Blogcritics: Comments on A-Rod to Yankees

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:59:03 EST

Craig: Yes, I believe only two or three teams actually lost money last year, after accounting tricks and sweetheart leases and amortation of player salaries and revenue from insurance policies and investments, and those teams' owners are free to sell. Few do, and then usually only as part of some huge corporate strategy. Your dire predictions about the imminent collapse of the game are just not supported. Please look at the history of baseball and the various periods of competitive balance through the years. Pick a random year and compare it to a recent one. See how many teams improved a lot from the year before. See how many fell. See how many teams played .600. See how many played under .400. Try to determine from the standings of the year before how the teams will do the next year. I assure you, you'll see the same trends over and over again. Before the amateur draft began, the pervasive power of the dollar was even more absolute, with the Yanks and Cards and Dodgers (but especially the Yanks) able to pay the best scouts to find the best 18-year-olds and pay them the biggest bonuses. And baseball not only survived, but thrived, of course. There's little reason to think it can't survive A-Rod playing next to Derek Jeter. And, for what it's worth, A-Rod would be a more important acquisition for this particular Yankee team were he a studly left-handed starting pitcher. To all who love baseball: May your salary never be capped!

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:28:18 EST

How about the teams losing money? Is that hidden in the financials too? It's more than just corruption of America's former favorite game. It can't last. The game has almost collapsed twice in the last 10 years and none of the profit-sharing has been good enough, or will be good enough without more changes.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:30:52 EST

Craig, what the article said was that the Yankees and other teams that own media outlets can hide revenue. That's not reflected on the chart you cite. If that revenue were included, the numbers go up sharply for several teams (Cubs, Dodgers, Atlanta, Bosox, etc). The majority of the teams make lots of money, and if not, are easily sold at big profits. Baseball teams are privately owned and need not supply detailed financial data, so who knows? But whenever a club's up for sale, there seems to be plenty of big-money buyers. Baeball is as fun and competitive and great to watch and follow as it has ever been. The folks who are complaining that money and Yankees are corrupting everything are missing some great games.

Comment by TDavid

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:54:42 EST

Yankees have a billion dollar payroll now? Yowsa!

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:52:20 EST

And this also from Forbes:

Yankees fans were the big winners when Cablevision (nyse: CVC - news - people ) and the YES Network settled a bitter TV-rights dispute last month. Up to 3 million Cablevision homes in the New York metro area will now have access to every game of the season--if they pay an extra $2 a month for the privilege--featuring the most star-studded, highest-valued sports franchise in history. The Yankees' value rose 13% to almost $850 million, a new high, in FORBES' latest annual rankings of team valuations.

This should be great news for Major League Baseball. Seeking to bridge the ever-widening gap between the five or so richest teams and small-market, lower-grossing rivals, the league will force the richies to hand over about $260 million this year for its revenue-sharing plan.

But don't expect the poorer teams to get their fair share. The new YES pact will let Yankees owner George Steinbrenner effectively divert millions of dollars and shelter it from the revenue-sharing plan. That's because Steinbrenner controls 60% of YES, the Yankees' new exclusive cable channel. This year YES will bring in an estimated $200 million from cable operators and advertising, most of it derived from Yankee telecasts. The bulk of the proceeds will stay in the pockets of Steinbrenner and his YES partners at Goldman Sachs Group.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:45:02 EST

As of 4/28/2003 Forbes reported the following. The operating incomes were determined with Earnings for 2002 season after revenue sharing, but before interest, taxes and depreciation. You can view the table Here Many teams have a NEGATIVE operating income. The league average operating income is (1.3 million) That is NEGATIVE 1.3 million. LOSING MONEY ON AVERAGE. Sounds like a healthy system to me. Doesn't sound sustainable to me when on paper, when 11 out of 30 teams are in the negative. The league is not in good shape and they need to share more revenue in a system that has both a basement and a pretty liberal ceiling. I guess what I am saying is that I don't really care that the Yankees have more and spend a lot more, but the health of other ballclubs needs to be a priority of the league as well. Until this point, it hasn't been.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:18:38 EST

