Posnanski on the Yankees
markj111
Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
The Yankees Payroll
Posted: November 5th, 2009 |
The following is a screed about the Yankees payroll. If you are a Yankees fan uninterested in a screed about the payroll, don’t read it. You won’t enjoy it. Go out, buy a championship T-shirt, reminisce about this great team, enjoy the victory. I’m telling you: Don’t read it.
As for the rest of you: The following is a screed about the Yankees payroll. It is, I think, something that is always bubbling below the surface of baseball (when you are not a Yankees fan). I rarely write about it because … it’s like writing about the heat in Phoenix. We all know it’s there, and we don’t really want to talk about it anymore. But with the Yankees winning the World Series and then talking about how it showed the team’s character, well, yeah, I thought maybe this once …
Here’s the thing about the New York Yankees huge payroll: It has been talked about so much that, in reality, it is hardly talked about at all. I know this makes little sense, but what I mean is this:
A. Everyone knows the Yankees spend much more money than any other team to win games.
B. Because everyone knows it, people have been complaining about it for many years.
C. Because people have complained about it for many years, everybody is sick of hearing about it.
D. Because everyone is sick of hearing about it, nobody really listens.
E. Because nobody really listens, people don’t talk about the Yankees spending much more money than any other team to win games.
Yes, this is a weird circle. But in this bizarre world of spin where Alex Rodriguez tries to project himself as an underdog* and Yankees types try to recast George Steinbrenner as sympathetic figure, I think this Yankees money fatigue is very real. As soon as you start talking about it, people turn off. What we’re talking about this again? Or, as indignant Yankees fans, they get angry: “Oh man, you’re not going to talk about the Yankees MONEY thing again, are you?”
*One good thing about this postseason is that it does seem to have killed the A-Rod as choker myth once and for all. Good man Alex Belth sends along these numbers:
A-Rod during regular season: .305/.390/.576
A-Rod during playoffs: .302/.409/.568
Same thing. Same player. Same guy.
Now, let’s think about this for a moment: You have a sport where the New York Yankees — in large part because they are located in America’s largest city and they have baseball’s richest television contract — can viably spend tens of millions of dollars more than any other team to acquire baseball players. You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.
This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:
In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”
In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.
In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.
In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.
In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.
In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.
Now, the conceit of American professional sports is that every team has a chance. That is certainly the conceit of baseball — what the commissioner calls Hope on Opening Day.*
*He took this “Hope on Opening Day” thing from me, by the way. Bud Selig read it in a column I had written about the Kansas City Royals, called me about it, and began to trumpet it around. My contribution to baseball. I’m not proud of it.
So how can the Commissioner of baseball promote such nonsense as Hope on Opening Day when the game is set up for one team to spend tens of millions more than anyone else? Well, it’s actually an interesting thing, I think. I see it as a two-pronged play.
One: Baseball happens to be a sport where dominance can be obscured. It doesn’t look like dominance. What I mean is this: Baseball, for many reasons, is built in such a way that the best teams win less often than in other sports. A 13-win NFL team wins 81% of the time. A national championship contending football team might lose once or twice — or not at all. A 60-win NBA team wins 75% of the time, and a big time college basketball team will win closer to 90%.
A 100-win baseball team wins 62% of the time … and there was only one 100-win baseball team this year. The New York Yankees. Every baseball team that won even 56% of the time this year made the playoffs. It is a sport of small triumphs, good months, one-run victories. I believe it was Whitey Herzog who said that the key to baseball is not getting swept … the idea being that if you can play well most of the time and steal at least one in a three-game series when you’re not playing well, then you will be in good shape at the end of the year.
So, dominant baseball teams don’t LOOK dominant in the same way they do in football or basketball. It’s like the billionaire CEO who doesn’t wear ties and rides coach on planes. He’s still a billionaire but he doesn’t LOOK like a billionaire. No team goes winless or undefeated in baseball. Few ever go winless or undefeated even over 16-game stretches. No team in baseball loses fewer than 40 games, and no team wins more than 120, and it’s only the rarest of teams that get anywhere close to either of those numbers.
