Glorious Article by Joe Posnanski on the Yankees advantage

[Gothamite]

Only a handful of teams are in any position to sustain a dynasty under this system, and only one makes moves wise enough on any kind of consistent occasion to ever do so.

The only real valid argument I can see from a non-players perspective is that it's just using your resources to try to win and how is that bad? But I personally don't find that all that valid.

Wait, why not? Why don't other owners reach into their pockets? There are certainly plenty of deep pockets.

Look, I think Steinbrenner's a scumbag. Lousy human being. But I give him a lot of credit for actually putting his money where his mouth is. He could have pocketed more of the money (as Pohlad did for years), but instead he put it back into the team. Why can't some of the other billionaires do that more often?

And your other point is a valid one - the Yankees are not only rich, they're smart. Tom Hicks has the money but not the smarts, so he should spend more of that money, some of it on a GM smart enough to spend it wisely.

[STL FANATIC]

So complain to the other owners. How much is Tom Hicks worth, anyway?

And the Mariners are owned by a staggeringly powerful and wealthy company. No reason they can't compete on the Yankees' terms.

That's where his argument really falls flat to me - it has these huge holes that he doesn't address. As I said, superficial analysis.

And I find that pretty superficial itself.

Yes, a few owners (often in spite, not because of their market/tv deal) have the resources to compete with the Yankees but do not.

But do most owners in the league have those resources? Are those resources being generated from the team like the Yankees are? Are there enough potential owners out there with those kind of resources to replace the current owners that don't have them? Even if owners of all teams put all the MLB generated money they got back into their team, would they all still be able to stack up with the Yankees?

It's "no's" across the board.

You're argument is a great one if you're trying to give George Steinbrenner credit for being successful within the current system. But it's an awfully poor argument for keeping the current system.

[Saintsfan]

So complain to the other owners. How much is Tom Hicks worth, anyway?

And the Mariners are owned by a staggeringly powerful and wealthy company. No reason they can't compete on the Yankees' terms.

That's where his argument really falls flat to me - it has these huge holes that he doesn't address. As I said, superficial analysis.

You assume that team owners just throw money at there teams. Indeed the article suggests otherwise, pointing out that part of the reason that the Yankees are so far ahead is that they are in the biggest market, rather than a very monied owner. Dare I suggest that your critique of the article is somewhat superficial.

And my point was that JQK's point was answered in the article. The Yankees have been the best team in baseball, but the playoff system in Baseball helps out less good teams.

[Gothamite]

And I find that pretty superficial itself.

Yeah, but his piffle took 2,000 words.

All I'm saying is that more owners could put more money into their clubs instead of their own wallets. And yes, other owners could find new ways of maximizing revenue. But they don't. And he's moaning because the Yankees do.

So long as the Mets flounder in the exact same market (a market they dominated not that long ago), then his money talk falls flat.

So it's not just about being willing to spend money, because other owners have it but won't spend it. And it's not just about some markets having an unfair advantage, because the other team in the same market can't do what the Yankees do. So what's he left with? Only complaints.

There is a substantive and compelling argument to be made calling for a complete overhaul of the sport's financial system. I only wish he had made it.

[Wasatch]

The Yankees, on the other hand, put every penny back into the team. Investors don't get anything until they sell their shares.

I?m glad you bring this up because that exactly how I feel, and yet that?s what keeps me from hating the Yankees. They happen to be located in the largest market in the U.S., but rather than profiting from it as much as they can, they simply throw the money back into the well oiled machine, and put an amazing amount of talent on the field to compete each eyar. So when you look at it that way, at least for me, I end up admiring the Steinbrenner?s devotion to their franchise, fans, team heritage, and to the city of New York! Every fan should have the opportunity to have their team be owned by an owner like the Steinbrenner?s.

And again, he refuses to acknowledge that other owners have the ability to compete financially with the Yankees, or at least more so than they do now, but choose not to.

Exactly!

[jkrdevil]

This is all I'm going to say.

I hope the Yankees go out and sign John Lackey and trade for Halladay to piss everyone off.

[The_Admiral]

How is it that MLB is the one major professional league in North America that does not have some kind of salary cap?

