The Yankees, baseball and money [Archive]

cjclong

11-09-2009, 04:01 PM

I see post after post about the Yankees "buying" the World Series. In regards to this several things.
First, baseball doesn't set a salary cap. The Yankees are allowed to spend. So there is no cheating involved which is sometimes sort of implied.
Second, there is no question being able to spend is an advantage, but not an insurmountable one and not a guarantee of winning. The Yankees had not won a world series since 2000 and missed the playoffs last year. They paid out a lot of money for pitchers and other players who were busts. The Texas Rangers had a payroll similar to the Yankees a few years ago with ARod and Chan Ho Park and went nowhere. In the fact the Rangers where the first team to pay a player over $20 million a year.
Third, people imply the Yankee have always out spent other teams. In fact, most of the Yankee Championships came in the 1920's, 30's, 40's,50's until 1965. There were no free agents then and clubs signed players cheaply and tired to keep salaries down. Joe DiMaggio was offered a cut in salary after his 56 game hitting streak. The Yankees won because they scouted and signed players like DiMaggio, Berra, Mantle, Ford, etc. Other teams could have had these players but didn't. The first Yankee Championship in 96 did not come with high salaried players. And the "core 4" of this years team, Jeter, Rivera, Posoda, and Pettite were not expensive free agents but came from good scouting.
If Baseball wants a salary cap they can have one. Until then the Yankees are playing within the rules. I don't hear Dodger fans whining about how much Ramirez is paid or Boston fans gripping about their payroll. If either of those teams had won the World Series this year you would not have heard how they "bought" the series.
The Yankees were a successful team before expensive free agents and they would still be successful if there was a salary cap. Face it, while some players do not want to live in New York there are a lot more more that would go there rather than Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc.
Again, while there is some truth that money gives the Yankees an advantage the Yankee haters use it as an excuse to down grade the accomplishment of winning.

suave1477

11-09-2009, 04:05 PM

cjclong well said!!! :)

ironmanfan

11-09-2009, 04:12 PM

what gets me is that the Yankees payroll is $80 million dollars HIGHER than the next team in line (Red Sox I think).

BULBUS

11-09-2009, 04:17 PM

what gets me is that the Yankees payroll is $80 million dollars HIGHER than the next team in line (Red Sox I think).

Their payroll in 2009 was 50M more than the Mets, 65M more than the Cubs, 80M more than the Red Sox, and about 85M more than the Phillies, Tigers, and Angels.

Just proves that money doesn't always buy Championships.

ironmanfan

11-09-2009, 04:23 PM

You are right, it doesn't guarantee anything, but there is just something wrong the system that allows that to happen.........

kingjammy24

11-09-2009, 08:25 PM

i don't think there is anything 'unfair' about the yankees having the revenue that they have. ultimately it's come from the fans so the yankees have earned it. however, there are a few fallacies here.

"The Texas Rangers had a payroll similar to the Yankees a few years ago with ARod and Chan Ho Park.. "

during the years that arod and park played together, the closest the rangers ever came to the yankees payroll was 2003. yankees - $169mm, rangers - $103mm. a $66mm difference is hardly "similar".

"Third, people imply the Yankee have always out spent other teams. In fact, most of the Yankee Championships came in the 1920's, 30's, 40's,50's until 1965. There were no free agents then and clubs signed players cheaply and tired to keep salaries down"

in 1913, the highest paid player was the yankees' frank chance.
in 1927, the highest paid player was babe ruth.
in 1929, the yankees payroll was $365k and the highest in the majors. the closest team was the cubs at $310k.
in 1933, the yankees again had the highest payroll at $294. the closest team was again the cubs at $266k.
in 1939, the yankees again had the highest payroll at $361k. the closest team was the tigers at $297.
in 1943, the yankees again had the highest payroll at $301k. the closest team were the dodgers at $271k.
in 1949, the highest paid player was dimaggio at $100k.
in 1950, the yankees again had the highest payroll at $651k.
in 1951, the highest paid player is joe dimaggio at $90k.
in 1956, the highest payroll in the majors was the yankees again at $492k.
in 1961, mickey mantle became the highest paid player at $75k.

you think ruth, dimaggio and mantle came "cheaply"? maybe in their rookie year.

winning a WS with an all-star team and the highest payroll in baseball doesn't strike me as a testament to accomplishment. the fact that the yankees didn't do it since 2000 strikes me as an testament to mismanagement and failure. only cashman could blow over $200mm on 4 players (pavano, igawa, giambi, brown) and still have a job and enough money leftover to buy even more superstars. to win a WS other teams have to overachieve. the yankees simply have to not screw up; to get out of their own way.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/2856/steiner1.jpg

rudy.

sox83cubs84

11-09-2009, 09:04 PM

I admit, if you're a Royals fan or a Pirates booster, it must be frustrating seeing the Yankees spend more on one superstar contract than your team does on it's entire everyday lineup. To me, though, IMHO, a lot of the anti-spending fervor is based upon whether or not the complaining fan's team is a big spender or not. Face it...most fans decry the Yankees almost unlimited pockets, but, would they be so quick to criticize the spending if it was their team? Probably not. And, as some have pointed out, big spending helps, but isn't a guarantee...witness perennial contenders such as the Twins in the 2000s, the A's a few years ago, or the 2007 Rockies. They all had success (not a World Championship, but strong showings, nonetheless) on limited budgets. Whatever the case, if the rules that exist aren't being broken, it's annoying perhaps, but it's also something most fans would have no problem with if it was their team that had the money trees.

