team throws their Varsity team out each game. The eagles dont bench mcnabb or the giants dont bench eli every 2-3 games If the Yanks or another top tier team threw out their opening day lineup each game against other teams opening day lineup with the same pitchers pitching daily, you would see the win percentage climb towards the .700 or .750 range, with the lower market teams struggling to see .300. Parity works in baseball, but look at the teams in your division. Its always going to be yanks sox, 1 and 2, either order. the Jays and rays are destined for 3rd/4th mostly each year. The O’s, my personal AL favorite hasn’t done anything for more than 10 years. Parity really only exists in the AL central at this point, and it was the only playoff race this year.
by ajr142 on Nov 6, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But again....
Look at what happened to the Yankees under bad management.
From 1950 until 1964, the Yankees missed the World Series twice (1954 and 1959). CBS bought the Yankees after the 1964 season, began their sloppy management and controversial staff overhauls, and consequently the Yanks did not go to the World Series ONCE under their ownership. In 1966, they finished dead last. In 1967, they finished second-to-last.
After Steinbrenner bought the team in 1973, it took just 3 years to undo the damage and get the Yankees back to the World Series in 1976, beginning a series of appearances (5 in 6 years).
by The Other Joe on Nov 6, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;ylt=Av3Fu7OuFz.CALVUeG5yzBk5nYcB?slug=jp-yankees110609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
_Italic phrase Some of the numbers in this article are staggering.
Ownership has been great for you guys, but the Yankees have NYC, and the resource pool that goes along with it, not so much back then, but its very apparent now with YES and merch. Steinbrenner in Oakland or Pittsburgh would never be successful. I never said I am against spending, but its the viscious cycle of spend money to make money. Yanks have that capital reserved, Phils have that, other “large markets” have that, Twins, Marlins, A’s need to invest in farm systems instead of star players’ huge contracts, and drafting and farm systems are more of a crap shoot than picking the top couple free agents available that year. That’s why I don’t think parity exists and sustains recently outside of a few cases.
by ajr142 on Nov 6, 2009 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
you should understand one thing
there is definitely a cycle. i dont know if it’s ‘vicious’ as you say, but think about it this way. because the Yanks are always good, they never get a top draft pick. they never get a can’t miss like Joe Mauer, Griffey Jr. or Strasburg, etc, who are great AND cheap for years. therefore they have to get a lot of their good players through FA signings. FA inherently means $$$.
do you not think it’s at all strange to actually reward teams for playing poorly with the cream of the crop in amateur (and hence cheap) talent?
and ‘kuri’ is absolutely right about the difference between other ‘capped’ sports and MLB. the greatest regular season team in recent memory (‘01 Ms) had a WP of .716, while the worst team (’03 Tigers) had a .265 WP.
the greatest RS team in recent NFL memory had a WP of 1.000 (Pats). the worst team was .000 (lions).
in the NBA it’s (the ‘96 Bulls) at .878 and the worst was .110 (’73 Sixers).
there’s much more of a ‘middle ground’ in baseball, where you have different pitchers going every day as opposed to the NFL and NBA where you can let Jordan, Shaq, Lebron handle the ball every time down the court. it’s the equivalent of having Sabathia start every game for the Yanks. because of the nature of baseball, it makes for a… natural equilibrium.
by Travis G on Nov 6, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well, I don't know about "can't miss"
baseball, far more than basketball and football, can find diamonds in the rough far lower in the draft than the other sports- largely because of the vast minor league system, and the fact that there are so many more rounds within the draft than the other sports.
And speaking of drafts, my only real problem with baseball’s “inequity” is the free agency system. It seems like getting a draft pick for a superstar is a bum deal- and in the case of Burnett, I don’t think the Yankees had to give up ANYTHING, right?! But to the larger point, yeah, I hate all this talk about “buying championships”. I certainly don’t agree with everything the Steinbrenners have done over the years, but spending lots of money on your team is a GOOD thing. I wish all the other uber-rich owners that cry about “small markets” would take note, and stop pulling the wool over their fans’ eyes by acting like they can’t afford to shell out the dough to put together a quality team.
by sarcastro9 on Nov 7, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
p.s.
