As a Yankee fan, it’s very clear to me that the Yankees are a polarizing force. You either love them or you hate them. And, frankly, neither perspective lends itself to really deeply analyzing anything. Yankee fans, for the most part, forgive any misdeeds by the team and players, and Yankee haters feel as if the team ritualistically slaughters puppies for sport.
It comes as no surprise, therefore, to hear Storey (a classically trained New York-aphobe) making the classical Yankee hater argument — namely, “The Yanks bought their team.”
Since I’m tired of the same old back and forth (which offers little to no real analysis of the mechanisms by which baseball works), I’d like to dig a little bit deeper here to make an actual debate out of something that usually ends up as an empty fan-fueled screaming match. Fair enough?
Ok, so, on its face, saying a team “bought their championship” really doesn’t mean anything at all — since every single team in the history of professional sports bought their team. That is what professional sports is, a forum in which athletes play their sport for money. So, unless someone wants to uncover some secret Socialist Professional ball team of the Civil War Era, we are discussing sports in the context of players who play for compensation.
And compensation has been an issue as long as ball has been played professionally. In 1930, Babe Ruth made $80,000 a year, which was more than President Herbert Hoover made ($75,000). When asked about this disparity, Ruth famously quipped “Why not? I had a better year than he did.”
So, since, on face, Storey’s argument that the Yankees bought their team is meaningless, we can assume the implications are one or more of the following:
1) The Yankees (and hence, the Steinbrenners) simply have far more money than anyone else.
2) The Yankees can have whatever players they want, with no limitations.
3) Baseball should be settled on the field and not in the boardroom/clubhouse/negotiating table.
4) The Yankees, like Goldman Sachs, drain baseball of revenue and competitiveness, and run their business irresponsibly.
Let’s take these one at a time:
1) The Yankees (and hence, the Steinbrenners) simply have far more money than anyone else.
As sports owning billionaire magnates go, the Steinbrenners are very run of the mill. As of last year, Forbes rated the Big Stein as the 377th richest American, with a net worth of approximately $1.3 billion.
Meanwhile, to take a random example, the Seattle Mariners’ majority owner is Hiroshi Yamauchi, otherwise known as the owner of Nintendo, whose worth is estimated at $7.8 billion.
So, theoretically, Yamauchi could assemble the largest most feared payroll in baseball history with his personal wealth. But, like most owners, he prefers to run his team as a legitimate business, relying on the team’s own revenue to generate payroll.
2) The Yankees can have whatever players they want, with no limitations.
This argument is just nowhere near the truth. Don’t you think the Yankees would have Albert Pujols at first base and Tim Lincecum on the mound if they could simply take any players they wanted?
Even when it comes to free agents, the Yankees have their limits. This is why they cut payroll 8 million dollars from 2008 to 2009, despite wanting to field a powerful team after building New Yankee Stadium. This shouldn’t seem possible given Storey’s tales of the Yankee spending spree in the offseason. What he neglected to mention was that the Yankees needed some huge contracts to come off of the books to be able to make the Sabathia, Burnett, and Texeira signings. The Yankees lost Mike Mussina to retirement, Jason Giambi, Carl Pavano, and Bobby Abreu to free agency, all having hefty contracts that completely offset the 2009 signings. While the Yanks were happy to see Pavano and Giambi go, they would have loved to retain 3rd hole hitter Bobby Abreu, but could not justify the cost in light of the other moves they wanted to make.
In 2008, the Yankees could have had free agent Torii Hunter (or Aaron Rowand) to play an otherwise vacant centerfield. They declined to make an offer and instead decided to use internally developed (and vastly inferior) Melky Cabrera.
In 2007, the Yankees could have tried to re-acquire free agent stud Alfonso Soriano to play centerfield, or second base, but instead went with players developed through their farm system. Slugger Carlos Lee was also a free agent slugger not in the Yankee plans. Also in 2007, the Yankees were famously outbid for Japanese Ace Daisuke Matsuzaka, when the Red Sox offered a package totaling nearly $100 million. Meanwhile, highly touted pitcher, Barry Zito, signed a $126 million contract with San Fransisco.
So, the assertion that the Yankees can have literally whomever they want is completely farcical.
3) Baseball should be settled on the field and not in the boardroom/clubhouse/negotiating table.
Has this statement ever been true? Hasn’t shrewd management and general management always been a key part of assembling a championship team?