I think of it this way, using a mockabet: I would bet if the Indianapolis Colts played the Cleveland Browns 100 times, and the Colts were motivated, they would probably 95 of them — maybe even more than that.
But if the New York Yankees played the Kansas City Royals 100 times, and the Yankees were motivated, I suspect the Royals would still win 25 or 30 times. That’s baseball.
So you have this sport that tends to equalize teams. That helps blur the dominance of the Yankees. If the New England Patriots were allowed to spend $50 million more on players than any other team, they would go 15-1 or 16-0 every single year. And people would not stand for it. But in baseball, a great and dominant team might only win 95 out of 160, and it doesn’t seem so bad.
The second thing is that ,at the end of the year, the best teams are thrown together in a succession of short series that are fun to watch but are not designed to pick the best teams. Quite the opposite: A short series in baseball is designed to shelter weaknesses and expose strengths. Yuni Betancourt can out-hit A-Rod in a five-game series. Livan Hernandez can out-pitch Tim Lincecum in a one-game match-up. Baseball doesn’t hide this — they slam it down your throat. October baseball! Anything’s possible! And so on.
And in that way the expanded playoffs have been genius for baseball — not only because they are milking television for every dime but because the short series have been baseball’s one Yankee-proofing defense against the ludicrous unfairness of the New York Yankees. Hey, if the game is rigged, rig the game.
The Yankees spend a lot more money than any other team. As a direct result, they had the best record in the American League in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2009. They made the playoffs every single year but one this decade (and going back to 1995). They are the best team with the best players every year — that sort of big money virtually guarantees it.
So, you create a system where the best team doesn’t always win. In fact, you create a system where the best team often doesn’t win. For years the Yankees didn’t win. They lost to Florida. They lost Anaheim. They blew a 3-0 series lead against Boston. They lost to Anaheim again and Detroit and Cleveland — and how could you say that baseball is unfair? Look, the Yankees can’t win the World Series! See? Sure they spend $50 million more than any other team and $100 million more than most. But they haven’t won the World Series! Doesn’t that make you feel better?
And this has been the Wizard of Oz slight of hand game that Baseball has been playing for a long time … ignore the man behind the curtain who makes more money off of baseball than anyone else and can buy just about any player he wants. Ignore the absurdity of it all. Just remember: The Yankees haven’t won in a while! Just remember: Anything is possible.
There’s something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn’t guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don’t win. I think this actually makes for an interesting argument if you want to talk about the inequities of baseball … big markets, small markets, all that.
But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big market team. They DWARF big market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don’t just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.
The Yankees have a pat hand.
This is the way baseball is structured, and we have reached a point where people simply don’t want to hear any griping about it. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. Some people have stopped watching, I suppose. But many of us keep on because we love baseball and there’s enough randomness in the game itself and enough volatility in the playoffs to distract us from the lunacy of having the game so ridiculously tilted toward one team.
The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama — though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there’s drama.
And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee’s best pitcher and Anaheim’s best hitter and Toronto’s No. 2 starter and Boston’s favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn’t listen to the doubters.
And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that’s baseball.
Posted: November 5th, 2009 |
The following is a screed about the Yankees payroll. If you are a Yankees fan uninterested in a screed about the payroll, don’t read it. You won’t enjoy it. Go out, buy a championship T-shirt, reminisce about this great team, enjoy the victory. I’m telling you: Don’t read it.