You may not want to include Strasburg in the list of “can’t miss”, until he, in fact, DOESN’T miss. Remember Todd Van Popel? If not, that proves the point…
by sarcastro9 on Nov 7, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i mean
what is the excuse for the Mets? they play in the same city, six miles from Yankee Stadium.
by Travis G on Nov 6, 2009 5:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Met fans have nothing to complain about
Except their owners. They play in NY just like the Yankees. They have a new stadium just like the Yankees. They have their own network just like the Yankees. Yet their payroll is $60-$80 mil less. If the Wilpons suddenly started spending big and went out and signed Holliday and Lackey would any Met fans complain?
by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Nov 6, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Some people just can't handle New York
Yankees all day.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring." ~Rogers Hornsby
by Onishadow14 on Nov 6, 2009 5:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1000000000000000000000000000000000
I’m glad somebody finally addressed this issue. I hate it when idiots go around saying we “buy” the championships. That is not even possible. Some players come and suck, others come and rock it. We have players that we did not get from other teams (Derek Jeter) that are really great. If we bought championships, we would win the title every year.
Yes I'm talking to myself. Who else would I trust?
by TheMelkman on Nov 7, 2009 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The rare good point
Colin Cowherd on his ESPN radio show made a great point when it comes to this argument. He responded to a comment made a guy from Ohio about the Yankees buying championships and Colin made the point that Ohio State spends millions on its facilities and it results in recruits and championships. He argued that passion wins championships, not money. He pointed out that the top 6 richest towns in America have sub par sports teams. Money is spread out in the whole country, but its the passionate fan that spends money for payroll, facilities that are more likely to succeed.
The Twins owner is way richer than the Yankees owner, but he’s just not willing to spend as much as the Boss does.
Colin Cowherd is a little bit of a douche that’s a little too conservative for my taste, but he does make an excellent point in his argument here.
by Peppered on Nov 7, 2009 1:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Let me add that
There are now 9 teams with payrolls over $100M. We have the luxary tax, which while I think keeps the Yankees at around $200M, but it also encourages other teams to keep their payrolls at or below $50M (Pirates, Marlins, Padres) and try to squeeze money out of their teams.
My thought – there should be a payroll minimum to keep these teams competitive. It’s ridiculous that the Marlins shed players frequently and that the Pirates don’t even try to stay competitive. There are have been 8 different WS winners in the past 10 years – so whose fault is it that the Pirates and Royals are doormats?
by coops2001 on Nov 7, 2009 2:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Let's not forget the Rays
..Who were the AL East doormats for several years running. Suddenly, they put a good team together, and almost win the WS on very little money.
by The Other Joe on Nov 8, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And
then they turn around and trade Kazmir for prospects while they are still in the race for Wild Card. It’s apparent that Rays principal ower Stuart Sternberg cares more about money than winning. Have to keep that $400M intact, otherwise might have to rely on social security, eh?
by coops2001 on Nov 8, 2009 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not want to turn this into a Red Sox v. Yankees debate. Both teams benefit from the economic system. I want to talk about the system in general.
The Steinbrenners have built a business that produces more revenue (by a lot) than any other team. They ought to be commended for this. But this has given the Yankees a clear advantage in fielding a team. No one can deny this. Without this advantage, your team would be vastly, vastly different.
There is parity in baseball to some extent. Small and mid-market teams do have the opportunity to be good. If they develop players that gel together they can usually compete for 2-4 years. But after that, the lose their good players and must rebuild. These teams have no ability to be good for a continuous period of time. The Yankees and the Sox can be good for many years, as both teams have been in the playoffs almost every year of the decade. This is the most clear manifestation of the economic advantage.
To say you won this year because of “good chemistry” is ridiculous. Where was that chemistry in 2008? You had a very similar team. The difference? An influx of expensive talent. I generally think that winning leads to good chemistry, not the other way around.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 7, 2009 5:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
while i generally agree
that winning leads to chemistry, the team, from a fan perspective, was vastly different from recent years. even if they’d gone out in the first round, i’d have though so:
Swisher, Burnett, CC, Tex, Cervelli, etc. brought energy we hadn’t seen in a long time. they looked happy to play the game, unlike say Sheffield, RJ or Pavano. not that that necessarily meant a better team, but it was a lot more fun from a fan’s POV.
by Travis G on Nov 7, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree....
The Yankees added a lot of talent during the 2001-2008 seasons but didn’t mesh well. As I mentioned in the original post, Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, and even A-Rod for his first few years added to a less-than-cohesive clubhouse, and I believe that they contributed to the problems that plagued the Yanks during those years.
