Glorious Article by Joe Posnanski on the Yankees advantage

[Saintsfan]

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.

So I'd be right in saying that they have had 11 losing seasons since Babe Ruth was signed? It is impressive, but its another sign of the huge advantage that they have.

On the travails of the Rays, Jays and Orioles, perhaps this is a reason for my idea of going back to two unified leagues, rather than divisions, and the top 8 moving into the playoffs. At least those clubs could compete for playoff places on a slightly more level playing field.

[The_Admiral]

If the Yankees and Red Sox weren't allowed to outspend the plucky li'l arm-of-one-of-its-country's-largest-media-conglomerates Toronto Blue Jays, they'd just allocate their resources to things other than major league payroll and still be the best organizations in baseball, you know. Then would it be okay as long as they're not conspicuously overpaying for free agents whose best years were often already spent under team control? People underestimate or forget the sheer breadth and depth of baseball sometimes.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm glad they'd still operate as one of the class franchises in baseball. But if you think they'd be able to allocate that money in a manner that would still give them the advantages they hold now, I think you're severely off-base.

You think a really great scouting base in the dominican is going to give them the same thing Mark Texiera, AJ Burnett, and CC Sabathia did? Over time it will be productive for them sure. And that's fine. You're not going to even out everything. But the advantage they have by throwing boatloads of money at the best current players is simply too large.

[The_Admiral]

You think a really great scouting base in the dominican is going to give them the same thing Mark Texiera, AJ Burnett, and CC Sabathia did?

It'll give them more. Free agents are vastly overpaid relative to their contributions.

I'm sick of this whole argument. It's just populist rabblerousing and nostalgia for an era of parity that never was. If you want to live in a world where the Cincinnati Reds t'ain't no better or worse than anybody else without devoting any thought to the big picture, go play a video game.

[andymorrison13]

I almost hate to post this for two reasons: 1)my tiny post count and 2)I'm a Yankees fan. I know that one or both of those things will cause some people to discredit what I say. I know that the Yankees are in a no win situation. Win and you are supposed to because you spend the most money. Lose and you are ridiculed because you spent all that money and lost. I do wish that it was as easy as many baseball fans think. Yes the Yankees spent a ton of money this year and despite that they had to make their playoff run with a 3 man staff. If it were simply a matter of spending money wouldn't you think they would have bought at least one more starter? Why did they keep Damon in left? His defense was a liability and the Yankees were forced to use a defensive replacement. Again why not just buy another leftfielder or centerfielder and move Cabrera to left? I'm not trying to paint them as underdogs just pointing out that The Phillies got a huge pitching upgrade during the season and the Dodgers picked up Thome to pinch hit some and DH should they make the World Series. He was strictly a PH/DH by his own admission to Joe Torre. Yea they picked up CC and Tex the two big money free agents but they needed a first baseman after Giambi left and they needed a true ace for their staff.

[STL FANATIC]

You think a really great scouting base in the dominican is going to give them the same thing Mark Texiera, AJ Burnett, and CC Sabathia did?

It'll give them more. Free agents are vastly overpaid relative to their contributions.

I'm sick of this whole argument. It's just populist rabblerousing and nostalgia for an era of parity that never was. If you want to live in a world where the Cincinnati Reds t'ain't no better or worse than anybody else without devoting any thought to the big picture, go play a video game.

What? I'm not longing for some long-ago era. I hate the "stuff was better back then" more than anybody. And the Yankees have certainly always bought the best talent.

But something being unfair for 100 years doesn't really justify continuing to keep it unfair.

And the suggestion that I'm ignoring some big picture is offensive and bologna. I know some of you guys enjoy determining the general feelings of a thread and being the dissenters, but you're really not loads smarter and more informed than everyone like you'd enjoy thinking.

[tBBP]

This has always been my viewpoint:

They Yankees really don't need a farm system. The other 28 teams in MLB, for all intents and purposes, are the Yankees' farm system.

That is all.

[Gothamite]

And that situation is actually more fair than it was for decades.

The Mets, Dodgers, Cubs, Angels and others all have virtually the same ability to sign these big-name, big-ticket free agents. Maybe not as many, but as we've all seen, enough of them to win it all.

Anybody could have signed A-Rod away from the Rangers. Tom Hicks was begging another team to take him. Begging. People forget that the deal which brought A-Rod to the Yankees only added $750,000 to the team's payroll. That's what I mean about being smart as well as rich.