I'm tired of answering your points with facts. They are simply no match for your opinions. I guess you're right that no one else has a chance and the Yankees win every year. Every team should have a salary cap and every year a different team should win. The we'd have a golden age of baseball, and your Indians would win once every 30 years, just like all the teams. I don't know what I was thinking comparing baseball to the other sports and to its own past to examine if there is more or less parity and whether or not this is a good thing. I should have just asked Craig for his opinion. BTW, I volunteer to cap my own salary, and I'm sure your ready to do the same, as a gesture of solidarity. Thanks for addressing none of my points.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:56:40 EST

You gave the dry-cleaner example, not me. As long as we are talking risk and reward... Is there ever a situation where the Cleveland Indians would make a positive return on spending 200 million on payroll? Is there ever a scenario when the geographical region that the Indians have fans in could ever support a 200 million dollar payroll? Hell no. So, when risk and reward are way out of balance for a lot of the teams and a team can basically guarantee itself a playoff berth every single year, that is a bad system. Your arguments that there actually is parity is ludicrous. Christopher said above how many times the Yanks have won their division and how many times they have been to the world series, not to mention their wins. Sure the ultimate crown isn't guaranteed, but when you can put yourself in the playoffs every year by buying the best players in the game every year, that is a problem for the other markets. I am especially sensitive to this whole thing because every big free agent in Cleveland has been unsignable given the pressures of this market. Albert Belle by the White Sox, Manny Ramirez by the Red Sox and Jim Thome by the Phillies. Not only does this mean there is a window for smaller and mid-market teams, but we end up losing the players we love and watched develop. You don't think the game is strained in some of the smaller markets? Why should a game which has to compete together for entertainment dollars have one franchise making all the money? They deserve to make more because of their market size, but these other teams need to share in the WHOLE BUSINESS' SUCCESS. It's not like if you owned a Dunkin Donuts franchise where you are on your own because the teams all play each other.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 15:23:30 EST

Craig, C: You think having an "unfair" system is hurting baseball competitively versus other sports. I say: 1. Attendance is up. 2. Revenues are up. 3. TV ratings, at least for this year's great postseason, are up. If you say that all should be up even more, then I say there are other reasons for that, including greater competition for the sports dollar, poor (but improving) marketing efforts from MLB, the lingering effects of the strike, a poor economy, and a bunch of other reasons, but I think competitive balance isn't one of them. In fact, I think the opposite may be true. By most accounts, baseball enjoyed its greatest popularity and cultural dominance in the mid-20s and again in the 50's, eras during which the Yankees really did win almost every year. And the NBA's golden era started when the Lakers and Celtics were winning every year and peaked when Jordan's Bulls were winning every year. What do you make of that? And I never, of course, said that baseball was like any other business or should be. I merely said that the principle of greater risk vs. greater reward vis-a-vis market size still applies. This is self-evident. I haven't the power to strip baseball of its anti-trust exemption. And as for my fandom, it may seem obvious to you, but you're wrong. Not Yanks, and not a winning franchise. And not really germane to the discussion, IMHO. But thanks for the opportunity to "make myself be objective for just a second." Being objective, to me, is looking at the facts, and my examination of the facts finds relative parity compared to other popular leagues, and compared to baseball's past. It also finds that parity has a complicated relationship with the relative popularity of individual sports, and that it is certainly not a given that more parity equals more popularity. I invite your analysis otherwise. But just giving your unsubstantiated opinions and predicitions isn't enough, no matter how patronizing your manner, Ok? If you don't get that, there's no point in this conversation. Ok?

Comment by Christopher

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:41:07 EST

Fine, CC. You want to have baseball run like other businsses? Then revoke the Sherman Anti-Trust exemption and treat MLB like a regular business. Craig and Eric have already made the points I'd make in response, so I'll simply say, "what they said!"

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:36:18 EST

"Are you really suggesting that big-market teams should NOT have an advantage over smaller market teams? Ridiculous." They will have an advantage even with profit-sharing.