Because baseball is awesome and salary caps are dumb. The NHL's salary cap is the worst of all, because it's a hard cap AND the contracts are guaranteed. They get you coming and going. "Capology" isn't what sports are supposed to be about. The funny thing about the salary cap is that it was supposed to help small-market (read: Canadian) teams compete, but when it became evident at the end of last year that hard cap+guaranteed money meant the Flames couldn't dress a 20-man roster, that's when small-market (read: Canadian) people realized the system was terrible. Once you're preventing Canada's beloved Calgary Flames from playing REAL CANADIAN MANLY CANADIAN CRASH-BANG CANADIAN HAWKEY, you're dropping the gauntlet.

Anyway, sorry, hockey tangent, and sorry that your favorite team sucks because they don't re-invest their money in baseball operations like the Yankees do.

[STL FANATIC]

Again, I ask, if every team invested all their revenue back into their team, would the Yankees still not have a HUGE advantage on many or even most?

That argument is as bogus as calling those who bring it up whiners.

[The_Admiral]

Why aren't teams allowed to have advantages? Where did this idea come about that baseball teams should exist in vacuums?

[Jigga]

Not that I completely agree with the sentiment, but it's not that teams shouldn't have advantages, it's the type of advantages they have. Better management, better player development, better chemistry, better environment, etc, those are fine, but if your greatest advantage is the ability (and desire) to spend almost twice as much as anyone else, there's a bit of an issue. I will say this, they aren't a very well run franchise, no matter how much they spend. Luckily, they are able to spend their way out of these mistakes...eventually.

I didn't read the article, but I'm sure than in all of it's glory, there isn't enough new stuff there.

Oh, and GM Brian Cashman said that they aren't going to be big players in Free Agency this off-season.

[The_Admiral]

I don't know. All I know is that I'm not smart enough to devise a comprehensive system of fairness that will once and for all prevent the New York Yankees from being the New York Yankees. The draft didn't stop them. Abolishing the reserve clause didn't stop them. The luxury tax didn't stop them. The only thing that can encumber them is themselves. I don't think we're ever going to see a baseball equivalent of the NFL salary cap's first few years, when nobody knew how to circumvent the rules yet and market size didn't really matter. I guess that's baseball.

[STL FANATIC]

The draft, the reserve clause, and the luxury tax all have their purpose, but let's not pretend that a salary cap would just fall in line with those efforts. I can't absolutely guarantee a salary cap would be successful in evening the playing field, nor would I like to have to write it's language, but it would have a much, much, much higher chance of working than the things previously mentioned. The draft, by the way, could benefit from it's own type of cap as uncapped entry salaries have begun to push many of the best players to the high spenders anyways.

Also I think sliding in the claim that the NFL's cap system is no longer effective is a bit odd. It's not the best system, and it's probably going to get refined. However, many smaller market teams are still very successful. You rarely see a player leaving a team because their team can't afford them. Sometimes they don't have the cap room, but it's not because of a self-imposed budget very often.

[BBTV]

I don't have a problem with the Yankees spending all the money they do. As long as the rules are as they are, you cannot blame a team for using them to their advantage.

Here's what I have a problem with though:

A-Rod will now be considered a "world champion", and that was something that people said needed to be next to his name for him to really be considered one of (if not the) all time bests. But is he really? As great as he is, he never really took a team anywhere, or made a team that much better. It took adding bona fide super-mega stars around him for him to finally win it. A guy's legacy is usually cemented when he is the driving force behind a championship, not a guy who they have to keep adding superstar after superstar for him to win it. In a way, I think it tarnishes his legacy because he couldn't do it until he joined a team like the Yankees who had the ability to just keep bringing in other players of his ilk.

Also, I agree with everyone who criticized A-Rod and the other yankees for any comments that portrayed them as "a gritty bunch of players who worked hard and beat the odds... etc." (that's not a direct quote, but you know what I mean.) They had better have won it! It's not like they came together, bonded, and played above their heads in order to slay a superior foe. So again, while they were clearly the best team, it's not really a significant accomplishment for them to have won it.

So again - no probs with the Yankees spending all the money, just don't paint A-Rod as a "heroic world champion" and don't paint the team as an underdog.