Dave M.
Chicago area

kingjammy24

11-09-2009, 10:05 PM

dave, i agree. i think the yankees have earned their revenue and i think they should be spending it on the best players available. that's what every team would and should do. i don't think there's anything 'wrong' with any of that. if i were the yankees i'd be pursuing the best players i could buy as well.

all of that said, i'm just personally not impressed when the yankees win because of the huge disparity in payrolls. everyone agrees that a large payroll isn't a guarantee of anything, which is true. the reason it isn't is because even with all the money in the world, you can still be stupid enough to blow it all, which is what the yankees did for most the last 8 yrs. other teams didn't beat the yankees. the yankees beat themselves. cashman had a bottomless wallet at his disposal and still couldn't deliver. i'd like to see how many WS appearances a real GM like sandy alderson or pat gillick would've managed with those yankee payrolls. cashman's savvy M.O. seems to be entirely relegated to picking up the biggest superstars and then praying it all works out. where are the smart trades? the sleepers who surprised everyone? the sharp eye for underrated players and rookies? cashman just waits to see who the biggest free agent is and snaps him up. i have a lot of respect for the A's who've done a hell of a job for decades with small-market budgets. they've been forced to rely on skill because they didn't have much money. cashman doesn't need skill. he just asks george to open up the wallet every time a $20mm/yr player comes on the market.

rudy.

5kRunner

11-09-2009, 10:31 PM

Funny thing about that Simpsons pic. Only Ozzie, Griffey, and Scioscia(?) are the only Non-Yankees. The others all played for the Yankees at one time. LOL.

gingi79

11-09-2009, 10:44 PM

I think people feel the Yankees won the World Series because unlike other teams, they don't have to make it work with their own home grown players. The Braves won all their East titles with the Minor League System and continue to do so. However, no team can be competitive that way now and I think people blame the Yankees (unfairly) for it.

When the Yanks have the need to, they have the opportunity to upgrade a position. Lets take 1st base for example, they had Mattingly for 11 years and when he retired in 1995, they went out and paid money for the best free agent. Tino Martinez was picked up from the Mariners after he killed the Yanks in the early 90's. Ditto Giambi. Teixeira was the best Free Agent 1st baseman, is young a extremely talented and now they don't need to look for a 1st baseman for like the next 7 years. Everyone needs pitching and the best Free agent pitchers just seem to pick the Yanks the Sox or the money (Mets for example).

However, they may get panged for buying players but they should then get credit for the other side as well. Getting Paul O'Neil was just great scouting. Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Robby Cano, Andy Petite, Jorge Posada were all groomed through the Yanks Minors. It just seems that the majority of Yankees players proved themselves elsewhere and came to NY for the Money. And lets not forget Goose and Reggie were the innovators of that in the 70's. They ran to the biggest paycheck rather than staying with their homegrown teams like players had done for the 80 years before.

My last comment is on the Dynasty years of the Yanks, i.e. the 20's to the 70's. The Yankees were a vicious circle ever since Murders Row. The best players wanted to play for the best team which made them the best team because the best players chose to play for them. It wasn't about money, it was about wanting to play for the Yankees because it seemed that all the best players played for them. There was no draft, no free agency. If you were really talented, you could just sign with whoever you want. Why play in Kansas City for the struggling A's and a bunch of nobody's when you could bat after Mantle, Maris, DiMaggio, RUTH, Gehrig etc? Essentially, the Draft, Free Agency, ideas for revenue sharing and evening out the talent pool just seems to be all due to the actions of the New York Yankees.

However, I'm just a bitter Braves fan who feels cheated by the Yankees and Mets (specifically the 2000 season) so while my opinions are valid I'd admit I realize I am somewhat biased. :p

joelsabi

11-09-2009, 10:58 PM

My last comment is on the Dynasty years of the Yanks, i.e. the 20's to the 70's. The Yankees were a vicious circle ever since Murders Row. The best players wanted to play for the best team which made them the best team because the best players chose to play for them. It wasn't about money, it was about wanting to play for the Yankees because it seemed that all the best players played for them. There was no draft, no free agency. If you were really talented, you could just sign with whoever you want. Why play in Kansas City for the struggling A's and a bunch of nobody's when you could bat after Mantle, Maris, DiMaggio, RUTH, Gehrig etc? Essentially, the Draft, Free Agency, ideas for revenue sharing and evening out the talent pool just seems to be all due to the actions of the New York Yankees.

However, I'm just a bitter Braves fan who feels cheated by the Yankees and Mets (specifically the 2000 season) so while my opinions are valid I'd admit I realize I am somewhat biased. :p

Great Post. If I didnt know any better I would think you were a Yankee fan.

bigtime59

11-09-2009, 11:05 PM

It's ALWAYS been about money with the Yankee$, going back to the days of Rupert and Huston. They've always had more than anyone else and they've been quite ruthless about using it to their advantage.
The advantages of that imbalance were a lot less obvious when signing a major league contract wasn't a whole lot different than being taken prisoner. And the failings and flailings of the CBS-era and early George $teingrabber "you too can be a MLB general manager...just watch me" period showed that even if the stupid kid does have more money than some countries he won't jeapordize the others too much. But the simple fact of the matter is the Yankee$ have missed the playoffs one time since 1995 and the revenue discrepancies between them and the rest of the league just continue to grow and grow and grow and grow...
If MLB wants to be truly competitive--rather than sham competitive--it is going to have to abandon its fine-for-1869 system of (not) sharing local revenues...or it's going to have to get rid of the unbalanced schedule, divisions and interleague play...hell, maybe it needs to do all those things to truly level the playing field. Until then--as long as the Yankee$ can pay their infield more than half the other teams in the league pay their entire active rosters--the game isn't fair and the field isn't level; especially if you're a fan of the Orioles, Jays or Rays.
(Here comes the oooh, yeah! The Rays won the East in 2008! MLB has parity! contingent...where did the Rays finish in 2009? Exactly where I predicted: third, behind the Yankee$ and Red $ox. Shocking...utterly shocking.)

yanks12025

11-09-2009, 11:13 PM

suave1477

11-09-2009, 11:29 PM

Why don't you cry us a river like you do all the time. Like i have said many times if your team spent the same type of money you would love it.

Agreed.

As I have said time and time again to you bigtime don not be mad at the Yankees for spending the money be mad at your team for not.

mariner_gamers

11-09-2009, 11:31 PM

In my opinion the strongest marketing tool MLB has are the New York Yankees. People love a winner, people hate a winner. The Yankees play the heavy and they do it better than any team in US professional sports.

MLB fans are more inclined to follow individual players rather than a team. The NFL has no guaranteed money, short careers and was made for TV. This is condusive to folks following a team rather than a player and why my strictly football friends can not stand baseball. MLB is smart because they know they cannot compare to the NFL on TV. What they can do is play up the individual and play up the heavy. Sure follow your favorite player until his team is eliminated and then what?? Well if the Yankees are playing you watch and root against them.

