Yankees set to acquire Washburn

[Jayhawk Bill]

The Red Sox are not a small market team by any stretch. They are one of the few teams that can compete with the Yankees. When they needed to flex their financial strength, they did. After a humiliating 2006 on the heels of two years when they plead poverty, they dipped into their vast reserves and shelled out almost $220 million in contracts for 3 players. It was only one year prior when they were planting stories in the local papers bemoaning the fact that they couldn't compete with the Yankees and that's why they didn't get Abreu. In light of what they spent in the off season, it was obvious that their excuses vis a vis Abreu were disingenuous. Cue the FO fans to tell me that they are glad that we have Drew and not Abreu. That's a different argument and not the point I am making. The point is that the FO is full of s***. Businesses spend money only when they have to spend. After 2006, they realized that they had to spend money to turn things around or risk damaging the franchise.

 

We all know that Manny is a nut, but you don't think they have been jerking him around about the options? I am sure they have been giving him some BS corporate speak. I have spent my whole working life working for big corporations that specialize in that non-committal lingo. Manny has a hard enough time with English, never mind corporate double talk. Of course, ownership feels they have been above-board and honest, because they understand how to read through the lines of their corporate lingo. Manny doesn't. Ownership doesn't like the thought of carrying him at a $20 million price tag. They would have loved to run him out of town a few years ago. Annually, they have attempted to get rid of him, but even the corporate profit-types had to acknowledge his value was more than they could get in return. Every time they try to get rid of him they seize on a "Manny being Manny" moment to drum up public support through the lackeys in the print press and on talk radio.

 

The Red Sox financial resources may not be quite what the Yankees have at their disposal, but make no mistake, the Red Sox resources are vast. Money can never be a valid excuse for not competing with the Yankees. I resent when they use that excuse. After having won a second Championship, we are hearing that the cost of bullpen help is just too high, but the Yankees got Marte for a bag of balls. I don't believe that the Pirates wanted more from the Red Sox. I think the Red Sox didn't pursue because of the cost and the option for next year is $6 million. We are already starting to hear the drumbeat about the new source of revenue that the Yankees will have with the new stadium. I have a message for the front office. I don't want to hear how the Yankees make more money. That's not my fault. You guys have done a pretty good job of turning the Red Sox into a gold mine. If the Yankees management is doing a better job of making money than you guys, that's your problem. Shut up and get to work to do better. Your fan base is vast and I would venture to guess that they have a high per capita income compared to other fan bases. You also have access to an abundance of corporate clients. If the Yankees beat the Red Sox, it will be because they put a better team on the field. Please take responsibility and stop using the Yankees financial resources as an excuse. After your spending spree in 2006, that excuse rings hollow to everyone except with the most gullible of fans. To me it is the equivalent of the politician who garners support by using class envy. It's reprehensible.

 

 

First, great post. Kudos.

 

Second, I respectfully disagree.

 

Let's look at team revenues. Forbes did a comprehensive study of revenues for 2007: let's check it out:

 

[table]Team | Revenues ($mil)

New York Yankees | 327

Boston Red Sox | 263

New York Mets | 235

Los Angeles Dodgers | 224

Chicago Cubs | 214

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 200

Atlanta Braves | 199

San Francisco Giants | 197

St Louis Cardinals | 194

Seattle Mariners | 194

Houston Astros | 193

Chicago White Sox | 193

Philadelphia Phillies | 192

Cleveland Guardians | 181

Detroit Tigers | 173

Texas Rangers | 172

Colorado Rockies | 169

San Diego Padres | 167

Baltimore Orioles | 166

Arizona Diamondbacks | 165

Cincinnati Reds | 161

Toronto Blue Jays | 160

Milwaukee Brewers | 158

Oakland Athletics | 154

Washington Nationals | 153

Minnesota Twins | 149

Pittsburgh Pirates | 139

Tampa Bay Rays | 138

Kansas City Royals | 131

Florida Marlins | 128

[/table]

 

What we're looking at approaches a standard distribution with one outlier: the Yankees. The Yankees have more money, and it's not even close.

 

The thing is, this UNDERSTATES the Yankees' dominance. BP did a study of each team's market for both paying attendees and TV viewing. Here are those results:

 