This year, the Yankees added Nick Swisher, A.J. Burnett, and C.C. Sabathia, all of whom have meshed well, lightened the mood in the clubhouse, and in all likelyhood made the game fun again — remember that movie about the kid who inherits the Twins?
Now, I never said that the Yankees won on good chemistry alone; obviously (and as I stated), it takes good talent and good management as well. However, I also do not believe that winning alone can make people like each other and create chemistry – that has to come first.
Now you point to the Yankees gaining a clear advantage by building the business, and I wholeheartedly agree. My point is that many owners do not bother to build their business, and instead pocket whatever profits they make instead of using it to build a better team.
Again, Steinbrenner bought the team for a fraction of what it is now worth — there was no economic powerhouse back then. The Mets, Angels, Dodgers, Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox could easily do the same — just to name the more obvious teams — but largely they do not; and certainly not to the level that the Yankees have. Quite frankly, I consider this to be the off-field victory for Steinbrenner in the game of building a business/team, and now that he has won, he is crucified for winning. The ONLY thing that Steinbrenner had in his favor going in to his rebuilding of the Yankees is the storied history of the team. He had pathetic attendance, a minimal merchandise stream, and lots of player and employees with terrible tastes in their mouths from the CBS era. He turned that around, and turned the Yankees from what essentially was the equal of a small-market team with a dismal record each year into the franchise that they are today. The true disparity is in the management and commitment to fielding a championship-caliber team that Steinbrenner brings and that most other owners do NOT. Everything else — everything — stems from that point.
Players gravitate to the Yankees for two reasons: A better paycheck, granted; and also for the chance to BE a Yankee. I defy you to show me the young ballplayer waiting to be picked in the draft who has ever silently prayed, “Please…. Let it be Toronto…”. The history of the Yankees — Gehrig, Mantle, Ruth, DiMaggio, etc — has inspired ballplayers from the pros to little league for generations, and it would take a generous spirit indeed to conclude that every player that has come to the Yankees did so solely for a larger paycheck — especially in the pre-Steinbrenner era.
by The Other Joe on Nov 8, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yep - check out the
pathetic attendance figures for the ’72 Yanks. then compare them to ’73, after Stein bought the team.
by Travis G on Nov 8, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
run a correlation of attendance and payroll – it’s northof 80%. Look at the Rays and the Royals – gee, I wonder why their attendance is so poor – south of 50% capacity.
And to The Other Joe’s comment, just ask Scott Kazmir how he liked playing for the Rays. They are in the WC race, and he gets traded for prospects. Glad to see Rays are concerned about winning. If I was a Ray’s season ticket holder for 2009, I’d burn the rest of my tickets and never see a game again. Good to know Sternberg gives no crap about the fans.
by coops2001 on Nov 8, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course attendance and payroll are highly correlated. A team makes money by selling tickets i.e high attendance. In other words, high attendance causes higher payrolls, not the other way around.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 8, 2009 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
usually
but sometimes an owner has to ‘bite the bullet’ and put money into the team before the attendance goes up.
by Travis G on Nov 8, 2009 9:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly what Steinbrenner did.
Who wants to pay to go see a team that is sucking wind and which is owned by someone who demonstrates an uncaring attitude towards winning/improving/etc?
by The Other Joe on Nov 9, 2009 7:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There's an old business saying..
it takes money to make money. Or “you can’t shrink to greatness”. Both the Sox and the Yankees invest in their franchise (hence the $100M+ for Dice K), so they are reaping what they sow.
by coops2001 on Nov 9, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i'm agreeing with you
(are you agreeing with me?)
by Travis G on Nov 9, 2009 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly not
otherwise, why would the Yankees and Mets have built new stadiums smaller than their old stadiums?
The money is in marketing. TV networks, global branding, and luxury suites.
High payroll (generally) leads to greater performance, and at the least to greater expectations. Performance drives average attendance.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
by jscape2000 on Nov 9, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Its a cycle.