The most popular team in baseball are people who hate the Yankees. If the Yanks won it every year fans would leave baseball in droves but they don't. They win just enough to piss people off and keep the hope alive that next year they will get creamed. Being a Yankees fan I can tell you the amount of email I get when the Yanks lose in the playoffs is a testament to their ability to draw and drive MLB.

Without big hits and big t!ts from 23 different angles after each down baseball has gone back to Vaudeville in order to keep folks coming back. Build a heavy, build some hero's and let the audience have fun.

kingjammy24

11-09-2009, 11:35 PM

..if your team spent the same type of money you would love it.

i think everyone would agree. however, i think what most are commenting on is how the yankees win. people have more respect for skill than for someone whose sole talent is signing the biggest paychecks. when the yankees win a WS its simply because they bought the most expensive players. when other teams win a WS its through real skill in GM'ing, coaching, etc. here's some data i've compiled. below are some years the yankees won a WS (any missing years are due to me being unable to find the payroll data). beside each yankees WS year is their payroll rank:

2009 - highest payroll
2000 - highest payroll
1999 - highest payroll
1998 - 2nd highest payroll
1996 - highest payroll
1978 - highest payroll
1977 - 2nd highest payroll
1956 - highest payroll
1953 - 2nd highest payroll
1950 - highest payroll
1943 - highest payroll
1939 - highest payroll

during the "lost decade" when the billionaire boys club couldn't get their act together, here's how other WS teams did it:

2001 Diamondbacks - 8th highest payroll
2002 Angels - 15th highest payroll
2003 Marlins - 26th highest payroll
2005 White Sox - 13th highest payroll
2006 Cardinals - 11th highest payroll
2008 Phillies - 12th highest payroll

steinbrenner and cashman don't think their way to a WS. they just spend their way there. a shaved ape could do it as long as his wallet was big enough. cashman's spent his entire career with the yankees. send him to the A's or the indians and he'd be in last place every year. so while there's nothing 'wrong' with how the yankees win, there certainly isn't a whole lot to admire about it either.

rudy.

joelsabi

11-10-2009, 12:20 AM

cashman's spent his entire career with the yankees. send him to the A's or the indians and he'd be in last place every year.
rudy.

If only the Yankees had Bill Smith as GM, all the extra championships would have hastened change in the revenue rules by now.

yanks12025

11-10-2009, 01:06 AM

i think everyone would agree. however, i think what most are commenting on is how the yankees win. people have more respect for skill than for someone whose sole talent is signing the biggest paychecks. when the yankees win a WS its simply because they bought the most expensive players. when other teams win a WS its through real skill in GM'ing, coaching, etc. here's some data i've compiled. below are some years the yankees won a WS (any missing years are due to me being unable to find the payroll data). beside each yankees WS year is their payroll rank:

2009 - highest payroll
2000 - highest payroll
1999 - highest payroll
1998 - 2nd highest payroll
1996 - highest payroll
1978 - highest payroll
1977 - 2nd highest payroll
1956 - highest payroll
1953 - 2nd highest payroll
1950 - highest payroll
1943 - highest payroll
1939 - highest payroll

during the "lost decade" when the billionaire boys club couldn't get their act together, here's how other WS teams did it:

2001 Diamondbacks - 8th highest payroll
2002 Angels - 15th highest payroll
2003 Marlins - 26th highest payroll
2005 White Sox - 13th highest payroll
2006 Cardinals - 11th highest payroll
2008 Phillies - 12th highest payroll

steinbrenner and cashman don't think their way to a WS. they just spend their way there. a shaved ape could do it as long as his wallet was big enough. cashman's spent his entire career with the yankees. send him to the A's or the indians and he'd be in last place every year. so while there's nothing 'wrong' with how the yankees win, there certainly isn't a whole lot to admire about it either.

rudy.

So even though Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle were all home grownen players it dont matter becuse they were maing the big bucks. Well they were the top players of the game at the time. The yankees like to give their players large contracts(Jeter,Mo, Jorge).

xpress34

11-10-2009, 01:18 AM

On the OTHER side of the coin - yes, I do bitch because the Rockies are CHEAP and won't spend the money it takes sometimes to get deals done - but, in their defense, they have made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years including a WS berth... that said, my understanding of the 'luxury tax' revenue was to be used to BETTER the team - not update or expand the facilities, etc... well, I'm sure the Rox collect a healthy check for their cut from the Yankees luxury tax dollars, but their payroll hasn't changed in like 5 years - around $54m pretty consistently. So I don't know what they are doing with the money, but it ISN'T going into the team...

Now, as far as the 'Money Buying Championships', obviously the 2001-2008 Yanks proved that to be a falsehood - BUT, money can and does help control who has the advantage of talent. Example - in 2000, the Yankees BOUGHT Jose Canseco's contract for more than it was worth, JUST so that the Red Sox couldn't have his bat to help them compete. In his book, Canseco openly talks about Torre telling him upon his arrival in NY, not to expect any playing time. He was brought in simply to block the Sox from aquirring him. And the Yanks won the WS that year.

On the negative side of just buying players, the yankees have had their share of bruised egos too. Big money means big egos and Prima Donnas. That is why many small and mid market teams have had success - chemistry between the players - and why the Yanks of the 50's and 60's had success- team chemistry.

You have to invest in a player's make up and how he will fit in your clubhouse just as much as you invest into his wallet.

Just my .02

- Chris

bigtime59

11-10-2009, 08:16 AM

Why don't you cry us a river like you do all the time. Like i have said many times if your team spent the same type of money you would love it.

My team doesn't spend the same type of money because MY TEAM DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME KIND OF MONEY TO SPEND!
This is why it's about REVENUES not SALARIES and why MLB needs to share all revenues equally among all teams!

bigtime59

11-10-2009, 08:17 AM

Agreed.

As I have said time and time again to you bigtime don not be mad at the Yankees for spending the money be mad at your team for not.