[table]Team | Attendance | Rank | Rel | TV/Media | Rank | Rel

NYA | 18,310,500 | 1 | 305 | 24,167,393 | 1 | 244

NYN | 14,437,748 | 2 | 241 | 17,509,149 | 2 | 177

LAN | 11,869,232 | 3 | 198 | 14,630,751 | 4 | 148

LAA | 11,149,730 | 4 | 186 | 13,286,360 | 5 | 134

PHI | 8,028,349 | 5 | 134 | 12,284,832 | 6 | 124

CHN | 7,741,244 | 6 | 129 | 12,025,789 | 7 | 121

CHA | 7,485,869 | 7 | 125 | 10,186,762 | 11 | 103

BOS | 7,085,546 | 8 | 118 | 11,330,286 | 8 | 114

TOR | 6,835,975 | 9 | 114 | 10,597,278 | 9 | 107

OAK | 6,218,957 | 10 | 104 | 9,111,470 | 18 | 92

SFN | 5,860,148 | 11 | 98 | 9,512,707 | 17 | 96

BAL | 5,745,887 | 12 | 96 | 9,537,244 | 16 | 96

WAS | 5,521,128 | 13 | 92 | 10,100,942 | 12 | 102

ATL | 5,508,612 | 14 | 92 | 16,066,685 | 3 | 162

DET | 5,419,662 | 15 | 90 | 9,562,464 | 15 | 96

HOU | 5,012,076 | 16 | 84 | 10,204,092 | 10 | 103

TEX | 4,976,888 | 17 | 83 | 9,652,074 | 14 | 97

FLO | 4,226,982 | 18 | 70 | 6,166,678 | 24 | 62

SDN | 4,197,822 | 19 | 70 | 7,340,168 | 23 | 74

CLE | 3,983,090 | 20 | 66 | 8,132,574 | 21 | 82

ARI | 3,803,042 | 21 | 63 | 5,504,149 | 26 | 56

CIN | 3,697,207 | 22 | 62 | 9,961,279 | 13 | 100

SEA | 3,425,763 | 23 | 57 | 8,168,161 | 20 | 82

SLN | 3,134,013 | 24 | 52 | 9,082,314 | 19 | 92

MIN | 3,034,112 | 25 | 51 | 5,502,151 | 27 | 55

TBA | 2,999,411 | 26 | 50 | 7,378,965 | 22 | 74

COL | 2,868,147 | 27 | 48 | 4,570,488 | 30 | 46

PIT | 2,749,402 | 28 | 46 | 5,470,016 | 28 | 55

MIL | 2,648,677 | 29 | 44 | 5,779,013 | 25 | 58

KCA | 1,941,956 | 30 | 32 | 4,597,099 | 29 | 46[/table]

 

Check those "Rel" columns, showing the relative size of the teams' markets to a mean of 100. The Yankees' attendance and media markets are 3.05 and 2.44 times, respectively, the MLB mean. Only the Mets come close in attendance market; only the Mets and the Braves come close in media market.

 

Boston is eighth in both attendance and media market, enjoying a market about a sixth larger than the MLB mean.

 

a700, you write, "Your fan base is vast and I would venture to guess that they have a high per capita income compared to other fan bases. You also have access to an abundance of corporate clients." I completely agree--that's why Boston's revenue was second only to the Yankees' revenue, barely ahead of the Mets' revenue. But there's nothing more to be reaped: there are even more rich people and rich corporations in New York than there are in Boston. Boston's revenue was about $64 million less than New York's in 2007. What about Boston's salary expense?

 

[table]Team | Total payroll

New York Yankees | $189,639,045

Boston Red Sox | $143,026,214

New York Mets | $115,231,663

Los Angeles Angels | $109,251,333

Chicago White Sox | $108,671,833

Los Angeles Dodgers | $108,454,524

Seattle Mariners | $106,460,833

Chicago Cubs | $99,670,332

Detroit Tigers | $95,180,369

Baltimore Orioles | $93,554,808

St. Louis Cardinals | $90,286,823

San Francisco Giants | $90,219,056

Philadelphia Phillies | $89,428,213

Houston Astros | $87,759,000

Atlanta Braves | $87,290,833

Toronto Blue Jays | $81,942,800

Oakland Athletics | $79,366,940

Minnesota Twins | $71,439,500

Milwaukee Brewers | $70,986,500

Cincinnati Reds | $68,904,980

Texas Rangers | $68,318,675

Kansas City Royals | $67,116,500

Cleveland Guardians | $61,673,267

San Diego Padres | $58,110,567

Colorado Rockies | $54,424,000

Arizona Diamondbacks |$52,067,546

Pittsburgh Pirates | $38,537,833

Washington Nationals | $37,347,500

Florida Marlins | $30,507,000

Tampa Bay Rays | $24,123,500 [/table]

 

The difference in salaries was only $46 million, while the difference in revenue was $64 million. Boston is trying HARDER than the Yankees to win, with respect to profit and loss.

 

If the Yankees ever mobilize their fan base as well as Red Sox Nation is mobilized, they will be unstoppable under the current CBA and Rules of MLB. It is only because RSN pumps so much money into the Red Sox, and because so much of that money is reinvested into talent, that Boston can even compete.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I resent it when any club uses the "we can't compete because of money blah blah blah" excuse. The fact is' date=' every club has money. Sure, teams like the Yankees/Tigers/Mets/Red Sox have more money than most, but that doesn't mean the other teams can't compete with them. Florida has won 2 WS in their short history, Colorado just made it to the WS last year, Minnesota is in the thick of things every year, etc. If you run your organization properly, even as a smaller market team, it can be done. Basically I just get tired of teams and fans alike going back to the same old excuse year in and year out.[/quote']

 

 

Hmmm.