"Geez, it costs more to open a dry cleaners in Manhattan, NY than in Manhattan, Kansas, too. Why? Bigger audience. Bigger profit potential." The dry cleaner relies only on the local audience to pay them. The Yankees NEED KC, Detroit, and other markets because the Yankees have to play other teams. It isn't NYC vs. other teams. It is MLB vs. NFL vs. NHL vs. NBA vs. College Sports.

"You could end up with a major sport with no team at all in, say, LA. Like the NFL." LA is a unique town because, as Jim Rome and others say, they just aren't much of sports fans. There hasn't been a whole lot of clamor to get that team back obviously.

"And Christopher, your "parity" system is fantastic. Please let me know how you can improve other industries by redistributing the wealth in the way of your choosing. Why should Steinbrenner spend more money than anyone else, just because he's invested more and hence risked more?

This is Econ 101." This isn't like an industry where different companies, Cleveland, New York, Boston, etc are competing. This is the MLB vs. other competitions for the American Sports dollar. Ok? If you don't get that, then there isn't much point to the conversation. One team having a guaranteed playoff spot every year is not good for the sport. You are obviously a fan of the Yankees, but if you can make yourself be objective for just a second you might realize that there are lots of other attractions out there and Baseball will not be given a free pass by the fanbase forever.

Comment by Robert Brandt

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:15:34 EST

Amen, pitching, pitching, pitching! I'm not really scared of this Yankees team, because I vividly remember the 1996 Indians lineup: C-Sandy Alomar 1B-Julio Franco 2b-Carlos Baerga 3B-Jim Thome SS-Omar Vizquel LF-Albert Belle CF-Kenny Lofton RF-Manny Ramirez DH-Eddie Murray ..and don't forget a young Brian Giles and Jeromy Burnitz were lurking in the dugout. That team (arguably one of the finest offensive teams ever assembled), went out 3-1 to the Orioles in the first round. Nagy and Hershiser had fine years, but the rest of them were rubbish. The only Yankee starters that come close to scaring me are Mussina and Vasquez. That guy struck out everyone in Montreal last year, but lost half the time with no offense. Aside from that, Kevin Brown is pushing 80, Lieber hasn't pitched in a year.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:15:41 EST

It's not like other industries - it's a single entertainment body with franchises, just like the NFL and NBA. It doesn't have to be exactly equal, just not 6-times the difference between highest and lowest.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:44:43 EST

Are you really suggesting that big-market teams should NOT have an advantage over smaller market teams? Ridiculous. Geez, it costs more to open a dry cleaners in Manhattan, NY than in Manhattan, Kansas, too. Why? Bigger audience. Bigger profit potential. If you just made everything equal, why would anyone wanna own a team in a big market with more fans? You could end up with a major sport with no team at all in, say, LA. Like the NFL. And Christopher, your "parity" system is fantastic. Please let me know how you can improve other industries by redistributing the wealth in the way of your choosing. Why should Steinbrenner spend more money than anyone else, just because he's invested more and hence risked more? This is Econ 101. Craig, attendance is up compared to 5 years ago, ten years ago, and in just about any time frame you can name. Network TV ratings are down, corresponding to the overall drop in network TV ratings, but babseball's making a lot of mistakes here (starting the games too late, mainly.) The league just isn't losing support from its fans; there are more baseball fans than ever. There are problems with the game that are hindering its popularity, but competetive balance is certainly not one of them. It seems like the two arguments that come up over and over is that 1. The Yankees win every year — and they don't. and 2. Some teams have no chance of winning — and they do. Let's face it, everybody wants their team to win every year, and 29 teams don't. It's fun to blame an unfair system or a jerky arrogant rich guy in a turtleneck in a distant city instead of blaming your hung-over left fielder or or slow catcher or walk-crazy stopper or stupid GM. And easier. But arguments are one thing.... IT'S PITCHERS AND CATCHERS!!!!!! Baseball!!!!!!!! And as for my team, THIS IS THE YEAR!