As for the rest of you: The following is a screed about the Yankees payroll. It is, I think, something that is always bubbling below the surface of baseball (when you are not a Yankees fan). I rarely write about it because … it’s like writing about the heat in Phoenix. We all know it’s there, and we don’t really want to talk about it anymore. But with the Yankees winning the World Series and then talking about how it showed the team’s character, well, yeah, I thought maybe this once …
Here’s the thing about the New York Yankees huge payroll: It has been talked about so much that, in reality, it is hardly talked about at all. I know this makes little sense, but what I mean is this:
A. Everyone knows the Yankees spend much more money than any other team to win games.
B. Because everyone knows it, people have been complaining about it for many years.
C. Because people have complained about it for many years, everybody is sick of hearing about it.
D. Because everyone is sick of hearing about it, nobody really listens.
E. Because nobody really listens, people don’t talk about the Yankees spending much more money than any other team to win games.
Yes, this is a weird circle. But in this bizarre world of spin where Alex Rodriguez tries to project himself as an underdog* and Yankees types try to recast George Steinbrenner as sympathetic figure, I think this Yankees money fatigue is very real. As soon as you start talking about it, people turn off. What we’re talking about this again? Or, as indignant Yankees fans, they get angry: “Oh man, you’re not going to talk about the Yankees MONEY thing again, are you?”
*One good thing about this postseason is that it does seem to have killed the A-Rod as choker myth once and for all. Good man Alex Belth sends along these numbers:
A-Rod during regular season: .305/.390/.576
A-Rod during playoffs: .302/.409/.568
Same thing. Same player. Same guy.
Now, let’s think about this for a moment: You have a sport where the New York Yankees — in large part because they are located in America’s largest city and they have baseball’s richest television contract — can viably spend tens of millions of dollars more than any other team to acquire baseball players. You have one team (and only one team) playing the video game on cheat-mode.
This is much starker than people think, by the way. I quickly went back and looked at the numbers before writing my column for SI.com, and I’m going to reprint them here because even as someone who has also grown sick of hearing about the Yankees payroll, I found them to be stunning:
In 2002, the Yankees spent $17 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2003, the Yankees spent $35 million more in payroll than any other team.
In 2004, the Yankees spent $57 million more in payroll than any other team. I mean, it’s ridiculous from the start but this is pure absurdity. Basically, this is like the Yankees saying: “OK, let’s spend exactly as much as the second-highest payroll in baseball. OK, we’re spending exactly as much. And now … let’s add the Oakland A’s. No, I mean let’s add their whole team, the whole payroll, add it on top and let’s play some ball!”
In 2005, the Yankees spent $85 million more than any other team. Not a misprint. Eight five.
In 2006, the Yankees spent $74 million more than any other team.
In 2007, the Yankees spent $40 million more than any other team — cutbacks, you know.
In 2008, the Yankees spent $72 million more than any other team.
In 2009, the Yankees spent $52 million more than any other team.
Now, the conceit of American professional sports is that every team has a chance. That is certainly the conceit of baseball — what the commissioner calls Hope on Opening Day.*
*He took this “Hope on Opening Day” thing from me, by the way. Bud Selig read it in a column I had written about the Kansas City Royals, called me about it, and began to trumpet it around. My contribution to baseball. I’m not proud of it.
So how can the Commissioner of baseball promote such nonsense as Hope on Opening Day when the game is set up for one team to spend tens of millions more than anyone else? Well, it’s actually an interesting thing, I think. I see it as a two-pronged play.
One: Baseball happens to be a sport where dominance can be obscured. It doesn’t look like dominance. What I mean is this: Baseball, for many reasons, is built in such a way that the best teams win less often than in other sports. A 13-win NFL team wins 81% of the time. A national championship contending football team might lose once or twice — or not at all. A 60-win NBA team wins 75% of the time, and a big time college basketball team will win closer to 90%.
A 100-win baseball team wins 62% of the time … and there was only one 100-win baseball team this year. The New York Yankees. Every baseball team that won even 56% of the time this year made the playoffs. It is a sport of small triumphs, good months, one-run victories. I believe it was Whitey Herzog who said that the key to baseball is not getting swept … the idea being that if you can play well most of the time and steal at least one in a three-game series when you’re not playing well, then you will be in good shape at the end of the year.