 

The Florida Marlins have played for 15 MLB seasons. They've never won their division. They've finished above 83 wins just twice. Both times, flukishly, that they won over 83 games they won a Wild Card AND the World Series.

 

Pardon if I see that as luck. BTW, the 1997 Marlins had the 7th-highest payroll in MLB, only $11.4 million behind the MLB-leading New York Yankees, for their World Championship. They used to be bigger spenders than they've become.

 

***

 

Minnesota hasn't won a World Series since 1991. Colorado has never won either a World Series or the NL West.

 

***

 

If one checks the World Series winners since the strike, all but two have come from the dozen top media markets. One exception is the Marlins, previously discussed. The other exception is the Diamondbacks, who had the 8th-highest payroll in MLB the year that they won.

 

The Yankees, with the highest revenues and payrolls in MLB, have won the World Series four times since the strike. Boston, second-highest in revenues in recent years, has won twice--together they've won six of thirteen times since the strike.

 

***

 

Pardon if I still believe that revenue and payroll matter. :dunno:

[a700hitter]

First, great post. Kudos.

 

Second, I respectfully disagree.

 

Let's look at team revenues. Forbes did a comprehensive study of revenues for 2007: let's check it out:

 

[table]Team | Revenues ($mil)

New York Yankees | 327

Boston Red Sox | 263

New York Mets | 235

Los Angeles Dodgers | 224

Chicago Cubs | 214

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim | 200

Atlanta Braves | 199

San Francisco Giants | 197

St Louis Cardinals | 194

Seattle Mariners | 194

Houston Astros | 193

Chicago White Sox | 193

Philadelphia Phillies | 192

Cleveland Guardians | 181

Detroit Tigers | 173

Texas Rangers | 172

Colorado Rockies | 169

San Diego Padres | 167

Baltimore Orioles | 166

Arizona Diamondbacks | 165

Cincinnati Reds | 161

Toronto Blue Jays | 160

Milwaukee Brewers | 158

Oakland Athletics | 154

Washington Nationals | 153

Minnesota Twins | 149

Pittsburgh Pirates | 139

Tampa Bay Rays | 138

Kansas City Royals | 131

Florida Marlins | 128

[/table]

 

What we're looking at approaches a standard distribution with one outlier: the Yankees. The Yankees have more money, and it's not even close.

 

The thing is, this UNDERSTATES the Yankees' dominance. BP did a study of each team's market for both paying attendees and TV viewing. Here are those results:

 

[table]Team | Attendance | Rank | Rel | TV/Media | Rank | Rel

NYA | 18,310,500 | 1 | 305 | 24,167,393 | 1 | 244

NYN | 14,437,748 | 2 | 241 | 17,509,149 | 2 | 177

LAN | 11,869,232 | 3 | 198 | 14,630,751 | 4 | 148

LAA | 11,149,730 | 4 | 186 | 13,286,360 | 5 | 134

PHI | 8,028,349 | 5 | 134 | 12,284,832 | 6 | 124

CHN | 7,741,244 | 6 | 129 | 12,025,789 | 7 | 121

CHA | 7,485,869 | 7 | 125 | 10,186,762 | 11 | 103

BOS | 7,085,546 | 8 | 118 | 11,330,286 | 8 | 114

TOR | 6,835,975 | 9 | 114 | 10,597,278 | 9 | 107

OAK | 6,218,957 | 10 | 104 | 9,111,470 | 18 | 92

SFN | 5,860,148 | 11 | 98 | 9,512,707 | 17 | 96

BAL | 5,745,887 | 12 | 96 | 9,537,244 | 16 | 96

WAS | 5,521,128 | 13 | 92 | 10,100,942 | 12 | 102

ATL | 5,508,612 | 14 | 92 | 16,066,685 | 3 | 162

DET | 5,419,662 | 15 | 90 | 9,562,464 | 15 | 96

HOU | 5,012,076 | 16 | 84 | 10,204,092 | 10 | 103

TEX | 4,976,888 | 17 | 83 | 9,652,074 | 14 | 97

FLO | 4,226,982 | 18 | 70 | 6,166,678 | 24 | 62

SDN | 4,197,822 | 19 | 70 | 7,340,168 | 23 | 74

CLE | 3,983,090 | 20 | 66 | 8,132,574 | 21 | 82

ARI | 3,803,042 | 21 | 63 | 5,504,149 | 26 | 56

CIN | 3,697,207 | 22 | 62 | 9,961,279 | 13 | 100

SEA | 3,425,763 | 23 | 57 | 8,168,161 | 20 | 82

SLN | 3,134,013 | 24 | 52 | 9,082,314 | 19 | 92

MIN | 3,034,112 | 25 | 51 | 5,502,151 | 27 | 55

TBA | 2,999,411 | 26 | 50 | 7,378,965 | 22 | 74

COL | 2,868,147 | 27 | 48 | 4,570,488 | 30 | 46

PIT | 2,749,402 | 28 | 46 | 5,470,016 | 28 | 55

MIL | 2,648,677 | 29 | 44 | 5,779,013 | 25 | 58

KCA | 1,941,956 | 30 | 32 | 4,597,099 | 29 | 46[/table]