Was it fair that the Red Sox traded Jeff Bagwell to the Astros for Larry Andersen in 1990? Was it fair that the Mariners gave up Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe for Heathcliff Slocumb in 1997? Or that the Giants traded Joe Nathan, Fransisco Liriano, and Boof Bosner, for the Twins’ AJ Pierzynski? These transactions hardly seem fair — ‘criminal’ would be a better word for them, yet, they are part of the game.
In Keith Olberman’s Baseball Nerd blog, he pointed to the Yankee scouting staff (headed by Gene Michael) compiling reams of data on Philly hitters to allow Yankee outfielders to be perfectly placed in nearly every situation, giving the Yankees a huge advantage in the series. Is this fair? Whether it is or not, inter-team scouting is universally recognized as part of the game. And the Yankees seem to have the best scouting in the business.
Moving right along…
4) The Yankees, like Goldman Sachs, drain baseball of revenue and competitiveness, and run their business irresponsibly.
People say a lot of bad things about Goldmann Sachs, but rarely do they mention Goldman Sachs program to donate 10% of their revenue to help build up local banks and investment firms around the country. People don’t mention it, because Goldman Sachs has no such program. But the Yankees do.
As part of MLB’s Revenue Sharing Agreement, large market teams pay a luxury tax when their payroll exceeds a certain amount that goes directly into a pool of money given to the organizations of smaller market teams. In 2009, the Yankees gave $29 million to this fund.
Yup, teams such as the Pirates, the Marlins, and the Royals get free money from MLB to bolster payrolls due to lackluster attendance, and dismal team revenues. And you know what? Often, these teams’ ownerships pocket the cash and do nothing to improve the quality of their ballclubs.
Case in point, the Florida Marlins.
A team that received about $25 million dollars a year over the past decade (via MLB Revenue Sharing) had a payroll of $14 million in 2006, and $21 million in 2008. In other words, the Marlins are spending NONE of their own money on payroll and still pocketing millions upon millions while intentionally fielding a subpar team to turn a profit. Talk about despicable ownership.
So, the harsh truth is that some teams have no interest in a level playing field. They reap what profit they can by selling players whose value increases, without any intention of reinvesting those profits in the team. Frankly, these teams who intentionally hamstring their talent do the real damage to the league, and the fan base.
On the other hand, the Yankees do everything possible to reinvest revenues into improving the ballclub. In doing so, they generate more attendance for Major League Baseball than any other team. They generate more merchandise sales for Major League Baseball. They generate higher television ratings for network broadcasts of baseball. And yes, they’re certainly helped by a baseball friendly city, a century-old tradition of winning baseball, and a top notch media market. But they’re undoubtedly good for baseball as a whole.
And frankly, they’re also helped by New York’s restaurants and nightclubs. Players want to live in New York, and they want to play there, independent of salary. A couple quotes:
“To be a Yankee is a thought in everyone’s head . . .Just walking into Yankee Stadium, chills run through you. I believe there was a higher offer, but no matter how much money is offered, if you want to be a Yankee, you don’t think about it.”
– Jim “Catfish” Hunter
“All ballplayers want to wind up their careers with the Cubs, Giants or Yankees. They just can’t help it.”
– Dizzy Dean
Is it fair that New York is a more desirable living place for free agents than Seattle? Is it fair that New York was a home to the greatest most legendary ballplayers to ever step on a field? Is it fair that the Yankees have existed for 75 years longer than the Seattle Mariners, and hence have a much more deeply-steeped baseball tradition, fanship, and player legacy?
This is the reason why, in the salary capped NBA, historically successful franchises like the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers are able to draw in massively unbalanced amounts of talent despite being limited in their spending. Players simply have preferred destinations. So, unless you want to appoint an MLB Czar to allocate talent evenly to each ballclub (and kill the concept of a General Manager), you’re going to deal with disparity, preference, and protestations of unfairness.
It doesn’t seem particularly fair, especially not for those who seek Harrison Bergeron levels of fairness where beautiful people wear masks and the strong must carry leaden weights. But it is reality. And in reality, factors exist which unbalance the playing field. Every single playing field in every conceivable competition of any kind is unbalanced by something. And you can either sit at home and whine about it, or you can try to improve your own lot.
The Angels, a historical joke of a franchise, came up with a new marketing plan, trying to capitalize on the LA fan base. It came up with a new marketing ploy in the Rally Monkey. And it went from an annual flop, to an annual contender (and 2002 champion).
Some teams look to recruit more international talent, some teams look to Moneyball, and some teams look to zany fan promotions — but everyone is looking for a way to generate more interest in their ballclub. The Yanks are simply the best at this game, and this game, is equally important to the game played between the lines.