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:05:34 EST

Because not everyone has a market size as big as the Yankees. The Yankees couldn't make the money without the smaller market teams to compete against. The game is not good when a large portion of the teams can't draw people into their stadiums because they can't compete with the Yankees. The MLB needs to realize they are competing in ever market for fans' sports dollars. They are competing with the NBA, the NFL, Hockey and College Sports. As far as that is concerned, the MLB has been slipping in popularity next to the other sports because it isn't a good system that gives fans a good feeling. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It isn't the Yankees vs. other teams. It is the MLB versus other competition for entertainment dollars of consumers. If you want to put a anti-competitive product on the field don't be surprised when the league continues to lose support from the fans.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:57:54 EST

Eric: Too large for what? And why shouldn't the higher payroll teams have a better chance at the playoffs? When has this ever not been true? Why is this bad?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:50:03 EST

The point that Eric made that is one of my favorites is that the Yankees can't exist without anyone to play against. If every one of the owners got rich together instead of having this disparity the game would be better off. Christopher is right. We need a floor as well as a ceiling. Another interesting point that a lot of people overlook is what a lot of owners are doing. The Indians have cut payroll big time over the last three years, and the owner has taken a whole lot of heat over it. The fact is that he is spending a whole lot of money on his minor league program. The point is that these owners need to spend money to make money, and we need to distribute some of the wonderful profits that the Yankees get by playing teams from all over the country.

Comment by Christopher

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:36:44 EST

Three whole years, Clubhouse?! Perish the thought! ;-) I'll be the first to admit that objectivity and logic go out the door with me when it comes to the Yankees. Nonetheless, I think you're also a little contradicted by the facts. You mention that NY hasn't won a Series in three years. Fine. But let's look at who the AL rep in the Series has been over the last eight years: 1996: NY, 1997: Cleveland, 1998: NY, 1999: NY, 2000: NY, 2001: NY, 2002: Anaheim, 2003: NY. With the exception of when someone catches lightning in a bottle, it's NY in the Series EVERY year. Now, is some of that due to the Yankees just being a good team? Sure. I'll concede Torre his due as a HOF manager and give Cashman some credit for knowing what to do with his money (unlike, say, Peter Angelos or Steve Phillips). But it's also a function of the economics of baseball right now. Let's take those small-market winners that Yankee apologists all trot out when trying to argue that a system that ensures NY a playoff bid every year is still fair. Oakland? Yes, Beane's done wonders. But they struggle every year to find a way to compete with their limited budget. It's why Beane's become Boy Wonder. What Yankee fans always seem to forget is that not only is Steinbrenner able to sign everyone else's stars, he's also able to keep his own. How good would Oakland be if they'd been able to keep Giambi, Tejada, Damon, Durham... AND had beeen able to keep the Big Three (and we all know that they won't be able to do that)? Minnesota? Also stuggling with the payroll in the offseason. Traded away Eric Milton in the offseason. Unable to even play in the free agent stakes every offseason to try and improve themselves. Barely able to make trades at the deadline for the stretch run. And I dare say, no disrespect to any Twins fans out there, that while 2002 was an amazing year for them, Minnesota won the Central in 2003 in large part because the rest of the division is so bad right now. There IS something wrong with the system. Why is it that the entire country gets behind whatever small-market team catches lightning in a bottle and makes a run? Oakland... then Minnesota... last year Kansas City... all become the feel-good stories of the year. Sure, you can say that America loves an underdog; but for a team that's winning its division to be considered an underdog, there has to be a pretty strong understanding of who the big dog is. Your response actually shows why (I think, as an admittedly biased observer) most people hate the Yankees. "Haven't won a series in three years." As if NY NOT winning the Series were proof that nothing needs to be fixed. What, you'll throw all the small market teams a bone and "let" them be in the playoffs, and that shows that everyone is playing on an equal field - as long as you still get to the Series? I've already pointed out that since 1996, there have been only two occasions where the Yankees were not the AL rep in the Series. And baseball fans across the AL know heading into spring training that it doesn't matter what happens this year... their team might even put together a small run and maybe even make the playoffs. But the Yankees will buy someone at the trading deadline if anyone looks TOO good... and no one else is going to make the Series unless a major Cinderella story arises. I won't even argue that the payrolls smallest teams - the KCs and Minnesotas and Pittsburghs and Montreals of the world - should be held up as an example of the overwhelming advantage the Yankees have. But when even the higher spending teams hover around $85-90 million... and when even the other richest teams like Boston, Baltimore and Anaheim are spending like $110-$120... and the Yankees STILL outspend the next closest team by $70 million? THAT's why the system is flawed. My solution would be an NFL-style system of salary caps (which I know the union would never go for, but it's needed) and revenue sharing - PLUS a salary "floor" so that guys like Pohlad couldn't pick Steinbrenner's pocket every year. Tell every team that "you will spend between $55 and $95 million this year, no more & no less - and then let's see who has the best manager, the best players, and the best TEAM." Not who has the biggest wallet (in NY's case) or who so pathologically hates the Yankees that they're willing to spend almost as much to beat them (Boston). Who plays baseball the best. And finally, your point on "this is how it's always been." Things change in baseball when it's needed for the good of the game. In 2003, the strike zone changed. In 1995, they added a wild card. In 1975, the reserve clause finally bit the dust for good. In 1969, they dropped the mound level. In 1947, they decided to let EVERYONE play the game. And yes, in 2004 they'll finally have a steroid policy - although one with few teeth. The game changes, both on and off the field, when something is wrong with how it's evolving... and just because something "has always been this way" doesn't make it the right thing.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:11:44 EST