 

Check those "Rel" columns, showing the relative size of the teams' markets to a mean of 100. The Yankees' attendance and media markets are 3.05 and 2.44 times, respectively, the MLB mean. Only the Mets come close in attendance market; only the Mets and the Braves come close in media market.

 

Boston is eighth in both attendance and media market, enjoying a market about a sixth larger than the MLB mean.

 

a700, you write, "Your fan base is vast and I would venture to guess that they have a high per capita income compared to other fan bases. You also have access to an abundance of corporate clients." I completely agree--that's why Boston's revenue was second only to the Yankees' revenue, barely ahead of the Mets' revenue. But there's nothing more to be reaped: there are even more rich people and rich corporations in New York than there are in Boston. Boston's revenue was about $64 million less than New York's in 2007. What about Boston's salary expense?

 

[table]Team | Total payroll

New York Yankees | $189,639,045

Boston Red Sox | $143,026,214

New York Mets | $115,231,663

Los Angeles Angels | $109,251,333

Chicago White Sox | $108,671,833

Los Angeles Dodgers | $108,454,524

Seattle Mariners | $106,460,833

Chicago Cubs | $99,670,332

Detroit Tigers | $95,180,369

Baltimore Orioles | $93,554,808

St. Louis Cardinals | $90,286,823

San Francisco Giants | $90,219,056

Philadelphia Phillies | $89,428,213

Houston Astros | $87,759,000

Atlanta Braves | $87,290,833

Toronto Blue Jays | $81,942,800

Oakland Athletics | $79,366,940

Minnesota Twins | $71,439,500

Milwaukee Brewers | $70,986,500

Cincinnati Reds | $68,904,980

Texas Rangers | $68,318,675

Kansas City Royals | $67,116,500

Cleveland Guardians | $61,673,267

San Diego Padres | $58,110,567

Colorado Rockies | $54,424,000

Arizona Diamondbacks |$52,067,546

Pittsburgh Pirates | $38,537,833

Washington Nationals | $37,347,500

Florida Marlins | $30,507,000

Tampa Bay Rays | $24,123,500 [/table]

 

The difference in salaries was only $46 million, while the difference in revenue was $64 million. Boston is trying HARDER than the Yankees to win, with respect to profit and loss.

 

If the Yankees ever mobilize their fan base as well as Red Sox Nation is mobilized, they will be unstoppable under the current CBA and Rules of MLB. It is only because RSN pumps so much money into the Red Sox, and because so much of that money is reinvested into talent, that Boston can even compete.

 

I never said that the Red Sox market was as big as the Yankees, so I don't know what you are finding to dispute. As far as the figures showing the relative TV/media market, the reason why the Red Sox make more money than those teams that are ahead of them is that Boston is a baseball obsessed town and it has been long before current ownership took over. They can't claim any credit for that. My daughter grew up in NY, but went to college in Boston. She has no use for baseball, but after 1 year in Boston, she told me that "these people are crazy with their baseball." She said there was no comparison to NY. Anyway, my point was not that the Red Sox market is as big as the Yankees market. My point is that when your franchise is worth more than a billion dollars and you make more annually than all but one other team, you've got no case to cry poverty or competitive disadvantage. If money is the reason for the Yankees beating us, then the Red Sox have no excuse for not winning at least the Wild Card every year. They have plenty of resources to be successful every year. No one wants to hear billionaires crying poverty or competitive disadvantage. Only the gullible would accept that excuse. Bill, the last thing you are is gullible.

 

As an aside it reminds me of a TV special many years ago where Bob Hope and Bing Crosby were interviewed separately. Crosby was asked if he was the richest guy in Beverly Hills. He said that Hope was the richest guy in Beverly Hills. Hope was told that Crosby said he was the richest guy in Beverly Hills. Hope responded that Crosby had more money than him and that Fred Mac Murray probably had more money than either one of them. Mac Murray was not interviewed.

[ORS]

I don't want to hear how the Yankees make more money. That's not my fault. You guys have done a pretty good job of turning the Red Sox into a gold mine. If the Yankees management is doing a better job of making money than you guys' date=' that's your problem. Shut up and get to work to do better.[/quote']

This is a "what". I'd love to hear the "how". Look at the market figures JHB posted. The big discrepancy is the TV market, as that is the cash cow for teams that own their own broadcast network. Thirteen million less viewers in the home market.