The new Yankees Stadium has higher revenue potential than the old. Same with the Mets Stadium. In general though, higher ticket sales mean higher revenue. Obviously there are differences based on ticket prices, luxury suites and other stuff. But look at Tampa, even if they were to spend more money and be highly competitive, no one is showing up. They just don’t have the fan base. In this way New York and Boston fans kind of “earn” their succesful teams.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 9, 2009 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
MLB
was stupid to start not just one but TWO franchises in a state that either cant or wont support them.
then the Marlins’ $36 mil payroll gets compared to the NYY and makes it look even more egregious.
by Travis G on Nov 9, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
There is the POTENTIAL for a larger fan base — BUT YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT.
The Bucs had a substantial waiting list for season tickets for a while. They filled the stadium every game. The Rays likewise filled/came close to filling the Trop last year, but the fans here aren’t yet a fan BASE, they are a small core and a bunch of bandwagon fans at this point. If the Rays management can manage to run things more intelligently, they can build a respectable fan base. The Bucs did it; the Lightning did it… The Rays can – but WILL they?
by The Other Joe on Nov 10, 2009 3:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is a difference.
THe Bucs operate in a system where all teams spend the same amount on players. The Rays do not. In order to build their fanbase, the Rays will ahve to be competitive for many years in a row. This is nearly impossible unless they significantly increase payroll, which would mean their ownership was losing money consistently.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 10, 2009 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I live in Tampa
And I can tell you that Rays fans are truly fair-weather fans. When the Yanks would play there in 2005-2006, you’d go to the game and think you were somehow teleported to the Bronx.. 80-90% of the people in Yankees attire… Cheering Yankee home runs… Ball being kept instead of thrown back… When the Yanks and Red Sox weren’t playing, attendance was dismal. In 2008, they had a packed house home crowd every night. This year, apparently, you could hear the crickets again.
by The Other Joe on Nov 9, 2009 4:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to make it clear: you just referenced the movie “Little Big League” to prove your point. Good one.
Also, there is more opportunity for high revenues in NYC. That is one of the reasons the Yanks have been able to make so much money. Not to mention fleecing the city of hundreds of millions of dollars to build a stadium that has pushed the value of the team to $1.5 billion. With that new stadium, I would not be surprised if you guys start to get up into the $300M payroll area.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 8, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, NYC is big...
..But where are the Mets?
LA is big, and only recently have the Angels realized it.
The Yankees get vilified because they decided to create revenue streams and maximize their potential FIRST. No reason why other teams couldn’t have/can’t do the same; even in a smaller market they can still make more cash than they are now. Now, Kansas City will never compare to New York city in revenue potential, but how much of that argument is used as a crutch and how much is reality?
by The Other Joe on Nov 9, 2009 4:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Cardinals ..
are in the same size market center as the Rays, but they continue to put together a competitive team, compared with the Rays one shot deal.
by coops2001 on Nov 9, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven;t checked a map in a while...
but since when is Tampa close to St. Louis?
Again, its winning. Winning brings the fans, which brings the money. The city is nice…but is there really more Yankee fans IN NY than Cardinal fans in the midwest?’
Win, and you get the bandwagoning FOOLS..FOOLS spend money. That equals revenue.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 9, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
winning brings money.
that is all.
The Yanks didn’t have the largest payroll (no one cared about payroll at least…) in 1996 to 2001.
Yea, they got NYC. But they also have the Mets to contend with, which probably splits NY about 55/45 believe it or not (give or take 5% bandwagoning….).
The thing is, its the fools OUTSIDE NY that contribute to the money influx. Those NY hats you see in Zimbabwe? Who do you think gets the profit? YOu don’t see many "B"hats in Pakistan do you?
Winning brought this. The city is nice….the bandwagoning nincompoops from all over the world are what really brings it.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 9, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fact Check:
The Yankees have had the highest payroll in baseball every post-strike year excluding 1998, when they were a very, very close second.
Also, merchandise sales are distributed evenly amongst all teams.
In terms of market size, New England does compare with half of the tri-state area in population. But the stadium makes a big difference. Fenway holds 20K less people than the old Yankee Stadium and 15K less than the new one. This limits revenue. Also, the Yankees are situated in one of the wealthiest places in the world. While Boston can compare, most of New England cannot. Many of the 10 or so million people from New England live in rural, backwoods areas in Maine or New Hampshire. Advertisement revenues from NESN will never be close to that of YES for that reason.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 9, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fact check
from 1996-2008, Fenway had the highest average ticket price. so despite seating only 37,000, they make up for it with higher prices.