[JQK]

Where was this article when the Yankees sucked in the 80's? Where was this article when the Yankees were bounced in the playoffs early or in last year's case, didn't even make the playoffs? It's ok for the Yankees to spend money and lose, because then they're a bust and a joke. Spend money and win? Well, now they're a travesty to the game of baseball. The Yankees take their money and spend it on the field. A majority of baseball owners take their money and put it in their pocket, then cry poor because of those big meanies from New York. Seriously, the only reason some owners bitch about the Yankees is because they make them look like bad owners. Well, they are bad owners. Don't demonize the Yankees because your baseball franchise is run by a cheapskate.

It's just a big ol' bucket of Yankee hate in this room, and the reasons behind it are flimsy at best.

[BBTV]

Why did they suck in the '80s and early '90s? At the time, I was too young to really understand the economics of the game (I really didn't realize how much players made until the Phillies lost out on the Bobby Bonilla sweepstakes in '92 because the Mets offered him $25M for 5 years), but did they have the highest payroll back then too? Or is this philosophy of "spend as much as we can, and if we mess up, spend some more" a relatively recent thing?

[Gothamite]

The Yankees have long been at the top of the payroll charts.

They spent more in the 1980s than any other club. A lot more. And what did it get them? Two trips to the ALCS (1980 and 1981), one pennant (1981) and a whole lotta nothin'. Three fifth place finishes, one fourth, two seconds and two thirds.

Here's an overview (Times):

Baseball Notebook; Yanks Champs! In 80's Payroll, That Is

By MURRAY CHASS

Published: Sunday, January 7, 1990

If there ever was any doubt that George Steinbrenner is the biggest spender in baseball, doubt it no longer. The Yankees' owner spent so much more money on players in the 1980's than anyone else that the Players Association should erect a monument to him at Yankee Stadium in the form of a giant, 24-carat gold dollar sign.

The Yankees' player payroll in the 1980's totaled $137,883,665, nearly $21.5 million more than the next highest payroll, belonging to the California Angels, and three times the lowest payroll, possession of the Seattle Mariners.

The difference between the payrolls of the Yankees and the Angels is the largest, by more than $5 million, of any difference among the 26 clubs from one level to the next. Furthermore, the average salaries of 13 teams - half of the teams in the major leagues - fall within the same dropoff from the Angels' average salary as exists between the average salaries of the Yankees and the Angels - $78,492.

For all of their heavy spending, the Yankees won only two division championships and one pennant in the 1980's, none since 1981, making them one of the least cost-efficient teams.

The most cost-efficient were the St. Louis Cardinals and the Los Angeles Dodgers. The Cardinals, with a payroll of $92,550,286, won three division titles, three pennants (most in the decade) and one World Series. The Dodgers had a payroll of $108,032,998 and won the most division titles, four, and the most World Series, two, in the 1980's. Oakland and Kansas City were not far behind those two teams in making their player expenditures worthwhile.

The compilation of the 1980's payrolls, however, also shows that it does pay to pay. The Cleveland Indians, the Texas Rangers and the Mariners were the last three teams in the payroll standing and they were three of the five teams that did not win division titles in the 10-year period. The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Cincinnati Reds were the other two failures and they joined the others in being five of the seven lowest-paying teams.

The moral of the economic story, then, would seem to be you have to pay to win, though you don't necessarily have to overpay like the Yankees.

The Yankees, whose payroll was 18.5 percent higher than the Angels' total, were one of eight teams with payrolls that exceeded the $100 million plateau. The other six were the Mets, the Dodgers, Boston, Houston, Philadelphia and Atlanta. At $46,189,730, the Mariners were the only team under $50 million. The average payroll was $90 million.

The average player salary for the period from 1980-89 was $332,090. Average salaries were also compiled because the teams, during the 10 years, had different total numbers of players, depending on how many players were on the disabled list Aug. 31 each season. That is the date used by the Players Association and the Player Relations Committee in determing average salaries each year.

The Yankees' average salary was $485,506, the Angels' $407,014. No one else reached $400,000.

Except for the first two years of the 1980's, the Yankees had payrolls of more than $12 million, reaching a high of $19.4 million in 1988. The Mets and the Dodgers each exceeded that total last year.

The Indians and the Mariners were the only teams whose payroll never reached $10 million in any of the seasons. Those teams also had the smallest increases from the first year of the period to the last, Seattle's payroll rising $5.6 million, Cleveland's $6 million.