So, dominant baseball teams don’t LOOK dominant in the same way they do in football or basketball. It’s like the billionaire CEO who doesn’t wear ties and rides coach on planes. He’s still a billionaire but he doesn’t LOOK like a billionaire. No team goes winless or undefeated in baseball. Few ever go winless or undefeated even over 16-game stretches. No team in baseball loses fewer than 40 games, and no team wins more than 120, and it’s only the rarest of teams that get anywhere close to either of those numbers.
I think of it this way, using a mockabet: I would bet if the Indianapolis Colts played the Cleveland Browns 100 times, and the Colts were motivated, they would probably 95 of them — maybe even more than that.
But if the New York Yankees played the Kansas City Royals 100 times, and the Yankees were motivated, I suspect the Royals would still win 25 or 30 times. That’s baseball.
So you have this sport that tends to equalize teams. That helps blur the dominance of the Yankees. If the New England Patriots were allowed to spend $50 million more on players than any other team, they would go 15-1 or 16-0 every single year. And people would not stand for it. But in baseball, a great and dominant team might only win 95 out of 160, and it doesn’t seem so bad.
The second thing is that ,at the end of the year, the best teams are thrown together in a succession of short series that are fun to watch but are not designed to pick the best teams. Quite the opposite: A short series in baseball is designed to shelter weaknesses and expose strengths. Yuni Betancourt can out-hit A-Rod in a five-game series. Livan Hernandez can out-pitch Tim Lincecum in a one-game match-up. Baseball doesn’t hide this — they slam it down your throat. October baseball! Anything’s possible! And so on.
And in that way the expanded playoffs have been genius for baseball — not only because they are milking television for every dime but because the short series have been baseball’s one Yankee-proofing defense against the ludicrous unfairness of the New York Yankees. Hey, if the game is rigged, rig the game.
The Yankees spend a lot more money than any other team. As a direct result, they had the best record in the American League in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2009. They made the playoffs every single year but one this decade (and going back to 1995). They are the best team with the best players every year — that sort of big money virtually guarantees it.
So, you create a system where the best team doesn’t always win. In fact, you create a system where the best team often doesn’t win. For years the Yankees didn’t win. They lost to Florida. They lost Anaheim. They blew a 3-0 series lead against Boston. They lost to Anaheim again and Detroit and Cleveland — and how could you say that baseball is unfair? Look, the Yankees can’t win the World Series! See? Sure they spend $50 million more than any other team and $100 million more than most. But they haven’t won the World Series! Doesn’t that make you feel better?
And this has been the Wizard of Oz slight of hand game that Baseball has been playing for a long time … ignore the man behind the curtain who makes more money off of baseball than anyone else and can buy just about any player he wants. Ignore the absurdity of it all. Just remember: The Yankees haven’t won in a while! Just remember: Anything is possible.
There’s something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn’t guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don’t win. I think this actually makes for an interesting argument if you want to talk about the inequities of baseball … big markets, small markets, all that.
But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big market team. They DWARF big market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don’t just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team. The Boston Red Sox spend $50 million more than the Kansas City Royals? Who cares? The Yankees spend $80 million more than the Boston Red Sox.
The Yankees have a pat hand.
This is the way baseball is structured, and we have reached a point where people simply don’t want to hear any griping about it. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. Some people have stopped watching, I suppose. But many of us keep on because we love baseball and there’s enough randomness in the game itself and enough volatility in the playoffs to distract us from the lunacy of having the game so ridiculously tilted toward one team.
The trouble is that, inevitably, that one team will make good choices. They will put together a team of All-Stars. They will sign a dominant left-handed starter and slugging switch-hitting Gold Glove first baseman and a right-handed starter who throws curveballs that bend like wiffle balls. That team will be a remarkable collection of stars, and they will play often beautiful baseball, and they will win more games than any other team during the season. That team will roll through the playoffs without facing an elimination game or anything resembling real drama — though there will be constant efforts to make it SEEM like there’s drama.