Boston could build a new, bigger park. who’s stopping them?
by Travis G on Nov 9, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There was a lot of momentum behind a new Fenway about 9 or 10 years ago. The city and state would not give them the money or land they were looking for the way NY did for the Yankees. Basically, Massachusetts decided to spend money on things like education instead of giving money to a billionaire to build. Not an absurd position.
And I know Fenway had the highest ticket prices. Its luxury boxes and shit that make the extra dough.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 10, 2009 12:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Besides...
All of the State folks that oversee construction in MA are still eyeballs deep in paperwork over the Big Dig… :D
by The Other Joe on Nov 10, 2009 3:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't be in....
denial…..
Hi Yankee friends…This is my Yankee wish list!!!! Please Mr. Steinbrenner buy me my wish list…I want to WIN, WIN, WIN and WIN. Whatever it takes, whatever it costs…let’s continue our rich tradition of winning at all costs!!!!
MY YANKEE WISH LIST
Albert Pujols, 1B, Cardinals
Joe Mauer, C, Twins
Hanley Ramirez, SS, Marlins
Zack Greinke, SP, Royals
Chase Utley, 2B, Phillies
Tim Lincecum, SP, Giants
Dan Haren, SP, Diamondbacks
Johan Santana, SP, Mets
Roy Halladay, SP, Blue Jays
Prince Fielder, 1B, Brewers
Carlos Beltran, CF, Mets
Ryan Braun, LF, Brewers
Justin Morneau, 1B, Twins
Evan Longoria, 3B, Rays
Kevin Youkilis, 1B, Red Sox
Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers
Manny Ramirez, LF, Dodgers
Ichiro Suzuki, RF, Mariners
Felix Hernandez, SP, Mariners
Adrian Gonzalez, 1B, Padres
Josh Beckett, SP, Red Sox
Pablo Sandoval, 3B, Giants
Happy Shopping!!!
by Deroidlick on Nov 8, 2009 8:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
get out with this crap......
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 8, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah i dont understand the point.
It’s either bad satire or plain stupidity. Either way it’s wack.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 9, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ban him
"Yes we lost and yes we are upset. But like all Champs we will bounce back."
Osi umenyiora
by donnybaseball23 on Nov 9, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so u joined just so u can write this?
who ever u like, unless sox (i hate to say it) is a selfish organization that keeps the money to them selves and dose not put it back into the team. baseball shares revenue and small market teams may get up to 30mill or more in the revenue sharing, but yet there payrolls are only 5-10mill over that, the small market team can spend much higher but they chose to pocket it.
"Yes we lost and yes we are upset. But like all Champs we will bounce back."
Osi umenyiora
by donnybaseball23 on Nov 9, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t want Morneau, Youkilis, Miggy Cabrera, Ryan Braun, or Pablo Sandoval.
But the rest I take.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
by jscape2000 on Nov 9, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why not Braun out in LF?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 9, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2008 BABIP .308
2009 BABIP .355
Career 58.3% Contact
UZR/150 -13.6
There are plenty of better players capable of playing a more efficient left field.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
by jscape2000 on Nov 9, 2009 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wOBA’s the last three years: .422, .377, .405. And those were the first three years of his career. Always a place for that kind of production.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 10, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
6 first basemen? What are we going to do with those?
Tradition of winning at all costs? Oh wait, the Yankees won 20 World Series before Steinbrenner even bought the team.
by YankeesRock on Nov 10, 2009 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a telling stat is % of revenue spent on payroll
i could only find numbers for ’06:
79% Washington Nationals
79% Chicago White Sox
74% New York Yankees
70% Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
67% Toronto Blue Jays
66% Detroit Tigers
62% Minnesota Twins
60% Houston Astros
60% Boston Red Sox
59% Los Angeles Dodgers
59% St Louis Cardinals
57% San Francisco Giants
56% New York Mets
56% Atlanta Braves
55% Chicago Cubs
53% Oakland Athletics
53% Philadelphia Phillies
52% Milwaukee Brewers
51% Seattle Mariners
49% Baltimore Orioles
48% Cincinnati Reds
48% Texas Rangers
47% San Diego Padres
45% Kansas City Royals
44% Arizona Diamondbacks
43% Pittsburgh Pirates
40% Cleveland Indians
32% Tampa Bay Devil Rays
31% Colorado Rockies
15% Florida Marlins
by Travis G on Nov 9, 2009 9:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Based on Forbes' est. 2008 per team revenue
(None of the revenue data are actual since teams do not have to disclose what they make.)
