Glorious Article by Joe Posnanski on the Yankees advantage

[CC97]

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.

I *believe* Toronto slides in after Chicago (at least it would if it were included in such U.S. rankings)... still not sure how we were branded "small market"

[jkrdevil]

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.

The Mets do own their own network.

[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.

The Mets do own their own network.

Is it really the same though? I thought SNY was more of a Comcast thing than a Mets thing, since all the shows are the usual CSN shows, and even their graphics package is like CSNs. I know that the Mets are a partner, but could it really generate as much for them as YES does?

[leopard88]

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.

What he said, except insert "Orioles" wherever the terms "Jays" or "Blue Jays" are used and change "15 seasons" to "12 seasons".

[Gothamite]

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.

And that is why I don't have any problem with it.

The Yankees always compete because they're rich, but also because they're smarter. If they weren't, they'd just be the Mets.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm not saying the Yankees can't be applauded for using their resources within the rules in a fairly smart manner. That is admirable, and though he's a jerk, good on George for putting so much into his team.

But it's time the rules change, that's all. I'm not asking anybody to discount the Yankees 27 titles. They won them playing within the rules. Great.

It's time to even things up a bit, now, though.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

And that is why I don't have any problem with it.

The Yankees always compete because they're rich, but also because they're smarter. If they weren't, they'd just be the Mets.

The Yankees are smarter, no doubt. But they're also spending 30-80 million more than the next closest team. That gives the "smartness" a lot of lee-way. When the Yankees make a huge bust signing they say ":censored:!" and then go sign the next big thing to replace them.

The Mets, Dodgers, etc. try these gigantic contracts themselves, but when they screw up, they don't often have that additional leeway to go try and fix it. They're stuck.

So let's not overplay how smart the Yankees are. They ARE. But they can also afford to gloss over their mistakes with more large purchases.

Which, by the way, is one reason some of the owners who can afford higher budgets don't do it. They could perhaps afford to shell out the money for AJ Burnett, but he was no sure thing. And if he didn't pan out, they'd be screwed because they canNOT afford to raise their budget beyond that.

George always can. His moves are done with much less risk.

[Gothamite]

Of course. But that is, in part, because the Yankee owners don't take home dividends. The Wilpons do. I don't know about specific other teams, but it has been reported that other large market clubs do.

And how exactly did the Yankees get so rich? In part, they were smarter than the owners of the Mets and Dodgers. Either one of them could have blazed a trail into their own networks, but the Yankees led the way.

And as the Twinkies pick up Michael Cuddyer's $10.5 million option, it's hard to overlook the fact that some smaller markets have to take responsibility for their own bad financial decisions. Even without Pohlad, the Twins remain the best argument against overhauling MLB's finanical system.

[jkrdevil]

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.

The Mets do own their own network.

Is it really the same though? I thought SNY was more of a Comcast thing than a Mets thing, since all the shows are the usual CSN shows, and even their graphics package is like CSNs. I know that the Mets are a partner, but could it really generate as much for them as YES does?

I believe the Mets are the plurality owner of SNY. While it does take the Comcast theme, Comcast is just a minority owner in it and the Mets own the most shares. Thus why it is just SNY and not Comcast Sportsnet New York.

It should be noted that the Yankees while the plurality owner of YES, are not the majority owner of YES. The Yankees own 40% of the network and the other 60% is split between the former Nets and Devils owners and Goldman Sachs (as of a couple of years ago at least). I believe the Mets own a similar percentage of SNY (with Comcast and Time Warner splitting the rest).

The difference between the Yankees and Mets financials is the popularity of the Yankees vs the Mets.

[Wasatch]

But it's time the rules change, that's all. I'm not asking anybody to discount the Yankees 27 titles. They won them playing within the rules. Great.

It's time to even things up a bit, now, though.

Why is it time to even things up when they haven't won since 2000, and before 1996, they haven't won since 1978. So five championships in 31 years isn't complete dominance!

[Gothamite]

Especially when you look at other periods in baseball's history. There's as much parity right now as there has ever been, and far most than in most decades.

[Saintsfan]

The problem is that the playoff system introduces the illusion of parity. The article itself points out that the Yankees had the best record in the American League 4 times between there last 2 World Series wins, which would equate to 4 World Series appearances in the pre playoff days.

Also there are more teams nowadays. So there is more competition, so its harder to have a period of dominance, like the Yankees had in the 40s and 50s say. If you look at the most recent periods of non Yankee domination, they have roughly coincided with expansion and playoffs being introduced.

So its not entirely accurate to suggest things are more equal than they have been. There is more competition, but thats not the same as equality. Its just that the playoffs, to an extent, has created the illusion of equality. The Yankees are still the most consistently succesful team, and a huge part of that is there financial advantage.

Not that I am necesarily knocking that too much. In most sports, to an extent, money= success.