And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee’s best pitcher and Anaheim’s best hitter and Toronto’s No. 2 starter and Boston’s favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn’t listen to the doubters.
And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that’s baseball.
0
Comments
The Yankees get there almost every year for the past 14 years so it is obvious payroll helps you make the playoffs.
I think the writer is also correct in that the Yankees are starting to become better run and not just buying every player out there and hoping it all fits together. They have been keeping their own talent and not just shipping out all their young players for aging vets. Their deal for X. Nady being the last really bad deal they have done and even that really didn't hurt them this year as they had talent to make up for that mistake.
A. Money generated by the team
B. Money generated by the owner seperate from the team.
The Yankees generate the most money of any team, thus they can "afford" to spend that money on their players, org etc.
For other owners to spend at that level they would have to spend vastly more of their own money versus how much Steinbrenner actually has to spend out of column B. Now should owners dip into their own wealth from time to time to keep a player or get a FA, maybe but if they do it consistently the owner will end up losing vast sums of money.
You would be asking the owner of the Pirates or Royals to lose 100 million a year just to keep up with the Yankees with almost 0 hope of earning it back. Maybe the teams start earning more money but the real money is in TV contracts and there just isn't that much to be had in smaller markets compared to NY.
Reinvesting that money into draft picks and Foreign FAs is the smarter bet but it may still not pay off. Also this reinvesting never gets accounted for on the books so people just look at the ML payroll and say look at how cheap that team is.
I'm not unsympathetic to smaller market teams, but it does bother me to see them sitting on the sidelines complaining about teams w high payroll while all the while pocketing revenue sharing dollars.
I do feel the game would be better off if there was some sort of way to keep salaries in line, but how do you do that without punishing a team like the Dodgers or Yankees or Red Sox...or heck, even the Rangers. They certainly fall into the "small market" category but their owner isn't shy about dishing out cash. While he didn't get the results he wanted, I do admire his attitude of wanting to win.
Bingo, lest we forget how he signed Hunter and Jackson among others in the early days.
Steve
(Lest I get called out for not showing any facts,) pocket not only the luxury money tax they get but the revenue sharing money MLB dishes out as well.
Some teams get as much as 90 million dollars each year BEFORE they sell one ticket. You can look it up.
Steve
To fix this problem, the panel recommended a break in more than a century’s worth of tradition, imposing significant revenue sharing. After hashing out their competing interests, large-market owners, small-market owners, and the players’ union initially struck a major revenue sharing deal during collective bargaining in 2002. Under the latest version, in effect through 2011, all teams pay in 31 percent of their local revenues and that pot is split evenly among all 30 teams. In addition, a chunk of MLB’s Central Fund — made up of revenues from sources like national broadcast contracts — is disproportionately allocated to teams based on their relative revenues, so lower-revenue teams get a bigger piece of the pie.
A BIGGER PIECE OF THE PIE!!!
I think it has more to do with poor management then lack of dollars.
Steve
1.
<< <i>Bingo, lest we forget how he signed Hunter and Jackson among others in the early days. >>
The economics of baseball are completely changed compared to this time period. You acting like the Pirates could go out and pick up Matt Holliday and John Lackey tomorrow if the owners just pitched in a few million. First those players would have to be grossly overpaid to even consider playing for the Pirates to begin with. Secondly when Steinbrenner got those players the salaries were very depressed due to the fact free agency hadn't existed or had been around very shortly. Today the players salaries are not depressed so the value the Pirates owners could get for throwing in 10 or 20 mil is pretty much zilch (or the could over pay for players such as Jason Kendal, Derek Bell etc.)
2. Even if started at 90 Mil, a team like the Pirates traditionally have 40 to 50 mil in roster salary, throw in operating expenses, Draftees and foreign FA's and you might get to 90 mil who really knows? You still have over 110 mil in desparity to the Yankees correct. Is the owner supposed to make up that difference every year with no gurantees of making any more money back?