You cannot spend that which you do not have!
Revenue sharing is the answer!

allstarsplus

11-10-2009, 08:42 AM

winning a WS with an all-star team and the highest payroll in baseball doesn't strike me as a testament to accomplishment. the fact that the yankees didn't do it since 2000 strikes me as an testament to mismanagement and failure. only cashman could blow over $200mm on 4 players (pavano, igawa, giambi, brown) and still have a job and enough money leftover to buy even more superstars. to win a WS other teams have to overachieve. the yankees simply have to not screw up; to get out of their own way.

rudy.

I have to agree with that and Cashman is one lucky man. Also, I don't even think at times they negotiate contracts well which is the job of the GM. Nick Swisher went well above in salary where anyone had predicted and CC Sabathia and AJ Burnett went at the top of projections.

The small market teams have to be more creative and adept at squeezing buffalos off of old nickels.

So do the Yankees go after Matt Holliday and John Lackey now as they are going to possibly drop Damon and Matsui and need a 5th starter?

BULBUS

11-10-2009, 09:10 AM

A reason for the Yankees enormous payroll is, when you have young guys that become stars (Jeter, Rivera, Posada), its going to take a lot of money to keep them. The Yankees have the money and they keep and reward their players.

Rudy mentions the payrolls of the last few WS winners. Look at the Phillies, they went from the 12th highest payroll in 2008 before the won, to like the 4th or 5th highest. They had to pay up to retain and reward players. If they are to continue competing with their current team, their payroll will skyrocket.

joelsabi

11-10-2009, 09:22 AM

On the OTHER side of the coin - yes, I do bitch because the Rockies are CHEAP and won't spend the money it takes sometimes to get deals done - but, in their defense, they have made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years including a WS berth... that said, my understanding of the 'luxury tax' revenue was to be used to BETTER the team - not update or expand the facilities, etc... well, I'm sure the Rox collect a healthy check for their cut from the Yankees luxury tax dollars, but their payroll hasn't changed in like 5 years - around $54m pretty consistently. So I don't know what they are doing with the money, but it ISN'T going into the team...

Chris,

As you alluded to, one of the problems with the current system is that those teams that receives money do not put the money back into player salaries. I wish the system can be modified, whether it is installing a salary cap or not giving money to owners that do not use the money towards salaries.

I would think there is an association of fan loyalty, even player loyalty, with the willingness to spend money on player salary. Some teams are not willing to increase team payroll and the disparity of salary is greatest it has ever been. A long time ago, Bob Costa wrote a contoversial book about have both a minimal team payroll and team salary cap. Maybe the time has come to have a commissioner that is willing to look into it or something moving in that direction. Granted the player association have always been against salary cap so it will be a tough battle but Selig is not the man for the job. We have seen how he dealt with steroids.

What I do not want to see is another Steroid like controvery that affects the integrity of the game. bud Selig states that baseball has been seen its greatest popularity while he has been commissioner but at what long term expense. The crapping on history hallowed baseball records and the alienation of baseball fans in non large populated markets?

mbenga28

11-10-2009, 09:49 AM

it's rather outrageous when players charge $500 for an 8x10 signed photograph.

cjclong

11-10-2009, 10:41 AM

A couple of points
While the Yankees may have had the highest paid players and payroll from the 20's to the 60's everyone of the players was acquired through scouting or trades. The Yankees could not buy talent. They had to find it or trade for it. Any team could have signed DiMaggio, Berra, Mantel, etc. And players were bound to the team they signed with for life, the only way they could leave was through a trade. The Yankees once discussed a trade of Ted Williams for Joe DiMaggio with Boston. Of course the trade was not made, but the only way the Yankees could have gotten a Williams back then was through a trade. The Yankees paid their players like Ruth, DiMaggio and Mantle based on performance. So their payroll had next to nothing to do with their success. It did not help them acquire any players.
The Yankees will tell you that the major reason for their success from 95 on is Mariano Rivera. The three times he blew saves in the playoffs in 97 and 04 and the World Series in 01 they did not go to the World Series or lost it. Most of the time he was flawless and the Yankees won because of it. The playoffs and World Series this year is an excellent example as he was the only closer who did not blow a save or lose a game. And the Yankees won the series. Any team in baseball could have had Rivera. The Yankees considered trading him prior to 95. They were fortunate the did not trade him. The Braves, for instance would probably have won more playoffs and World Series if they had Rivera. The Yankees found him and signed him and had had nothing to do with payroll and is a major part of their success. Switch Rivera from the Yankees to the Angels and the Angels are probably in the World Series.

staindsox

11-10-2009, 12:31 PM

Everyone of the players was acquired through scouting or trades.

Not at all true.

1) You could purchase contracts from minor league teams when teams were not affiliated with a specific Major League teams. John McGraw was pissed Jack Dunn didn't let him get an offer in on Babe Ruth. When Dunn later shopped a pitcher to him, McGraw was still pissed off at Dunn and wouldn't deal with him. He ended up missing out on Lefty Grove, who ended up going to the A's. Just another tidbit, Dunn held Grove in Baltimore for 5 years because he had such a high price tag on him...and Dunn was right.

2) These deals weren't just player for player swaps. Teams sold players to other teams (like Babe Ruth). For example, the Browns always began each season in debt and they had to pay it off to start the season. They had to sell a player or two just to get even.

kingjammy24

11-10-2009, 02:24 PM

initially, this thread was about "downgrading" yankee WS victories; not according them the same respect as other WS teams that spent 1/4 as much. why would they get the same respect? does it make any sense that they should? common sense says that the yankees winning a WS is simply not the same as a team with half or 1/3 the payroll winning it. the latter is going to command a lot more respect for their win, as they've done a lot more with a lot less. they've had to rely on skill and operating within a budget whereas the yankees did not. there's no way around that. arod, jeter, rivera, teixeira, sabathia, burnett, posada, etc. it doesn't take much skill to assemble an all-star team. fans do it every year. it just takes a lot of money.

cashman has the luxury of signing huge bust after bust after bust and still having enough to keep on signing more superstars. if any other GM signed as many big busts as cashman has, they'd have lost their job and crippled their team for years. javier vazquez, carl pavano, jose contreras, jason giambi, kei igawa, jaret wright, kevin brown, hideki irabu, jeff weaver, etc. this isn't skill. the guy has flushed an entire team payroll down the toilet. its just spending until you eventually win. in cashman's case, it took 8 yrs.

