The Best Team Money Could Buy

[TheKilo]

Dipre referenced it in the World Series thread, but if this article was a woman I would make sweet, sweet love to it all day long.

 

Posnanski couldn't hit the nail harder on the head if he tried.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/joe_posnanski/11/05/yankees.payroll/index.html?eref=sihp

 

Now, let's think about this for a moment: You have a sport where the New York Yankees -- in large part because they are located in America's largest city and they have baseball's richest television contract -- can viably spend tens of millions of dollars more than any other team to acquire baseball players. You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.

 

This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com on Wednesday night, and I'm going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees' payroll, I found them to be stunning:

 

In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.

 

In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.

 

In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it's ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: "OK, let's spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we're spending exactly as much. And now ... let's add the Oakland A's. No, I mean let's add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let's play some ball!"

 

In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.

 

In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.

 

In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team -- cutbacks, you know.

 

In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.

 

In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.

 

Now, the conceit of American professional sports is that every team has a chance. That is certainly the conceit of baseball -- what the commissioner calls Hope on Opening Day.*

 

I think of it this way: I would bet that if the Indianapolis Colts played the Cleveland Browns 100 times, and the Colts were motivated, they would probably win 95 of them -- maybe even more than that. But if the New York Yankees played the Kansas City Royals 100 times, and the Yankees were motivated, I suspect the Royals would still win 25 or 30 times. That's baseball.

 

So you have this sport that tends to equalize teams. That helps blur the dominance of the Yankees. If the New England Patriots were allowed to spend $50 million more on players than any other team, they would go 15-1 or 16-0 every single year. And people would not stand for it. But in baseball, a great and dominant team might only win 95 out of 160, and it doesn't seem so bad.

 

So, you create a system in which the best team doesn't always win. In fact, you create a system in which the best team often doesn't win. For years the Yankees didn't win. They lost to Florida. They lost to Anaheim. They blew a 3-0 series lead against Boston. They lost to Anaheim again and Detroit and Cleveland -- and how could you say that baseball is unfair? Look, the Yankees can't win the World Series! See? Sure they spend $50 million more than any other team and $100 million more than most. But they haven't won the World Series! Doesn't that make you feel better?

 

And this has been the Wizard of Oz slight-of-hand game that MLB has been playing for a long time... Ignore the man behind the curtain who makes more money off of baseball than anyone else and can buy just about any player he wants. Ignore the absurdity of it all. Just remember: The Yankees haven't won in a while! Just remember: Anything is possible.

 

But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big-market team. They DWARF big-market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don't just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.

 

The Yankees have a pat hand.

 

The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and a slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama -- though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there's drama.

 

And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee's best pitcher and Anaheim's best hitter and Toronto's No. 2 starter and Boston's favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn't listen to the doubters.

 

And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that's baseball.

[BoSox21]

You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.

 

This is such....SUCH a good quote

[yankees228]

All of this stuff is fair, and, to be perfectly honest, it's not necessarily debatable.

 

I do love, however, that people continue to ignore that the Yankees, to some degree, created this enormous advantage.

[yankees228]

This is such....SUCH a good quote

 

The best part about it is that it infers that the Yankees are, in some way, breaking a rule.

[yankees228]

I also love the constant use of the word "bought" when it comes to free agents. Technically, every time a team signs a free agent, they buy him. It is just used because it carries a negative connotation.

[BoSox21]

The best part about it is that it infers that the Yankees are' date=' in some way, breaking a rule.[/quote']

 

No, it infers that the rules of free agency are the Yankees pick who they want and let the other teams go after the scraps which seems inherently wrong. And it's a criticism of the way baseball has laid out the rules, not the way the Yankees are playing with them.

[yankees228]

No' date=' it infers that the rules of free agency are the Yankees pick who they want and let the other teams go after the scraps which seems inherently wrong. And it's a criticism of the way baseball has laid out the rules, not the way the Yankees are playing with them.[/quote']

 

Cheat: to defraud; swindle

 

That statement blames the Yankees. It doesn't blame baseball.

[yankees228]

What also seems ridiculous to me is how the sentiment has now changed.