The 2008 payroll threshold for luxury-tax liability was $155 million.
NYY were taxed at 40% for $26.9 based on a $222.2m payroll
Team / Revenue (in $mil) / Payroll (in $mil) / % of Rev to Payroll
NYY $375 $209 55.73%
BOS $269 $133 49.44%
NYM $261 $137 52.49%
LAD $241 $118 48.96%
CHC $239 $118 49.37%
PHI $216 $98 45.37%
LAA $212 $119 56.13%
CHW $196 $121 61.73%
SF $196 $76 38.78%
STL $195 $99 50.77%
HOU $194 $88 45.36%
SEA $189 $117 61.90%
DET $186 $137 73.66%
ATL $186 $102 54.84%
WAS $184 $54 29.35%
CLE $181 $78 43.09%
COL $178 $68 38.20%
ARI $177 $66 37.29%
TEX $176 $67 38.07%
SD $174 $73 41.95%
BAL $174 $67 38.51%
MIL $173 $80 46.24%
TOR $172 $97 56.40%
CIN $171 $74 43.27%
OAK $160 $47 29.38%
TAM $160 $43 26.88%
MIN $158 $56 35.44%
PIT $144 $48 33.33%
KC $143 $58 40.56%
FLA $139 $21 15.11%
by Scooby Snacks on Nov 9, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
...And there you have it.
Greedy owners == less talent on the field and in the office == subpar team == less revenue == greedier owners ==………..
Unless the owners break the cycle somewhere along the chain (as, once again, Steinbrenner did), the downward spiral continues.
by The Other Joe on Nov 10, 2009 3:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
That is a great find. I guess that owners want to take in/need to take in more than $100M for other expenses? Keep in mind the rest of that money goes towards stadiums, farm teams, coaches, minor league players, scouts, announcers, groundskeepers, any front office personel (GMs make millions in most cases), not just straight into their pockets.
by ajr142 on Nov 10, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That looks light...
If you take the Red Sox FCI (Fan Cost Index for a family of four to attend a game) of ($326.45)X Attendance (3,048,250) / Family of four = $248,7M.
The above list had $269M vs the $248M, and that’s before licensing, broadcast, parking, etc. So I think these numbers are probably just attendance revenue.
by coops2001 on Nov 10, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot to mention that those figures probably only take into account each team's ballpark revenues
They don’t include the revenue sharing dollars that the bottom teams receive or the money the top teams have to spend to subsidize the revenue sharing pool.
Additionally, the Steinbrenners and Co. own the YES Network. While YES is suppose to operate as a separate entity of the team, it substantially serves as an additional revenue source.
The bottom line is that the owners of consistently shitty teams will continue to be happy with lining their pockets with year-to-year profits and refusing to invest more in placing a competitive product on the field. It’s not always so black-and-white but you have to spend money to make money.
by Scooby Snacks on Nov 10, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How much do the Yanks make off of YES? Enoughto push that percent below 40% maybe?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 10, 2009 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wait...
FLA $139 $21 15.11%
?
WOW!!!!!!
I mean I heard they are putting $155 million toward’s their new ballpark…but still, 15% of revenue on payrolll…..damn….
"It ain't over till its over"---
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 10, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But....
God Bless those Marlins players who make a bid to get to the playoffs every year, even if they just miss the WC by a game or two or three. Says a lot about the players that they play beyond their payroll and try their hardest to win.
It’s the same team the Girardi won Manager of the Year with just before getting fired by a greedy/insolent owner.
Also the same team that has a pitcher named Josh Johnson that I’d personally like to see someday wearing pinstripes.
by phonty on Nov 10, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
imagine if they kept Miguel Cabrera?
"It ain't over till its over"---
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 10, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You hit the Nail on the Head - and Mets Fans Complain
Great posting. I especially get sick when I here these complaints from Mets fans. I guess Queens is a small market and the Bronx is a big market? Baseball is a business and the Yankees know their business. You plow the revenue in to keep making more revenue. The Wilpons are a bunch of retards who will soon have to sell the team becuase of their gross ineptitude.
by BronxBorn LifeLong on Nov 11, 2009 9:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