 

I could just as soon say the "what" is unicorns. They don't have enough unicorns in the clubhouse to inspire the team to greatness. In terms of fantasy, it is an equivalent "what", and in terms of realization, an equally impossible "how".

[a700hitter]

Pardon if I still believe that revenue and payroll matter. :dunno:

Payroll most definitely matters, and if you are the second richest team with the second highest payroll, you should never claim that you have a competitive disadvantage. It's like the boss who complains about his compensation to his subordinates. It's just annoying. I have already heard Boston owners whining about the additional revenue that the Yankees will have with the new stadium. I think it was Werner. They should STFU and do their job to put out at least the second best team in baseball every year.

[a700hitter]

This is a "what". I'd love to hear the "how". Look at the market figures JHB posted. The big discrepancy is the TV market, as that is the cash cow for teams that own their own broadcast network. Thirteen million less viewers in the home market.

 

I could just as soon say the "what" is unicorns. They don't have enough unicorns in the clubhouse to inspire the team to greatness. In terms of fantasy, it is an equivalent "what", and in terms of realization, an equally impossible "how".

ORS, I always read your posts with great interest, but this one has me giggling a little bit. I am not disputing a word of it, but I have to ask if you were a little high when you wrote this. It's just reminds me of things I heard in the 60's, especially the unicorns.

[ORS]

Does sleep deprivation result in symptoms similar to narcotics?

 

Seriously, that was tongue in cheek, but it is a true statement. Given their expenditures relative to their revenues, I see no lack of effort from this front office.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bill' date=' the last thing you are is gullible.[/quote']

 

Thank you!

 

Of course, that may be why I challenge a few of your points...

 

Payroll most definitely matters, and if you are the second richest team with the second highest payroll, you should never claim that you have a competitive disadvantage.

 

If the Yankees had a $300 million payroll, three AL East teams paid the minimum to all their players, and the Red Sox had 24 players at MLB minimum plus Kevin Cash, would you say that? :dunno:

 

The perception when you say "second-richest team with the second-highest payroll" is that there's a standard distribution and that Boston is close behind the Yankees. That's not the case. The difference in payrolls is greater than the difference between the last-place Rays and the 20th-place Reds. More to the point, each extra dollar offers a greater chance for wins: an estimate of one win per $5 million is conservative. The Yankees should have nine more wins than the Red Sox each year at that rate.

 

My point is that when your franchise is worth more than a billion dollars and you make more annually than all but one other team, you've got no case to cry poverty or competitive disadvantage.

 

But every dollar matters--and $46 million dollars matter a whole lot. Sorry, there IS reason to claim competitive disadvantage.

 

If money is the reason for the Yankees beating us, then the Red Sox have no excuse for not winning at least the Wild Card every year.

 

As long as they don't have to play in the AL East in an unbalanced schedule, facing the Yankees more times than any other contending team.

 

But that's the case.

 

Trivia question: when was the last time an AL East team other than the Red Sox or the Yankees made the ALDS?

 

They have plenty of resources to be successful every year.

 

Sorry, but no: there is only one guaranteed berth in the AL East, and Boston never approaches having the highest payroll.

 

No one wants to hear billionaires crying poverty or competitive disadvantage.

 

Concur. Sometimes uncomfortable truths are truths nevertheless.

 

Trivia answer: 11 years ago, in 1997, the Orioles lost the ALCS for the second year in a row. Baltimore had the combined Baltimore-Washington DC market back then, and they had the second-highest payroll in MLB, behind the Yankees, in 1997.

 

 

I never said that the Red Sox market was as big as the Yankees, so I don't know what you are finding to dispute.

 

Anyway, my point was not that the Red Sox market is as big as the Yankees market.

 

No, your point was that the Red Sox could compete with the Yankees on an equal basis if the owners were only to try, if only the owners were not so selfish and greedy. I believe that your point has been refuted.

 

Of course, YMMV.

[a700hitter]

The perception when you say "second-richest team with the second-highest payroll" is that there's a standard distribution and that Boston is close behind the Yankees. That's not the case. The difference in payrolls is greater than the difference between the last-place Rays and the 20th-place Reds. More to the point' date=' each extra dollar offers a greater chance for wins: an estimate of one win per $5 million is conservative. The Yankees should have nine more wins than the Red Sox each year at that rate.[/quote']They should still win the wild card every year if the deciding factor is money, because they make and spend far more than the rest of the AL teams.

As long as they don't have to play in the AL East in an unbalanced schedule' date=' facing the Yankees more times than any other contending team.[/quote']They should still win the wild card every year if the deciding factor is money, because they make and spend far more than the rest of the AL teams.