CC, I know this argument and I hope you are right, but you have to take a step back to see the true picture, which I tried to point out in the post: anything can happen any year, especially in the playoffs, but you have to MAKE the playoffs. When you look at the stats over the medium to long run, the highest payrolls have the best chance of making the playoffs, the highest payrolls make the playoffs most often (the Yankees and Braves win their division EVERY SINGLE YEAR), the lowest payrols least often. As I said, spending doesn't ever guarantee anything, especially in the short run: you can spend a lot of money foolishly, luck and injuries are always a factor, etc., and Oakland has certainly bucked the trend over the last several years. But Oakland hasn't made it to the World Series, either. The system is skewed, unfair, unreasonable: the gap is simply too large between the haves and the have-nots.

Comment by ClubhouseCancer

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:52:46 EST

I urge everyone to look into this issue dispassionately. This alarmist suffabout the ruin of baseball is completely at odds with the facts. By many many measures, baseball has more parity than ever. Fact is, in the last 5 years, baseball has had 7 different teams in the World Series and 12 different teams in its final 4. (LCSs) The NFL has had 8 different Super Bowl teams and 14 in its final four (Conf. Champs). That's not really much of a difference, IMHO. To address a couple of specific points: Eric, the Dodgers haven't been in an LCS since 1988. The Red Sox haven't been in the Series since 1986. The Mets have lost 90-some games the past two seasons. And Christopher, your points are pretty obviously contradicted by the facts. Your list of teams that have been "squeezed out of practical existence" includes a two-in-a-row division winner. As for your 9 or 10 markets that can compete during the regular season, please name them, because I get, conservatively, 20 teams that have very reasonable chances. And if you had made such a list before last year, would you have included KC (83 wins)? Or the Cubs (67 wins in '02, 88 in '03)? Or Toronto (86 wins)? Or, um, Florida (World Series champs)? It seems to me there is a pleasing parity in the majors, and that the distribution of wins is more equitable than it has ever been. It's easy to generalize and make it seem like money is coirrupting everything and making everything unfair, but that's just not borne out on the field. Please choose a random year in ML history and analyze the standings to determine how many teams really have a "chance" every year. Or over three-year arcs. Or five-year. Or whatever. I think you'll find that the have/have not ratio is remarkably consistent. I can't see why people think something's askew. I think the unfolding steroid story is going to hurt the game far worse than any perceived salary diffferences. BTW, the Yankees haven't won a series in three years.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:49:52 EST