The Mets had the largest increase, $17.7 million, followed by Oakland $15.9 million and Los Angeles $15.6 million.

Now, the gulf has widened considerably since 1990 (which is one of the reasons I personally want to overhaul the sport's economic structure). But just spending big money didn't buy them championships then, and it isn't buying them now.

[STL FANATIC]

You think a really great scouting base in the dominican is going to give them the same thing Mark Texiera, AJ Burnett, and CC Sabathia did?

It'll give them more. Free agents are vastly overpaid relative to their contributions.

I'm sick of this whole argument. It's just populist rabblerousing and nostalgia for an era of parity that never was. If you want to live in a world where the Cincinnati Reds t'ain't no better or worse than anybody else without devoting any thought to the big picture, go play a video game.

What? I'm not longing for some long-ago era. I hate the "stuff was better back then" more than anybody. And the Yankees have certainly always bought the best talent.

But something being unfair for 100 years doesn't really justify continuing to keep it unfair.

And the suggestion that I'm ignoring some big picture is offensive and bologna. I know some of you guys enjoy determining the general feelings of a thread and being the dissenters, but you're really not loads smarter and more informed than everyone like you'd enjoy thinking.

^^^^

Tired and grumpy last night.

Not that there's not truths in there.

[The_Admiral]

Where was this article when the Yankees sucked in the 80's? Where was this article when the Yankees were bounced in the playoffs early or in last year's case, didn't even make the playoffs? It's ok for the Yankees to spend money and lose, because then they're a bust and a joke. Spend money and win? Well, now they're a travesty to the game of baseball. The Yankees take their money and spend it on the field. A majority of baseball owners take their money and put it in their pocket, then cry poor because of those big meanies from New York. Seriously, the only reason some owners bitch about the Yankees is because they make them look like bad owners. Well, they are bad owners. Don't demonize the Yankees because your baseball franchise is run by a cheapskate.

It's just a big ol' bucket of Yankee hate in this room, and the reasons behind it are flimsy at best.

You know, it was okay when the Yankees spent $200 million a year and got bounced in the playoffs, but now that the Yankees spent $200 million and won the championship after being the best team in baseball, NOW I'VE HAD IT. THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR. I don't want to live in a world where a team that finished 8th out of 14 can't knock off a 108-win team in a five-game series. Baseball is unfair, unfair, unfair.

[STL FANATIC]

Where was this article when the Yankees sucked in the 80's? Where was this article when the Yankees were bounced in the playoffs early or in last year's case, didn't even make the playoffs? It's ok for the Yankees to spend money and lose, because then they're a bust and a joke. Spend money and win? Well, now they're a travesty to the game of baseball. The Yankees take their money and spend it on the field. A majority of baseball owners take their money and put it in their pocket, then cry poor because of those big meanies from New York. Seriously, the only reason some owners bitch about the Yankees is because they make them look like bad owners. Well, they are bad owners. Don't demonize the Yankees because your baseball franchise is run by a cheapskate.

It's just a big ol' bucket of Yankee hate in this room, and the reasons behind it are flimsy at best.

You know, it was okay when the Yankees spent $200 million a year and got bounced in the playoffs, but now that the Yankees spent $200 million and won the championship after being the best team in baseball, NOW I'VE HAD IT. THINGS HAVE GONE TOO FAR. I don't want to live in a world where a team that finished 8th out of 14 can't knock off a 108-win team in a five-game series. Baseball is unfair, unfair, unfair.

Hardly what has been said.

First off, a team that finished 6th (not quite 8th) CAN knock off a team like the Yankees in the playoffs... that's how the playoff system disguises the Yankees dominance and has for most of this decade (and yet, there's still no doubt that the Yankees get the crown as the team of the decade...).

Nobody said it was okay when the Yankees were getting bounced in the playoffs. You know Jays, Orioles, and Rays got minimum pleasure at best knowing that the team blocking them from just about ever seeing the post-season didn't have the most success when they got there. But when there's nothing you can do, and you see them spending so much money, all you can do is laugh at the Yankees for not getting a "return" on their investment.

In truth, though, outside of 2008, we all knew that deep down the Yankees money was doing exactly what it guaranteed to do: dominate the regular season. We'd say they choked and their money was wasted, and blah, blah, blah. But everyone. Eeevvverrryone knew the Yankees were really just victims of randomness.