No' date=' your point was that the Red Sox could compete with the Yankees on an equal basis if the owners were only to try, if only the owners were not so selfish and greedy. I believe that your point has been refuted.[/quote']I never said that. That is how you interpreted what I said. The owners are in business to make money, and they only spend it when they have to spend it. They spent oodles in 2006 offseason, because the embarrassment of 2006 dictated a turnaround on the field. They won in 2007, so there is no urgency to spend this year. The Yanks have a fair bit of urgency to win this year. They don't want to open the palace as losers. I realize and accept those realities, but don't start whining about competitive disadvantage. IMO, they could've had Marte if they wanted him without giving up a blue chipper. They didn't want him for some reason, but it wasn't a competitive disadvantage. Your research shows that the Red Sox competitive disadvantage is far less than that of every other team, but it is quite annoying when it is the Red Sox owners who whine the loudest. Although they whine whenever they lose, they never whine loud enough to make the case for a hard cap that would put all teams on an equal footing. That hypocrisy is even more annoying. My points have not been refuted. You have illuminated them with your research.

[Cocos Disciples]

Washburn was very good today vs Toronto. 8 innings, 1 run.

[Jayhawk Bill]

They should still win the wild card every year if the deciding factor is money, because they make and spend far more than the rest of the AL teams.

They should still win the wild card every year if the deciding factor is money, because they make and spend far more than the rest of the AL teams.I never said that. That is how you interpreted what I said. The owners are in business to make money, and they only spend it when they have to spend it. They spent oodles in 2006 offseason, because the embarrassment of 2006 dictated a turnaround on the field. They won in 2007, so there is no urgency to spend this year. The Yanks have a fair bit of urgency to win this year. They don't want to open the palace as losers. I realize and accept those realities, but don't start whining about competitive disadvantage. IMO, they could've had Marte if they wanted him without giving up a blue chipper. They didn't want him for some reason, but it wasn't a competitive disadvantage. Your research shows that the Red Sox competitive disadvantage is far less than that of every other team, but it is quite annoying when it is the Red Sox owners who whine the loudest. Although they whine whenever they lose, they never whine loud enough to make the case for a hard cap that would put all teams on an equal footing. That hypocrisy is even more annoying. My points have not been refuted. You have illuminated them with your research.

 

Oh, phooey. :harhar:

 

Check the impact of the schedule again, a700hitter. Boston has to play against the AL East, but its eligibility for a Wild Card berth is measured against teams with AL Central and AL West schedules.

 

That is why no AL East team excepting Boston has achieved a playoff berth for 11 years despite a Wild Card system: they have to play too many games against the high-salary Yankees. Toronto has put forth an excellent team: zero ALDS berths. The same goes for Baltimore and Tampa Bay for the past decade. That's beyond random chance; that's the impact of payroll.

 

You may choose to ignore fiscal reality if you insist, but the facts are no less compelling. Money matters.

[yankees228]

Hmmm.

 

The Florida Marlins have played for 15 MLB seasons. They've never won their division. They've finished above 83 wins just twice. Both times, flukishly, that they won over 83 games they won a Wild Card AND the World Series.

 

Pardon if I see that as luck. BTW, the 1997 Marlins had the 7th-highest payroll in MLB, only $11.4 million behind the MLB-leading New York Yankees, for their World Championship. They used to be bigger spenders than they've become.

 

***

 

Minnesota hasn't won a World Series since 1991. Colorado has never won either a World Series or the NL West.

 

***

 

If one checks the World Series winners since the strike, all but two have come from the dozen top media markets. One exception is the Marlins, previously discussed. The other exception is the Diamondbacks, who had the 8th-highest payroll in MLB the year that they won.

 

The Yankees, with the highest revenues and payrolls in MLB, have won the World Series four times since the strike. Boston, second-highest in revenues in recent years, has won twice--together they've won six of thirteen times since the strike.

 

***

 

Pardon if I still believe that revenue and payroll matter. :dunno:

 

Wouldn't you agree that winning those eleven games in the postseason is due to having some luck also? Isn't it more relevant that teams like the Athletics and the Twins have made the playoffs over a 162 game schedule rather base it on the success over a few short series? I agree that payroll does matter, that's quite obvious. All I'm saying is that when looking at the success of each team isn't it more relevant to look at regular season results over postseason results simply because the regular season offers a much larger sample size?

[Soxfan1]

I really hope the Yankees are judging Washburn and Vidro today. Vidro hit a 2 run home run and Washburn pitched great.

[26 to 6]

*Entire post removed by Yeszir*

[Cocos Disciples]

Lol 26 to 6. Gently caress you!

[yankees228]

I really hope the Yankees are judging Washburn and Vidro today. Vidro hit a 2 run home run and Washburn pitched great.

 

I think it's more that they would be judging Washburn over his last two months...