[Gothamite]

When you look at wins, yes. But I suspect that I'm not alone in thinking that winning a World Championship trumps winning a lot of games alone. Heck, ask the Seattle Mariners if they'd trade that 116-win season for three more wins in the ALCS.

When looking at actual championships, baseball has achieved a great measure of parity. Even formerly awful teams (such as my Brewers) have an ability to compete.

[STL FANATIC]

Go tell the Blue Jays and Orioles and Rays that there's parity.

There's parity in who makes and wins the World Series because an individual baseball game is full of randomness and a set of 5 or 7 games has it's own inherent randomness.

There's not that level of parity in who makes it to the playoffs.

Yes, often enough the Cardinals can outsmart the Cubs despite a lesser budget. Yes, the Rockies and Padres have shown an ability to outsmart the Dodgers at times on a smaller budget.

But you're talking between $10 and about $30 million in differences in most of those cases.

The Yankees payroll versus the Blue Jays? OVER $100 MILLON MORE! Having the big spending Red Sox in the division is doubly negative to the Jays and co. in that it makes it look like there's some parity in the division because SOMETIMES the Red Sox overcome the Yankees, but all it really does is put 2 teams that outspend nearly everybody else in the way of those teams ever winning the division.

That's not real parity.

[STL FANATIC]

When you look at wins, yes. But I suspect that I'm not alone in thinking that winning a World Championship trumps winning a lot of games alone. Heck, ask the Seattle Mariners if they'd trade that 116-win season for three more wins in the ALCS.

When looking at actual championships, baseball has achieved a great measure of parity. Even formerly awful teams (such as my Brewers) have an ability to compete.

When looking at championships the Brewers have the ability to compete? What?

They've been the playoffs one times since 1982 and that was as the Wild Card. They haven't won a pennant since '82 and a World Series ever. 1981, 1982, and 2008 are the only seasons the Brewers have experienced the post-season. So how exactly are the Brewers an example of having an ability to compete when you look at actual championships?

The Brewers of late have been a good advocate for the Wild Card in that it keeps a lot of markets "in it" until the end. But the Brewers say little if anything positive about the salary system and in fact probably could serve as a negative of the system.

Again, the parity of championships relies strongly on the randomness of the post-season format. What payroll effects is who wins the regular season and thus who gets a ticket entered in the lottery that is the playoffs.

There is still some parity in 5 of the divisions. There's a dominant team in most cases, but they can be overcome. In the case of the NL East, however, there is very little parity and that's because the Yankees DRASTICALLY outspend their opponents. The Red Sox in turn severely outspend the other 3 teams in the division. So on the rare occasion that the Yankees money doesn't win out, the Red Sox money does. Tampa Bay's championship last season was nothing short of miraculous.

[Gothamite]

I never said "real parity." I said a measure of parity.

Besides, even real parity can't insulate teams such as the Blue Jays from their terrible choices. We see that now in the NFL. And as a St. Louis fanatic, you well know that.

[STL FANATIC]

Exactly. But money DOES insulate the Yankees from there's. And that's where things begin to get unfair...

[Saintsfan]

How many losing seasons have the Yankees EVER had?

[Jigga]

I don't know how many they've EVER had, but I know their last one was in 1992.

EDIT: Apparently, the Yankees have had 22 losing seasons in the history of the franchise (since they were founded in 1901 as the Baltimore Orioles). Twenty-two total.

Let's break that down a bit. In their first twelve seasons (1901-02 as the Baltimore Orioles; 1903-1912 as the New York Highlanders), exactly half were sub .500. In their first 6 as the Yankees (1913-1918), they stunk for another 5. Below .500 in 11 of their first 18 seasons. Meaning only 11 times in the last 91 seasons have they finished with a losing record. How freaking crazy is that?

I don't care how much money they've spent, that's amazing, impressive, and worth celebrating.

[IceCap]

Go tell the Blue Jays and Orioles and Rays that there's parity.

Thank you.

Both Fanatic and CC are right. It's getting pretty tiring having to not only go up against the Red Sox and their payroll, but the New York Yankees who essentially spend the Red Sox Payroll and much, much more. It's getting pretty tiresome having the highlight of season be a three way race to the #3 spot in the AL East.

I've been a Jays fan pretty much my whole life and even I'm at the point where I don't even consider a divisional crown a possibility anymore. I start off the season hoping that MAYBE either the Yanks or Sox will choke and the Jays can sneak into the wild card by getting the #2 spot in the division. Sorry, but when you consider that the best possible outcome for your team there is no parity at all.

The Yankees HAVE done a great job operating within the system, but when they're an entire other team ahead of the second biggest payroll it's a sign that there's a problem and the system needs to be fixed.

EDIT- Also, I'm with BBTV. The Yankees trying to paint themselves as underdogs borders on disgusting.