 

In the past, whenever the Yankees would get eliminated or struggle, there were tons of articles written about how you cannot buy championships. About how there is more to winning than just writing checks. The articles used to be about how you have to build from within, in order to build team chemistry, and how bringing in a bunch of mercenaries doesn't work.

 

Now the articles center around how the Yankees bought their championship. The media has really had it both ways.

[TheKilo]

How much of the record setting revenues do you honestly think the Yankees are directly responsible for?

 

I mean, hell, how much credit are you suggesting they get? Is it enough to outspend the second richest team by over $60 million?

[BoSox21]

Ok, I'm not about to debate the specifics of someone using the videogame term "cheat mode" but there is something very wrong with baseball's economic system and the only ones who can't see that are those who have their Yankee caps pulled down too low.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible for any other team to win but there's only one team that can go into any off-season without fearing that they might not be able to get the guys they want to fill their holes

[yankees228]

How much of the record setting revenues do you honestly think the Yankees are directly responsible for?

 

I mean, hell, how much credit are you suggesting they get? Is it enough to outspend the second richest team by over $60 million?

 

Neither of us know exactly how much of a factor winning had, but, the Yankees were extremely unpopular during the Stump Merrill years. No one has ever had the kind of success that the Yankees had, and, quite possibly, no one ever will. They built this financial empire on the strength of their former dynasty.

[TheKilo]

What also seems ridiculous to me is how the sentiment has now changed.

 

In the past, whenever the Yankees would get eliminated or struggle, there were tons of articles written about how you cannot buy championships. About how there is more to winning than just writing checks. The articles used to be about how you have to build from within, in order to build team chemistry, and how bringing in a bunch of mercenaries doesn't work.

 

Now the articles center around how the Yankees bought their championship. The media has really had it both ways.

 

Posnanski refers to it in the article, and it's really very well said. And for all of the talk about how money doesn't buy championships, it did get the Yankees into the postseason every year since 1995 and achieve the best record in the AL in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2009.

 

Spending more money than anyone else, even unwisely, got the Yankees into the final 8 more times than anyone else. Speaks even further to the huge advantage the team plays with.

[TheKilo]

Neither of us know exactly how much of a factor winning had' date=' but, the Yankees were extremely unpopular during the Stump Merrill years. No one has ever had the kind of success that the Yankees had, and, quite possibly, no one ever will. They built this financial empire on the strength of their former dynasty.[/quote']

 

No offense, but if you can't quantify the contribution of the Yankees winning four championships during that period to the record setting revenues of today, then I can't give the Yankees credit.

 

And in all honesty, I feel the Sosa/McGwire home run race and the international expansion of baseball did more for baseball's revenue than the Yankees winning did. The Yankee money comes directly from their deal with the YES network in the richest media market in baseball, as well as having the taxpayers of NYC foot the bill for a new stadium.

[yankees228]

Ok, I'm not about to debate the specifics of someone using the videogame term "cheat mode" but there is something very wrong with baseball's economic system and the only ones who can't see that are those who have their Yankee caps pulled down too low.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible for any other team to win but there's only one team that can go into any off-season without fearing that they might not be able to get the guys they want to fill their holes

 

It all depends how you look at it. When you compare it to other American sports, it's unfair. However, when you look at it in the context of capitalism (lets not forget, baseball is a business), it's completely acceptable.

[TheKilo]

Is baseball a capitalistic society? If it was, would teams revenue share?

 

If it was truly capitalistic, all of the small market teams would die out, in particular the Tampas, Floridas, and Kansas Citys of the world.

[yankees228]

No offense, but if you can't quantify the contribution of the Yankees winning four championships during that period to the record setting revenues of today, then I can't give the Yankees credit.

 

And in all honesty, I feel the Sosa/McGwire home run race and the international expansion of baseball did more for baseball's revenue than the Yankees winning did. The Yankee money comes directly from their deal with the YES network in the richest media market in baseball, as well as having the taxpayers of NYC foot the bill for a new stadium.

 

I can't quantify, but it's a logical assumption. If you can't see that, then you have the blinders on.

 

Let me ask you this. If they hadn't had the previous success, do you really think they would have been able to start up the YES Network?

[yankees228]

Is baseball a capitalistic society? If it was, would teams revenue share?

 

If it was truly capitalistic, all of the small market teams would die out, in particular the Tampas, Floridas, and Kansas Citys of the world.