[Jayhawk Bill]

Wouldn't you agree that winning those eleven games in the postseason is due to having some luck also? Isn't it more relevant that teams like the Athletics and the Twins have made the playoffs over a 162 game schedule rather base it on the success over a few short series? I agree that payroll does matter' date=' that's quite obvious. All I'm saying is that when looking at the success of each team isn't it more relevant to look at regular season results over postseason results simply because the regular season offers a much larger sample size?[/quote']

 

1) I agree that regular season results over 162 game samples are more indicative of teams' quality than just playoff results.

 

2) The presence of the Twins and the A's in the ALDS certainly indicates their being competitive in their divisions, but one must consider how competitive their divisions were before considering those teams to be the equal of, say, the Yankees teams those same years that they won their berths.

[Soxfan1]

*Entire post removed by Yeszir*

[yankees228]

1) I agree that regular season results over 162 game samples are more indicative of teams' quality than just playoff results.

 

2) The presence of the Twins and the A's in the ALDS certainly indicates their being competitive in their divisions, but one must consider how competitive their divisions were before considering those teams to be the equal of, say, the Yankees teams those same years that they won their berths.

 

OK, that's fair. My only point was that even though they aren't winning championships something should be said for getting to the playoffs with such a low salary.

 

Clearly the Red Sox face better competition each year due to the division they play in, but it's not like the Red Sox are spending the same amount of money that the Twins and the Athletics do/did.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Clearly the Red Sox face better competition each year due to the division they play in' date=' but it's not like the Red Sox are spending the same amount of money that the Twins and the Athletics do/did.[/quote']

 

True, but, as I cited, the only other team to reach the ALDS from the AL East in the post-strike era besides Boston and New York was Baltimore in the years when their payroll was very high and their media market wasn't yet split by the Nats. It's different just reaching the ALDS and reaching it from the AL East.

[yankees228]

True' date=' but, as I cited, the only other team to reach the ALDS from the AL East in the post-strike era besides Boston and New York was Baltimore in the years when their payroll was very high and their media market wasn't yet split by the Nats. It's different just reaching the ALDS and reaching it from the AL East.[/quote']

 

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. The argument that payroll doesn't play a factor is absurd. Obviously things have been the same in the AL East over the last few years, the two teams that have the high payrolls have dominated, so it'll be interesting to see if the Rays can stay up there till the end (although I don't feel like that is likely).

[riverside sluggers]

According to New York Newsday, the Yankees and Mariners "continue to talk about what level of prospect the Yankees would give up in return for" Jarrod Washburn.

 

Washburn started Sunday and pitched brilliantly against the Blue Jays despite previous reports that a trade was on the verge of taking place, but apparently the two sides are still haggling over details. The newspaper reports that the Yankees are willing to take on Washburn's entire remaining contract, but aren't willing to do that and send the Mariners a legitimate prospect. Meanwhile, the Mariners are said to be holding out for Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner.

 

The Yankees FO would be assinine to hold back Brett Gardner in a deal to get Jarrod Washburn

[Gom]

The difference in salaries was only $46 million, while the difference in revenue was $64 million. Boston is trying HARDER than the Yankees to win, with respect to profit and loss.

 

If the Yankees ever mobilize their fan base as well as Red Sox Nation is mobilized, they will be unstoppable under the current CBA and Rules of MLB. It is only because RSN pumps so much money into the Red Sox, and because so much of that money is reinvested into talent, that Boston can even compete.

Great post, but the end is asinine.

 

Are you kidding me? Do you really think that RSN makes a difference? It's amazing how you can quote such intelligent things and not even thing about them.

 

The Yankees YES Network is actually worth more than the Yankees. NESN is basically Red Sox owned. The money scale is even more greatly skewed in the two teams favor. So what?

 

These teams have a ridiculous amount of money that you haven't even adjusted for. It's not like the TV revenue is all the same either. RSN? Give me a break. I would be surprised if it made even 1% difference. That may be a stretch too.

 

Other than that, great post. Now start thinking JHB.

 

Payroll most definitely matters' date=' and if you are the second richest team with the second highest payroll, you should never claim that you have a competitive disadvantage. It's like the boss who complains about his compensation to his subordinates. It's just annoying. I have already heard Boston owners whining about the additional revenue that the Yankees will have with the new stadium. I think it was Werner. They should STFU and do their job to put out at least the second best team in baseball every year.[/quote']

Bingo. Smartest post on this thread. You must be from New York.

[yeszir]

RSN? Give me a break. I would be surprised if it made even 1% difference. That may be a stretch too.

 

When he said RSN, he didn't mean the ridiculous marketing ploy that the team has turned to with its stupid membership cards and useless discounts. I think he was referring to the "old fashioned" RSN, what Red Sox Nation USED to mean, die-hard fans who would stop at nothing to support their team.

 

This plays into merchandising, ticket sales (would Dodgers fans pay the same amount of money for s***** seats?), and everything else. The fans' passion and willingness to put up with rip-offs and expenses is what lets the Sox compete, especially in a tiny ballpark.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bingo. Smartest post on this thread. You must be from New York.