People didn't feel like talking about the payroll because it was a tired issue. It's a tired issue still and people still don't really want to talk about it. But sometimes that extra straw comes down, and that was the Yankees cruising to the title this year.

Here's the two problems with the Yankees spending.

1. It gives the Jays, Rays, and Orioles an extremely low chance of a post-season birth.

2. It harms other teams chances of compiling good rosters by either directly purchasing those teams best players or driving up the price tags of comparable players.

So instead you have the Yankees purchasing the best and most talent. You have a handful of other teams picking at a few of the others. And then a few more teams spend too much a single player and don't have much room left to fill out the rest of their roster.

We're just sad because our penny-pinching owners won't spend, blah, blah, blah. Bull. Many of them exhaust their budget, they just don't have as large of one. Some certainly do penny pinch. But once again, let me propose this.

Every owner of every team spends all of their baseball revenue on their payroll. Will the Yankees still have hands down the highest payroll and the best chance of success?

Yes.

The system is broke.

I've got nothing in this. My Cardinals are the class of the NL Central, and perhaps the class of the NL on a pretty frequent basis. They're the NL team of the decade. They don't directly compete with the Yankees for the post-season and haven't competed in the post-season for years. The Yankees do drive up the prices of free agents for the Cardinals, but they haven't stolen a player or competed against the Cardinals in a bidding war any time recently.

I'm not bitter over anything.

It's about the good of the league, not just a bunch of bitter parties.

[The_Admiral]

Free agency really isn't that important to building a team. It's just the loudest part of the offseason.

[The_Admiral]

Oh and if you want to get mad at the Yankees what you should absolutely get mad at them for is how they razed a major park in the South Bronx for an unnecessary billion-dollar monument to socioeconomic apartheid that even has A FREAKIN' MOAT AROUND IT and not only robbed the neighborhood youth of its recreational space but also polluted the area with construction so badly that kids have to hole up in their apartments getting fat and asthmatic instead of playing because the Yankees are in no hurry to revert the old stadium to parkland and furthermore the stadium was built with tax dollars that should've gone to more worthy causes in the city of New York than a stadium that nobody can afford to go to anyway. When you take that into consideration, signing A.J. Burnett is relatively fair play.

[STL FANATIC]

I think that's pretty crummy, too admiral. It's not the issue at hand of course, but it's crummy. We talk about how great Steinbrenner is for putting his money into the club, but he drove his stadium through with public finances. (I see the Yankees listed at 1.1 billion in private financing as well, but it doesn't take that much to build a stadium, so I have no sympathy). The Cardinals (just as an example I know about) footed most of the bill for their stadium and that has certainly played a role in payroll cutbacks for a handful of years.

In any case, free agency is a HUGE part of building a club. Drafting is more important. Especially to the teams that aren't the Yankees. But free agency is key.

For instance, in two years if Albert Pujols comes up for free agency and the Yankees sign him away, they will have (1) added another big cog to their lineup, and (2) severely devastated the Cardinals chances of winning ball games. (Note: I don't see this happening.)

You don't think CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, and Mark Texiera played much of a role for the Yankees this year? Oh, and the ability to retain their drafted stars like Jeter and Rivera? And to hang on to big name guys like A-Rod?

Yeah, you're right. Having tons of money to sign players to contracts is relatively meaningless. Those players don't make an impact anyways.

[The_Admiral]

The point is that you're always overpaying for a player on the open market and so it's an inefficient allocation of resources. As for retaining drafted stars, those sorts of franchise players are generally locked up long-term at well under market value. Jeter is one case. Pujols is another; whatever he's making is a fraction of what he'd make on the open market. And everyone should see what a steal the Brewers got with Ryan Braun. What'd he get, eight years at 45? Real bargain for one of the best hitters in the game, brilliant signing. Meanwhile, whatever the Brewers are paying for big-time free agent Jeff Suppan is too damn much. The "teams hampered by totally retarded but rabblerousing free agency acquisitions" half of the offseason narrative doesn't get enough attention.

[STL FANATIC]

Those are essentially their arbitration years and sometimes a few more bought out. But Jeter? He's long past that initial long-term contract and now making $21 million next year. Most teams who have a guy that commands that much...especially when they have others in that vicinity have no choice but to let them go. The Yanks keep everyone one they want and add more.

[tBBP]

The rich just keep getting richer.

Sucks...doesn't it?