Teams pocketing 10 to 20 mil in money doesn't mean anything in terms of competiveness. For teams like the Yankees that's a 4th outfielder.
Of course everyone knows it is A reason, it is NOT the reason that is where we disconnect.
And FWIW the WS championships they won in the late 90's was with mostly home grown talent.
If you remember they were a 2nd division ballclub from 90 thru 93 and drafted wisely it appears.
So basically they have won 1 WS since 2000 with more FA then home grown players.
Yes they were able to keep those HG players but that is another story.
Maybe MLB should raise the tax and the revenue it allows small market teams?
Steve
They were NOT depressed for the time, compared to today I agree, but not for 1970's.
Steve
Teams pocketing 10 to 20 mil in money doesn't mean anything in terms of competiveness. For teams like the Yankees that's a 4th outfielder.
What fourth outfielder makes 10 to 20 million? the number 3 outfielder Melky does not even make 1 million.
You also are forgetting that besides lux tax money small market teams also get revenue sharing dollars.
You keep saying the 20 million would not help, how do we know if they don't use it?
Yes the large market teams have an advantage, it's only been that wasy for almost 100 years.
None of this is new.
Steve
Morgoth have you forgotten that the 90 million is before they sell one ticket? Before they sell one beer, before they park one car etc.
90 million may be high, ive read that and I've read it is more like 50 million combined. (lux tax and rev sharing)
Baseball owners do not like opening up the books.
One last point the Pirates (I've read) were bought in 1996 for 90+ million dollars today the franchise was valued at 250+ million.
Maybe the ownership could use some of that and upgrade the team on the field?
A small market team can make the argument that it can not win, so why spend another $30 million trying to get to 3rd place instead of 5th? I do not like it, but it is not illogical.
The Yankees will be in the hunt every year, because they can always buy talent. At how many positions do they have a top 5 player? 1B, SS, 3B, C (maybe not anymore), closer, C.C. (close if not top 5). Maybe 2B.
Their age will soon catch up to them (Jeter, ARod, Posada, Rivera, Damon), but they will solve that by picking up the best players available. The main danger is that they stick with Jeter too long. He's still going strong, though.
BTW, who is the richest owner?
If a team like the Brewers who are now into a downward phase and looking to cut salary didn't earn enough during that one playoff push to keep salaries that high then how could a team like the Pirates?
I think most teams look at it oppistely then sports fans, build a winner first and then if the fans show up and spend money, then spend at elivated levels with the money you now have. The build it and they will come strategy is too risky for most owners. The Pirates tried that when PNC was opened as they doubled their 2000 spending basically. You can see that in three years they were back down to the 30's.
2009: $ 48,693,000
2008: $ 48,689,783
2007: $ 38,537,823
2006: $ 46,717,750
2005: $ 38,133,000
2004: $ 32,227,929
2003: $ 54,812,429
2002: $ 42,323,599
2001: $ 57,760,833
2000: $ 29,600,000
I don't think teams want to do the one year spend alot of money and win, then tear the team down strategy as it hasn't worked to build up their fan base in Florida.
Even building into the revenue sharing a team like the Pirates maximum could have a payroll of around 60 to 70 mil (right around what the Brewers spend I believe). That is still 130 mil short of the Yankees.
I don't think the Pirates start anywhere close to 90 mil, that is a number I haven't seen in any of the team or Pittsburgh papers to date.
Right now they have about 25 mil in salary on the books so it will be interesting to see where they go. I bet its right close to that 45 to 50 mil mark.
Oh and about trying to spend money on players, the team has tried to sign relatively cheap FAs the past few years like Rocco Baldelli and still lost out even offering more money to these guys. I don't know how much they would have to overspend to get a Matt Holliday but I think it would be like 20 to 30% more than a team like the Cards or Yanks would offer.