"Look at the Phillies, they went from the 12th highest payroll in 2008 before the won, to like the 4th or 5th highest. They had to pay up to retain and reward players. If they are to continue competing with their current team, their payroll will skyrocket."

in 2008, the year they won they had the 12th highest payroll. in 2009, they went to 7th highest. in 2009, the difference between the yankees and phillies payrolls was $111 million. if $111 million doesn't put you over your competition then you're doing something seriously wrong. but you're right that when a team assembles a world series roster, payrolls increase and thats why most WS rosters don't stay intact for very long. the team wins and within a couple of years they're in a re-building phase again. unlike the yankees who can afford to retain a WS roster every single year.

"While the Yankees may have had the highest paid players and payroll from the 20's to the 60's everyone of the players was acquired through scouting or trades. The Yankees could not buy talent. They had to find it or trade for it."

and when the yankees found or traded for players, did they not also have to be able to afford them? even if free agency did not exist, the idea of buying talent certainly did. how exactly are you going to trade for a player you can't afford to sign? case in point: in 1919, babe ruth demanded a huge raise and said if he didn't get it, he wouldn't play. (dimaggio also was a constant holdout for more money that few other teams could've given him). the owner finally traded him. you think all of the clubs had a fair shot at getting ruth? the whitesox offered shoeless joe and $60k. the yankees offered $125k all cash. you know what frazee, the owner of the red sox, said at the time? "No other club could afford to give me the amount the Yankees have paid for him". so you're saying the yankees never bought ruth? they just "traded for him"? yeah..traded an amount of money no other team had.

"Any team could have signed DiMaggio, Berra, Mantel, etc....the only way the Yankees could have gotten a Williams back then was through a trade..The Yankees paid their players like Ruth, DiMaggio and Mantle based on performance. So their payroll had next to nothing to do with their success. It did not help them acquire any players."

there's a fundamental lack of understanding here. any team could've signed dimaggio, berra, mantle initially but not every team could've afforded to keep them all. the yankees could've gotten williams via a trade because they were one of the few clubs who could've afforded to sign williams without destroying their entire club. the fact that they paid based on performance has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that they had the money to do this and other teams did not. what if the st.louis browns had initially signed ruth and dimaggio? ruth and dimaggio would take off and the browns wouldn't be able to afford to keep them so they'd be traded anyway. the yankees could afford to keep ruth and mantle and dimaggio forever no matter how good they got. payroll didn't help them acquire any players? the $125k all cash offer that the redsox said no other team could match didn't help them get babe ruth? you cannot trade for a player you can't afford. beyond that, you cannot retain a player you can't afford.

and no, not every team could afford to sign rivera, the highest paid closer in baseball history, without destroying their team. you've really completely missed the idea of how money figures into trades and player retention. one closer does not a WS team make. it takes 9 men. rivera wouldn't even enter the game unless his team is winning in the first place. what good would it do the pirates or royals to sign rivera and not have any money left over for a pitching staff or some decent bats? only the yankees could afford to sign rivera AND have enough left over for arod, jeter, texeira, sabathia, etc.

rudy.

cjclong

11-10-2009, 02:25 PM

Maybe a few went for cash, but its so few its not worth mentioning. The vast majority of the players came through scouting and signing or straight player for player trades.

allstarsplus

11-10-2009, 02:28 PM

Apparently, this discussion was also part of yesterday's ESPN2 and ESPN radio's Mike & Mike In The Morning show when they had Bob Dupuy from MLB on the show.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091109&content_id=7640984&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

BULBUS

11-10-2009, 02:42 PM

in 2008, the year they won they had the 12th highest payroll. in 2009, they went to 7th highest. in 2009, the difference between the yankees and phillies payrolls was $111 million. if $111 million doesn't put you over your competition then you're doing something seriously wrong. but you're right that when a team assembles a world series roster, payrolls increase and thats why most WS rosters don't stay intact for very long. the team wins and within a couple of years they're in a re-building phase again. unlike the yankees who can afford to retain a WS roster every single year.

I went back and looked, the Philles were 7th, but they were only about 2m away from being 5th. And the difference between payrolls was only 88M :D :eek:

cjclong

11-10-2009, 02:47 PM

Kingammy, you vastly overestimate a players ability to force a club to pay the salary they wanted. If a player didn't sign and held out he had nowhere to go. The owners knew that a player was not going to sit out all year with no salary. The owners had the upper hand and kept the salaries low. Roger Kahn writes about Mickey Mantle being named the MVP in the World Series in the early 1950's and then going home to Commerce Oklahoma and working in the mines to agument his salary. Not the princely money you imply the Yankees were tossing around. Name ONE player on ANY team that held out and did not play during the year because of a salary dispute in the 20's , 30's 40's or 50's. If you find one there won't be many.The owners knew they would not make good their threats. If the Red Sox traded a player who threatened to hold out it wasn't becase they couldn't pay, it was because they didn't want to. The biggest hold out threat I ever heard was when when Koufax and Drysdade threatened to hold out in the early 60's and they wound up settling with the Dodgers, not the Yankees. No one accused the Yankees back before the 1970's of buying a championship because they didn't. All the owners kept the payrolls as low as they could which is why Cut Flood brought and won his suit. When the Yankees were beating the Dodgers and Giants in the 50's it wasn't because they couldn't match the Yankees payroll. They would have been about the same.

kingjammy24

11-10-2009, 02:58 PM

And the difference between payrolls was only 88M :D :eek:

you are correct. i blame the circuitry in my calculator :p

"only" $88mm. about the amount to pay for 4 "game-changers" like rivera or sabathia. when the jays won the WS in 1992 their payroll was $49mm. the next team was oakland at $48mm. $1mm wouldn't have even bought 1 game-changer at the time. those types of players were making $3mm at the time.

anyway, this thread seems to be going in 2 different directions; the yankees of old and the yankees since free agency. i think those are 2 different discussions. i just wanted to clear up any notions that the yankees of old made it via "cheap players" and that their coincidentally league-leading payroll had nothing to do with their success. after all, if their league-leading payroll had nothing to do with their success, why on earth were they paying it? if they could've acheived the same success with far less money spent, then why didn't they? it's illogical.

rudy.

staindsox

11-10-2009, 03:12 PM

Maybe a few went for cash, but its so few its not worth mentioning. The vast majority of the players came through scouting and signing or straight player for player trades.