 

It's not true capitalism, but it also isn't remotely like football or basketball. All I'm saying is that baseball is a business, and the Yankees are simply taking advantage of the capitalist aspect of it.

[TheKilo]

Yes. Baseball was gaining in popularity for the exact reasons I mentioned, and they operate in the largest media market in the country.

 

Hell, the Red Sox had NESN over 20 years ago...in the midst of their World Series drought, in a media market that is maybe top 10 in the country. No doubt the Yankees could have started up the YES network eventually.

[TheKilo]

It's not true capitalism' date=' but it also isn't remotely like football or basketball. All I'm saying is that baseball is a business, and the Yankees are simply taking advantage of the capitalist aspect of it.[/quote']

 

...which is what Posnsanski is saying in the article, except they do it to such an extent that it's like they aren't even playing the same game.

[yankees228]

Yes. Baseball was gaining in popularity for the exact reasons I mentioned, and they operate in the largest media market in the country.

 

Hell, the Red Sox had NESN over 20 years ago...in the midst of their World Series drought, in a media market that is maybe top 10 in the country. No doubt the Yankees could have started up the YES network eventually.

 

If the Yankees success does not have a major impact on their financial advantage, then why aren't the Mets operating at this same advantage?

[yankees228]

...which is what Posnsanski is saying in the article' date=' except they do it to such an extent that it's like they aren't even playing the same game.[/quote']

 

The problem is that, suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.

[TheKilo]

$1.3 billion

 

$100 million

 

 

Guess the net worth of George Steinbrenner, and guess the net worth of Fred Wilpon. And you tell me who got f***ed by Madoff.

[TheKilo]

The problem is that' date=' suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.[/quote']

 

They are never playing the same game.

 

Read the paragraph about "the man behind the curtain" and tell me if it isn't true.

[schillingouttheks]

The problem is that' date=' suddenly, when they win, they're not playing the same game. As Posnanski refers to, baseball has a way of evening out the competition. Even with the amount of money that the Yankees have spent, those KC Royals can still beat the Yankees about 30% of the time.[/quote']

 

You understood the point of bringing that up in the article, right? Because this isn't the point he was making. The article refutes this statement by itself.

[yankees228]

$1.3 billion

 

$100 million

 

 

Guess the net worth of George Steinbrenner, and guess the net worth of Fred Wilpon. And you tell me who got f***ed by Madoff.

 

Right, but you keep making such a big deal about the media market. They're operating within the same media market. Yet the Yankees have been more successful, financially, than the Mets. In my opinion, that is due to their past success. I don't have the numbers to back it up, so you can dismiss the claim if you want, but I view it as a very logical assumption.

[TheKilo]

Or, maybe it's simply due to the fact that the Yankees have a much larger fanbase due to their history in the largest media market in the country?

[yankees228]

Or' date=' maybe it's simply due to the fact that the Yankees have a much larger fanbase due to their history in the largest media market in the country?[/quote']

 

Take it from someone who lives in New York (and if you don't believe me, ask a700), New York is a National League town. The Yankees' success has transcended that.

[TheKilo]

So after the Dodgers moved, you're telling me that New Yorkers didn't turn to the Yankees, especially during the height of their dominance (which is saying a lot for a team with 27 championships)?

 

I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

[yankees228]

You understood the point of bringing that up in the article' date=' right? Because this isn't the point he was making. The article refutes this statement by itself.[/quote']

 

Yes, but, on opening day, a decent amount of teams have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Once you get to the playoffs, due to their crapshoot nature, any of the eight teams can win.

 

By this logic (and yes, it is logical), sixteen of the thirty teams in Major League Baseball are largely unaffected by the Yankees once the season starts. Now, because of the unbalanced schedule, nine of the fourteen teams in the American League aren't greatly affected by the Yankees, because they just have to out and win their own division. Once the season starts, there really are only four teams that are affected by the Yankees financial superiority.

[yankees228]

So after the Dodgers moved, you're telling me that New Yorkers didn't turn to the Yankees, especially during the height of their dominance (which is saying a lot for a team with 27 championships)?

 

I find that very, very, very hard to believe.

 

When the Yankees were winning a World Series and three American League championships (1962-64), they weren't as popular as the last place New York Mets.