The A league could consist of the 15 richest teams, the B the 15 poorest. Each year it could change.
Or do what they do in local LL's, give everyone a trophy.
Your team went 59 and 103? Here is your trophy.
Steve
I could look up who they traded to get him for but really Morgoth does what happened in 1997 really matter?
You seem to cherrypick whatever answer will fit your needs at the time.
Steve
If you are the best in the food additive business, what do they call you? If you are the best in any business or venture, what do they call you? They call you the New York Yankees of _________(fill in the blank)!!! How could you not be proud to be associated with such a distinction?? They freakin earned that moniker! Darn right they should feel civic pride!
Fans of other teams who get mad at the Yankees for having that distinction have two choices. 1)Follow a team that strives for that distinction, 2)Don't give the bum owners of your team one red cent, because they aren't giving you what YOU want!!! O.K. Three choices....3)continue to follow your team, but understand that it can only be for recreational purposes, because it isn't for producing the best baseball possible.
4) Teams like Pittsburgh and Oakland that can't even sell out their stadium when they make it to the playoffs should not even complain. If you don't like that you live in an area that doesn't support your team, then don't cry about people who do! Live with it.
And a side note.....
The Post Season Player. Some on here still cling to this notion. The notion that Ryan Howard, or any player is a 'post season' player. First, I gave the big boy a hard time on here. The dude is good, but if he truly were this clutch post season player, I think the World Series showed that what is often considered clutch or choking, is simply the typical ups and downs that elite baseball produces. It just takes time. Arod showed it too. Was this one of the best post seasons on record in MLB for Arod?? YES! How so if he was considered a choker, not a big game player. Really, it is was just a bad 20 game stretch. Happens a lot in MLB.
Oh, and did anybody check out Big papi's last three post season series??? SLG% of .294, .385, and .083. Yeah, I know he isn't the player he was before. But if he truly were clutch, don't you think he would call upon it at least a little, instead of being absolutely horrible(and much more horrible than even the diminished Big Papi)? It brought his career Post season OPS to .908, compared to his lifetime regular season of .922
As they say on Myth busters, this Myth is BUSTED!
Skip that 20 games was over 4 years and many series.
I agree with just about everything else you said.
As for Howard I don't recall anyone ever saying he was a monster in the post season.
I do recall those that claimed he was great down the stretch and those that have yet to think he has
become the next Kingman.
Steve
Also if money doesn't buy a championship then why do people say the other teams need to spend more (wiser maybe a better argument)? How much should a team spend to be competitive? If you can lose 90 games at 50mil, 70mil or 90mil do you need to spend 150? If money doesn't gurantee performance why are you railing on teams for not spending?
The point brought up by the article in case you didn't read it was that the amount spent by the Yankees is so much overboard that it is basically starting to create a A and B league scenario where teams at the low end of the payroll spectrum are going through 10 to 20 years of losing.
Steve
Morgoth can you tell me how many winning seasons the Pirates had between 1946 and 1959?
And while you are at it how many times during that period they came in dead last?
Edited to add: And how many WS the Yankees were in during that time period?
3 easy questions.
Then tell me that this all started in 1997 or whatever year you stated earlier.
Steve
lol Now you are reaching. Please copy and paste where I said anything that could be construed with your above statement.
Stev
The Royals are on a similar run. In fact here is an article about recent long losing streaks
The Pirates have not finished a season with a winning record since 1992, when they went 96-66.
AP
The talk, of course, revolves around the Pittsburgh Pirates, who have now clinched their 17th consecutive losing season, a record of beautiful futility.* But there might be something else going on in baseball. Bad teams, it seems are staying bad.
* The Pirates have the record -- but they are not even close to the most consistently bad team in baseball history. That, without a doubt, was the Philadelphia Phillies of the 1920s, '30s and '40s. Those Phillies would have had a THIRTY-ONE YEAR streak of losing records except for one fluky season in 1932. That year, the Phillies -- playing in the preposterous Baker Bowl (which had a 60-foot-high right-field wall only 280 feet from home plate) and with pitchers named Snipe Hansen, Flint Rhem, Jumbo Elliott and Ad Liska -- beat the Giants on the last day of the season to go 78-76.