That is absolutely false. I'm not sure you understand how minor league baseball operated back then. Teams did not not have minor league affiliates. They PURCHASED, WITH CASH, players to add to their major league roster. The Baltimore Orioles sold Babe Ruth to the Red Sox for cash and they sold Lefty Grove to the A's for cash. Most players going into the big leagues were purchased from minor league teams. Top prospects were always expensive. If Dunn wanted $100,000 for a team to purchase rights to Grove, only teams with a healthy pocket book could play that game. The farm system was even toyed with until well into the 1930s.

staindsox

11-10-2009, 03:29 PM

Name ONE player on ANY team that held out and did not play during the year because of a salary dispute in the 20's , 30's 40's or 50's. payroll.

Hall of Famer Edd Roush...he only played for about the last 40 games of the season because of a contract dispute with the Reds (1922) and then held out all of 1930.

suave1477

11-10-2009, 03:43 PM

You cannot spend that which you do not have!
Revenue sharing is the answer!

Your teams do have the money they just don't put it back into the team. Steinebrenner to get the ball rolling dipped into his own pockets and investors pockets to get start getting ahold of the big name stars. It's not like we had the most attendance and the money was there.

Here is a huge example
Stadiums with the most attendance from 1980 to 89

1980 Dodger Stadium 1981 Dodger Stadium 1982 Dodger Stadium 1983 1984 Dodger Stadium 1985 Dodger Stadium 1986 Dodger Stadium 1987 Dodger Std. 1988 Busch Stadium 1989 Shea Stadium 1989 Busch Stadium

So technically who was making the most money during the 80's???

kingjammy24

11-10-2009, 03:45 PM

"Roger Kahn writes about Mickey Mantle being named the MVP in the World Series in the early 1950's and then going home to Commerce Oklahoma and working in the mines to agument his salary. Not the princely money you imply the Yankees were tossing around.

i don't mean any offense but i'm starting to wonder if you're just making things up as you go along. mantle an "MVP in the World Series in the early 1950's"? not only did the "WS MVP" not even exist in the early 50s (it first began in 1955) but mantle never even won one in his entire career. mantle won his first regular-season mvps in 1956 and 1957. you know what he was making in 1957? $60,000. you know what the average salary in 1957 was? $5500. when you're making over 10 times the average salary, you're making a "princely sum". so ..no, there was never a time when mantle "won an MVP award and then went to work in the mines". if he did, surely it wasn't because he needed the money. from what i recall the last time mantle worked in the mines was shortly following his 1951 rookie season when he made $5k. by 1953 it more than tripled to over $17k. by only his 3rd season in the majors he was already making 3x the average salary in the country. by 1961, he was the highest paid player in baseball.

look, without getting into the intricacies of the 30s-50s yankees, i think most of the current criticism towards the yankees is clearly directed to their post 70s teams. "the steinbrenner" years. the only reason i brought the pre-70s teams up was simply to clear up your original statement that the implication that the yankees have long outspent other teams is wrong. it's not wrong. they have long outspent them. as well as your statement that they signed players cheaply. they did not. babe ruth was not cheap, dimaggio was not cheap, mantle was not cheap. at one point, all 3 were the highest paid player in the game.

without turning this into a dissertation on yankees history, simply ask yourself this: if payroll had nothing to do with their success, then why did the yankees have the highest payroll? just for the fun of paying the most?
that would make them pretty stupid wouldn't it? pay a ton of money when apparently it has no effect on success?

rudy.

kingjammy24

11-10-2009, 04:25 PM

cjclong

11-10-2009, 05:42 PM

Rudy, I don't "make things up" (another word for that would be lie) but I probably did use the wrong term. Roger Kahn, who covered the New York teams for a newspaper for years wrote that early in Mantle's career after being a star in the World Series he went back to commerce and worked in the mines. You are probably right that he didn't use the term MVP and said star instead. The point is that very few players , even very good ones were making big salaries.
You also make it appear that only the Yankees could afford the top players. In the 50's Boston had Ted Williams, St Louis had Stan Musial, the Braves had Hank Aaron. the Giants had Willie Mays and even the Cubs had Ernie Banks. All of these players are HOF players in much the same league as Mantle and teams had no trouble keeping them as all but Mays, who played briefly at the end of his career for the Mets, played with the same team all their career. The Yankees were on virtually a level playing field with these teams and still dominated.
As far as Rivera, the Yankees developed him and then kept him. As far as every team in the playoffs this year, if they could have affirded to pay their closer the same as Rivera if they had wanted to. In Rivera's case the other teams had the money, the Yankees had the talent. And again, the Yankees didn't buy him as a free agent. If you are saying that Pittsburg or some other teams couldn't afford him, I agree. But if that is the test them every team that has won the World Series recently should be accused of "buying a championship" as Pittsburg probably couldn't have afforded their star players either.
Down the stretch Boston added Victor Martinez and Billy Wagner. The Angels added Kazmir. The Yankees , who had some weak areas, added no one. If Boston or the Angels had won people would not have said they "bought a championship." If you wouldn't say it about those teams you should not say it about the Yankees either.

kingjammy24

11-10-2009, 07:48 PM

"You also make it appear that only the Yankees could afford the top players. In the 50's Boston had Ted Williams, St Louis had Stan Musial, the Braves had Hank Aaron. the Giants had Willie Mays and even the Cubs had Ernie Banks. All of these players are HOF players in much the same league as Mantle and teams had no trouble keeping them"

having 1 HOFer is not nearly the same as having 6+ as the '56 yankees did. the 1933 yankees had 10 HOFers. TEN. the 1928, 1931-32 yankees had 9 HOFers. my point was that noone can afford as many star players as the yankees.

"If Boston or the Angels had won people would not have said they "bought a championship."

because boston or the angels didn't spend nearly as much.