I think the analogy to Janet is apt and perceptive, that this may be a straw. If it isn't it should be - the economic discrepancies are absurd. And it isn't just the owners, or Steinbrenner, who are to blame. The player's union tries to obstruct any measure they think will have any downward impact on salaries RIGHT NOW without regard to the overall health of the game. With the enormous contracts of A-Rod and Ramirez now proven to be disasters and at least the rate of increase down, perhaps they will realize that there are no guarantees the golden goose will survive indefinitely. One way or another, the playing field has to be leveled or the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Dodgers, Mets, etc won't have anyone left to play. And that's good for who?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:21:15 EST

Shark, you one-track minded or something? Leave this post to attacking the Yankees. So you know Christopher, I am an Indians fan and an overall baseball fan. I am glad you see the problems with the overall game. Most fans in Boston (and every other market for that matter) aren't like you though, and usually only care about their own situation.

Comment by Shark

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:14:10 EST

Yankees: The Best Team Money Can Buy---- just became "The Best Team Satan Can Assemble" Will they make it to the series? Again? Yawn. Maybe an earthquake will occur at gametime to make it more interesting. re: A-Rod - what were the Rangers thinking when they spent the U.S. deficit on him? They had no pitching, but man, could they hit.--ie. LOSE a lot. BTW: I think Clemens went to HOUSTON, not dallas/fw. MISC. TRIVIA: Other than the invasion of Iraq, what was George W. Bush's biggest management blunder? A: He approved the Texas Rangers' trade of a young nobody named Sammy Sosa.

Comment by Christopher

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:35:10 EST

Actually, Craig, on my own blog - even back in December when the Sox were pursuing the trade, or in November when we got Schiling - I've been expressing discomfort with my Sox' role in damaging baseball as well. Nov 30: "For years, I have raved about how evil the Yankees are and how the only reason they win is because of the money they spend - and how their free-spending ways are ruining baseball by eliminating small-market teams from budget contention. Hearing the Schilling news this week, I was reminded of Kevin Costner's unmistakeably melodramatic monotone in "The Untouchables," when he is bemoaning having to stoop to Capone's level of violence in order to beat him. "I have become all that I have foresworn." I could almost hear Sean Connery angrily berating Theo Epstein. "Ya wanna know how ya get Steinbrenner? One of his guys pulls a Boone, you pull a Williamson. He gets a Sheffield, you get a Schilling. THAT'S how you get Steinbrenner!" Boston's behavior is exacerbating the problems that MLB has with the distribution of money. Small market teams have less chance than ever of competing for the best talent; the only difference now is that instead of ONLY the Yankees spending money, now we have only the Yankees and the Red Sox. We've become part of the problem." I completely agree with you that the Sox are part of the problem too. However, the Sox don't own 6 of the 12 largest contracts in baseball. The Yankees do. Now, I will grant that they've done more with their money than say Baltimore, LA or Atlanta... but nonetheless, the impact of the big money teams' free-spending ways is highly damaging to the game. I have news for you - the rest of the country just doesn't want to see the Yankees buy their way in for another year. (They'd only give the Sox about a year leniency due to the whole 1918 thing and the romance of Fenway before they'd be sick of us doing the same thing too.... judging from HW Saxton Jr.'s comment above, they may already be.) There is one more difference, however, between the Sox & Yankees. Sox fans care about the sport, and worry about the long-term future of the game. Yankee fans (by and large) care only about themselves, their team, and their own short-term interests. Any by the way... how 'bout that Josh Beckett, huh? ;-) (Don't worry about getting me back... I am a transplanted Sox fan living in New York, less than 7 miles from Yankee Stadium. I have to live with this all... season... long.)

Comment by HW Saxton Jr.

Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:59:12 EST

Just what I needed,another reason to not like the Yanks.I already hated 'em and the Red Sox too for that matter.All I can say is: GO CUBBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!