[KDubK414]

One thing I will say about this. It is because of the size of these contracts them or a few others keep handing out that is driving the market for players of the same caliber. No homerism here, just that I know the specs of the contract. So, CC gets 6 yrs./$160M, the next pitcher around that caliber is going to demand the same, if not more. What is going on here is that individual salaries are far outpacing about 90% of the league. If this keeps happening, pretty soon there will only be a handful of teams that can even think of bidding on the services for certain players. That's if it hasn't already arrived yet.

[CC97]

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.

[Waleslax]

I don't have time to re-make this point; if you are interested, read "Moneyball." Payroll does not equal winning. Billy Beane does an excellent job of proving that.

Plus, if equal payroll equal equal chance of winning, please explain why some teams with "no money" like the A's, Twins, Marlins, etc. compete. Shoot, the Marlins have won more World Series games with their meager payroll than the Mets have in throwing money at the problem. Note, they also have as many WS wins as the Red Sox, another big spender.

That said, as a fan, yes, I want to see my owner reinvest in the franchise over pocketing that money or losing it in a pyramid scheme.

R

[Waleslax]

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.

If NY "dwarf's" a big market, what is the problem with the Mets (also in NY), Angels and Dodgers (both in a bigger market than NY)? For my money, add the Cubs and White Sox to that (market #3) and Phillies (4).

Market size only explains so much; management does the rest.

AIG and Citibank had more money than other banks and insurers, but poor management led to their downfall.

[Saintsfan]

I don't have time to re-make this point; if you are interested, read "Moneyball." Payroll does not equal winning. Billy Beane does an excellent job of proving that.

Plus, if equal payroll equal equal chance of winning, please explain why some teams with "no money" like the A's, Twins, Marlins, etc. compete. Shoot, the Marlins have won more World Series games with their meager payroll than the Mets have in throwing money at the problem. Note, they also have as many WS wins as the Red Sox, another big spender.

That said, as a fan, yes, I want to see my owner reinvest in the franchise over pocketing that money or losing it in a pyramid scheme.

R

Whilst it is certainly true that the size of a clubs payroll is not automatically a sign that the team will be succesful, it certainly makes it a whole lot easier to compete. Teams that compete without a big payroll do so because they are very well managed. Teams that fail despite a huge payroll do so because they are not well managed. But if the Yankees are well managed, year in year out, they should always be amongst the favorites.

[CC97]

I don't have time to re-make this point; if you are interested, read "Moneyball." Payroll does not equal winning. Billy Beane does an excellent job of proving that.

In the AL West, where they don't compete against the Yankees.

I'll pull out my "Waaa" card and point out the Jays have faced the Yankees 18 times every season since 2000 (or whenever the unbalanced schedule was introduced) not to mention having to beat both the Yankees and Red Sox over 162 just to get a sniff of the Wild Card.

Plus, if equal payroll equal equal chance of winning, please explain why some teams with "no money" like the A's, Twins, Marlins, etc. compete. Shoot, the Marlins have won more World Series games with their meager payroll than the Mets have in throwing money at the problem. Note, they also have as many WS wins as the Red Sox, another big spender.

AL West, AL Central, NL East, etc.

World Series wins have little to do with payroll, over those short-series anyone can beat anyone, payroll however is crucial in making the playoffs when you're playing in the AL East.

That said, as a fan, yes, I want to see my owner reinvest in the franchise over pocketing that money or losing it in a pyramid scheme.

As a fan I just want to believe on Opening Day my team has a chance, 15 seasons now of having to smell the Yankees wallet after it's been sitting in their ass pocket all year is getting tiresome.

[BBTV]

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.

If NY "dwarf's" a big market, what is the problem with the Mets (also in NY), Angels and Dodgers (both in a bigger market than NY)? For my money, add the Cubs and White Sox to that (market #3) and Phillies (4).

Market size only explains so much; management does the rest.

AIG and Citibank had more money than other banks and insurers, but poor management led to their downfall.

Huh? the LA market is not bigger than NY. It's just not. It's NY, LA, CHI, and then depending on how you count, either SF-OAK, Dallas, Houston, or PHI at number 4. I think by most ways of doing it, PHI is number 4, due to the distribution of the population and its large media presence.

As for the problem with the Mets and the other teams, they don't own their own network! Not that I think it's wrong for the Yankees to do so - as I've stated, they're playing within the rules and are smart enough to take advantage of their market advantage and come up with innovative ways to generate even more revenue.