NYY - $201mm
Red Sox - $122mm
Angels - $113mm

again, nothing wrong with what the yankees do but the flip side is that their championships don't garner as much respect as those won by chicago, arizona, anaheim, florida, etc. and they never will. winning simply by spending more usually doesn't impress people.

rudy.

allstarsplus

11-10-2009, 08:05 PM

again, nothing wrong with what the yankees do but the flip side is that their championships don't garner as much respect as those won by chicago, arizona, anaheim, florida, etc. and they never will. winning simply by spending more usually doesn't impress people.

rudy.

Rudy, I would add 2 words to this statement.

Winning simply by spending SO MUCH more usually doesn't impress people.

In football, there is a salary cap and I don't mind if the team at the top of the salaries wins as they are so close in spending but the disparity of what the Yankees spend to the league average is crazy.

The Yankees spent almost 80% more than the next closest team last year!

The great thing is that baseball has shown the last 10 years that the top spenders don't also win the championships! Like was said, the Yankees play within the rules so the championships were won fairly.

joelsabi

11-10-2009, 08:42 PM

Rudy, I would add 2 words to this statement.

Winning simply by spending SO MUCH more usually doesn't impress people.

In football, there is a salary cap and I don't mind if the team at the top of the salaries wins as they are so close in spending but the disparity of what the Yankees spend to the league average is crazy.

The Yankees spent almost 80% more than the next closest team last year!

The great thing is that baseball has shown the last 10 years that the top spenders don't also win the championships! Like was said, the Yankees play within the rules so the championships were won fairly.

We would all be more impressed if the Yankees won with salary cap of some sort. I think Bob Costa was onto something when he said that MLB need to work from both extremes to narrow the salary gap.

At the top of the salary, many of the Yankees signings in recent years have been to prevent the Red Sox from getting the players so I think a cap would be nice. Even negotiating for right to speak to Japanese teams requires cash and most teams cannot afford it and are out of the running. So the salary wars, among other things, have made the salary at the top very high.

At the bottom of the salary are teams that have fire sales once their teams are out of contention, hoping to receive even more revenue by having a low winning percentage. There is no incentive for the lower teams to add salaries to their team. Even with lower fan attendance due to fielding a even worse team towards the end of the season, these poor performing teams are given more revenue based on the current system.

I don't think you can blame the Yankees for working within the system. I think you can blame the League and the Commisioner for wanting to keep this current system at a status quo.

bigtime59

11-10-2009, 08:54 PM

The billionaire owners have done an absolutely stellar job at getting the poor fans pissed off at the millionaire players by having the salary figures in everyone's faces while the true revenue figures are almost impossible to come by. The Yankee$ revenues quoted above are almost certainly low by 25% or more because the YES Network (conveniently owned by the Yankee$) pays pennies on the dollar for their broadcast rights. Thus the Yankee$ get to hide revenues that should be shared with the rest of the league...and don't even get me started on how the other 29 teams in MLB are being forced to chip in for the Albert Speer-designed ATM/Airport lobby that is New Yankee $tadium (complete with moat to keep the commoners out of the good sections!)!

kingjammy24

11-11-2009, 01:09 AM

i thought this was one of the more amusing pieces about brian cashman that i've read in a while. if you're in the mood for a good laugh: http://www.mensjournal.com/brian-cashman

rudy.

skyking26

11-11-2009, 08:22 AM

You are right, it doesn't guarantee anything, but there is just something wrong the system that allows that to happen.........
I agree. I believe there should be a salary cap. Level the field and maybe the free spending will cease and smaller market teams will have a better chance.

bigtime59

11-11-2009, 08:36 AM

I agree. I believe there should be a salary cap. Level the field and maybe the free spending will cease and smaller market teams will have a better chance.

A salary cap without revenue sharing simply is a way to make the rich teams more profitable. Why else would the Red $ox be in favor of one?

coxfan

11-11-2009, 09:12 AM

While I congratulate Yankee fans, I want to correct and amplify some historical stuff posted earlier.

1) Even in the old days of the Reserve clause, the Yankees had a big advantage over lesser-revenue teams when it came to buying players. Connie Mack once said he balanced the A's budget, when his own teams were non-contenders, by selling his top prospects to richer teams. Babe Ruth was already a super-star with the Red Sox before the Yankees paid much more than other teams could afford, to get him.

2) Most of the Yankees' old Championships involved beating out only five contending teams in their league, since the Senators, A's, and Browns were rarely contenders. Then they went straight to the World Series. If they'd had today's 30 teams and the playoff's, they'd have had far fewer championships!

3) I'm old enough to recall when the Kansas City A's were a virtual minor-league team of the Yankees, thanks to a conflict of interest by the A's owner who also had a financial tie to the Yankees. The great dynasty of the Stengel years had the A's regularly "trading" up their top players ( such as Maris), to the Yankees.

suave1477

11-11-2009, 09:55 AM

"Your teams do have the money they just don't put it back into the team."

i truly don't mean any offense but i think it would be great if yankees supporters would start dealing with facts. making things up isn't helping anyone. other teams do have roughly the same amount of money as the yankees? the closest team is $64mm away. the next team? $92mm away. it's not even close:

2008 Revenues
NYY $327mm
Red Sox $263mm
NYM $235mm
LAD $224mm
CHC $214mm
LAA $200mm
ATL $199mm
SFG $197mm
STL $194mm
PHI $192mm
SEA $194mm
HOU $193mm

Bottom 5
OAK $154mm
KCR $131mm
PIT $139mm
TBR $138mm
FLA $128mm

jason was addressing mark sutton's comment. mark's team is the orioles. the orioles revenue was $166mm. nyy revenue was $327mm. see mark, your team does have the money! only $166mm less than the yankees.

rudy.

KingJammy no offense taken at all this is just an informative debate between friends.

I may have not made myself clear.

First of all those are the revenues generated by each team correct?
And that is fine yes teams make more money than others no secret there. My point was more towards the revenue sharing part of it where the more revenue making teams when sharing there funds to other teams, other teams have been know to take the extra money and buy there owners that new mansion, rolls royce, or gold toilet bowl instead of being put back into the team (This is an exagerration but you catch my drift)

As far me saying your team does have the money. I was really meaning that universally as far as team across the board not just pinpointing the Orioles.