 

Sigh. What to say, what to say? :dunno:

 

Great post, but the end is asinine.

 

That'll almost do the trick!

 

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Do you really think that RSN makes a difference? It's amazing how you can quote such intelligent things and not even thing about them.

 

RSN? Give me a break. I would be surprised if it made even 1% difference. That may be a stretch too.

 

RSN as an artificial construct? Not at all. RSN as a term for the uniquely rabid and loyal Red Sox fan base? Hell, yes.

 

Pardon, but in context the average New England reader could have easily discerned that I was referring to the dedicated fans of our Red Sox as "RSN." You must not have benefitted from New England public education.

 

Which isn't, of course, anything against you, but rather an acknowledgement of the hard knocks of circumstance.

 

The Yankees YES Network is actually worth more than the Yankees. NESN is basically Red Sox owned. The money scale is even more greatly skewed in the two teams favor. So what?

 

Yes, owning one's own Regional Sports Network is certainly an advantage...but YES is far more lucrative than NESN, only strengthening the positions I've made previously.

 

These teams have a ridiculous amount of money that you haven't even adjusted for. It's not like the TV revenue is all the same either.

 

Ridiculous?

 

Let's actually check.

 

The YES network generated about $340 million in revenue last year based on 11.4 million subscribers, according to John Mansell, a media industry analyst. The Boston Red Sox-owned New England Sports Network produced $125 million last year with four million subscribers, he said.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&refer=home&sid=aTcfoWsgk6Yg

 

OK, that's revenue, not profit...out of that $125 million NESN has to pay for cameras, monitors, facilities, travel, 60 salaries including RemDawg's, and Heidi Watney's makeup, wardrobe and lingerie. Hoover's estimated $9.8 million in revenue from NESN in 2007. Maybe YES had about three times that much on almost three times the cash flow...maybe they had a bit more. Neither figure would alter the ordinal rank or relative revenue positions of the Yankees or the Red Sox, except, perhaps, to give the Yankees an even greater advantage.

 

But that wouldn't alter my position, now, would it? I wrote, "If the Yankees ever mobilize their fan base as well as Red Sox Nation is mobilized, they will be unstoppable under the current CBA and Rules of MLB. It is only because RSN pumps so much money into the Red Sox, and because so much of that money is reinvested into talent, that Boston can even compete." Beyond obfuscating by complaining about my use of RSN (Red Sox Nation) to represent the fan base of the Red Sox, you tried to suggest that RSN (Regional Sports Network) revenues turned the whole thing around. It doesn't; YES just makes things worse, if anything.

 

One more table:

 

[table]Team | Payroll/Media Market Population

Kansas City Royals | $14.60

Seattle Mariners | $13.03

Minnesota Twins | $12.98

Boston Red Sox | $12.62

Milwaukee Brewers | $12.28

Colorado Rockies | $11.91

Chicago White Sox | $10.67

Detroit Tigers | $9.95

St. Louis Cardinals | $9.94

Baltimore Orioles | $9.81

San Francisco Giants | $9.48

Arizona Diamondbacks | $9.46

Oakland Athletics | $8.71

Houston Astros | $8.60

Chicago Cubs | $8.29

Los Angeles Angels | $8.22

San Diego Padres | $7.92

New York Yankees | $7.85

Toronto Blue Jays | $7.73

Cleveland Guardians | $7.58

Los Angeles Dodgers | $7.41

Philadelphia Phillies | $7.28

Texas Rangers | $7.08

Pittsburgh Pirates | $7.05

Cincinnati Reds | $6.92

New York Mets | $6.58

Atlanta Braves | $5.43

Florida Marlins | $4.95

Washington Nationals | $3.70

Tampa Bay Rays | $3.27

[/table]

 

Boston pays $12.62 in payroll for every soul in their media market. Most of the other teams paying that much are from tiny media markets, and they're using revenue sharing to meet their payrolls. The Yankees are only paying $7.85 in payroll for every fan in their media market--less than two thirds of Boston's payroll per capita. As I stated earlier, if the Yankees ever mobilize their fan base as well as Red Sox Nation is mobilized, they will be unstoppable under the current CBA and Rules of MLB. Picture the Yankees with a payroll half as big again as their current payroll--that's what they could afford if they enjoyed the same per capita revenues as the Red Sox do.

 

Even without considering that YES Network thing.

 

Other than that, great post. Now start thinking JHB.

 

Gom, quit the insults. Start thinking yourself. Start actually doing research rather than insulting other posters on your erroneous bigoted assumptions.

 

I can respect Yankees fans, and I can respond in light-hearted banter. "Start thinking" isn't light-hearted, it's insulting. Go post on NYYFans.com if you're going to act that way.

 

Oh, I forgot...they banned you.