Again I will point out yes in 2008 the Yankees did generate on there own that kind of money from whatever it is, ticket sales, Merchandise, TV Network, etc.......

But yet in the 70's & 1980's when the Yankees did not have the highest attendance and other teams were making more money from attendance alone. The Yankees had to go into there own personal pockets to get the funds to start bringing in the big names.

So why shouldn't for example the Orioles owner do the same??? Are you honestly telling me in his own savings bank, investors, etc....... couldn't raise a few more scheckles to bet some bigger name players???

skyking26

11-11-2009, 09:56 AM

A salary cap without revenue sharing simply is a way to make the rich teams more profitable. Why else would the Red $ox be in favor of one?
Ok, whatever it takes so the $$ field is even. Hard for the Royals to compete with GEORGE.

allstarsplus

11-11-2009, 10:29 AM

i thought this was one of the more amusing pieces about brian cashman that i've read in a while. if you're in the mood for a good laugh: http://www.mensjournal.com/brian-cashman

rudy.

That is hilarious! These 2 paragraphs are classic but probably not totally accurate as Teixeira did want to be in NYC as his wife spilled in an interview.

Specifically, they overpaid. They spent many millions more than other teams would have paid for guys who clearly preferred, all things being equal, to be somewhere else. Teixeira probably wanted to be in his hometown of Baltimore. Sabathia would have liked to go back to Milwaukee or home to the West Coast, but definitely in the National League, where he’d get to hit. Burnett, he’s a guy all of baseball knows would rather play in a low-intensity/small-market environment like Toronto.

They all made a show of preferring some other situation before quietly, somberly almost, taking the big money and going to New York. Basically, Brian Cashman hired a team full of Brian Cashmans, i.e., guys who passed up the girl they really liked to marry the Boss’s bucktoothed, cross-eyed daughter. They might do their nightly duty in the sack, but they’re not going overboard. They’re not buying her flowers on the way home from work or taking her on surprise trips to Paris for Valentine’s. And their excuse for being crappy husbands is built into the deal: They never really loved her to begin with.

allstarsplus

11-11-2009, 10:38 AM

i thought this was one of the more amusing pieces about brian cashman that i've read in a while. if you're in the mood for a good laugh: http://www.mensjournal.com/brian-cashman

rudy.

Also, besides the Cash-man, is Joe Torre who basically had a miserable first 15 years in his managerial career except 1 year the Braves made the 1st round of the playoffs prior to stepping to the top step of the dugout of the Yankee$.

Joe Torre will probably be a HOF Manager and I say as quoted by another GUU member it is the great players that usually make managers look great.

In Torre's first 15 years of managing the Mets, Braves and Cardinals----he never won 90 games in a season. Then he gets handed the Yankees job and steps into the Dodgers job.

kingjammy24

11-11-2009, 02:47 PM

jason: in general, i'm sure that many teams don't plow as much as they could or should into payroll. however, neither you nor i have any clue about how much personal money any ownership team does or doesn't put into their team. i'm not sure what enables you to think otherwise. you imply other owners don't put enough of their personal fortunes into their teams. how on earth would you know how much various owners personally have and how much of their personal stash they spend or don't spend on their teams?

you brought up the 80s and showed the dodgers attendance figures. i assume your point was that the dodgers made more money during that time period. gate receipts are only one part of the entire financial picture. that said, the dodgers did win the WS in '88 over an incredible and heavily favored A's squad, and the yankees didn't win anything during that decade. maybe that suggests that, unlike other teams, the only way the yankees can win is by spending $50mm+ more than everyone else. anyway, at the end of the day i find the yankees funny. i think its funny that cashman plowed a trillion dollars into the team over the past 9 yrs and the best he could do was 1 WS. i think its funny that people are congratulating arod for finally learning to be a team player after only 16 major league seasons. the yankees bring laughs. respect? not so much. they're like a billionaire who walks into a golddiggers convention, manages to find a wife and thinks their accomplishment is no different than an average guy marrying his college sweetheart. yeah, they both ended up with wives but its not nearly the same thing.

rudy.

karamaxjoe

11-11-2009, 04:11 PM

they're like a billionaire who walks into a golddiggers convention, manages to find a wife and thinks their accomplishment is no different than an average guy marrying his college sweetheart. yeah, they both ended up with wives but its not nearly the same thing.

That's a brilliant anology of the most successful team in sports. I wish I had thought of it myself. ;)

IMO the system is broke, but the owners don't care to fix it. It's going to take more than a few teams to go broke before they even think of fixing the unballanced league. Until then, the Yanks will continue to play by the rules and probably win a few more titles.

bigtime59

11-11-2009, 09:32 PM

But yet in the 70's & 1980's when the Yankees did not have the highest attendance and other teams were making more money from attendance alone. The Yankees had to go into there own personal pockets to get the funds to start bringing in the big names.

So why shouldn't for example the Orioles owner do the same??? Are you honestly telling me in his own savings bank, investors, etc....... couldn't raise a few more scheckles to bet some bigger name players???

I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but the part in bold is the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards. I will bet everything I have that--outside the original purchase price--George Steinbrenner has never, never put a penny of his own cash into the Yankee$ payroll.

One, because he never had too, and two, because that's not how billionaires do things.

Let us never forget that George W Bush "bought" a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers using about $75 of his own dollars (which was about all he had at the time...he didn't suddenly become a screwup in 2001) and a bunch of cash borrowed from his daddy's rich friends; never put a dime into the franchise and then sold "his" share to Tom Hicks for boatloads of cash. And Bush actually likes the game!

The vast majority of baseball's owners are in the game for one reason: to show off their shiny, profitable toy to their rich friends. (Or to compensate for tiny winkys...take your pick.) Once they've acquired the shiny toy, they don't put their own money into it. They take money out of it. That, sadly, is why proper revenue-sharing and a level playing field are always receeding over the distant horizon. Everybody's making money, and five of the six divisions are somewhat competitive--at least enough to fool most of the people most of the time, and the "commissioner" all of the time--so why rock the boat???

gridman80

11-12-2009, 06:52 PM