The Phillies had a losing record every other year from 1918 to 1948. And not only that, they lost 100 or more games TWELVE TIMES. These Pirates have only lost 100 once, and they lost 100 on the nose that time. The Pirates might have the record, but they cannot come close to the sheer incompetence of those Phillies teams.
Here's the thing. You already know that the Pirates now have 17 straight losing seasons. But what you might not know -- or at least might not have thought about -- is that over those 17 years, eight other teams have had long stretches of losing baseball.
• The Baltimore Orioles have had 11 straight losing seasons, and they are one loss away from extending that streak to 12.
• The Cincinnati Reds are likely to clinch their ninth straight losing season soon enough.
• The Kansas City Royals have had losing seasons 14 of the last 15 years and -- this is actually quite remarkable -- have more losses over the last 17 years than Pittsburgh.
• The Milwaukee Brewers had 12 consecutive losing seasons end in 2004, and after rising up and making the playoffs last year, they are struggling again.
• The Detroit Tigers had a stretch of 12 consecutive losing seasons end in 2005.
• The Tampa Bay Rays had 10 straight losing seasons before shocking everyone last year.
• The Minnesota Twins had a streak of eight consecutive losers end in 2000.
• The Philadelphia Phillies had a streak of seven straight losing season end in 2000.
That's pretty interesting. There have only been 20 streaks in baseball history where a team finished below .500 for 10 or more seasons in a row -- and a quarter of those have come in the last decade. And those five long losing streaks streaks don't even include the Royals, whose quirky 2003 season interrupted 14 losing years, or the Reds, who are one year away from a 10-year losing steak of their own.
So what's happening here? Yes, absolutely, all through baseball history there have been bad teams that stayed bad. There were a number of bad teams in the 1970s -- Montreal, San Diego, Milwaukee, California, Cleveland and Philadelphia all had a sizable stretch of losing seasons. The Mets, Kansas City A's and Boston Red Sox were bad for most of the 1960s. The Pirates and Reds were terrible in the '50s, and the St. Louis Browns, White Sox and the two teams in Philadelphia stunk up the '40s.
The difference is that there seem to be more losers now -- maybe because there are more teams. Whatever the reason, it's ironic because baseball czar Bud Selig likes to believe he's the "hope and belief" commissioner. Yes, he will talk often about how it's his truest mission to make sure that every fan in baseball should have hope and belief on Opening Day. He has expanded the playoffs. He brought out the wild card. He pushed for more revenue sharing. He has tried to bully teams into a slotting system in the draft.
And what has happened? If you are a high school junior in Pittsburgh, then you have not been alive for a Pirates winning season. If you are a recent college graduate in Kansas City, you have no earthly way of knowing what it means for the local baseball team to make the playoffs. If you are young in Cincinnati and Baltimore, you will hear from older folk that you live in one of the best baseball towns in America -- but there's no reason why you should believe it. And even though they have not built up those long streaks yet, things are looking pretty hopeless for the moment in Washington, San Diego and even Oakland, where the A's are working on their third consecutive losing season.
Is this just because these teams are poorly run? Or is it harder to turn around a bad team these days? Everyone has an opinion, but it's probably a bit of both. People are so sick of the big revenue/small revenue talk that they have decided simply to ignore it. Talking about revenues and payrolls is so 1999. Moneyball came out, the Marlins won a World Series, teams like Tampa Bay, Colorado and Milwaukee have made nice runs, and it's enough to get people to say, "See, if you are smart and creative you can win with a small payroll."
Maybe so. The problem is: There just aren't that many smart and creative people out there. And many of them might like to work for the Yankees and Red Sox -- after all, they pay better.
The truth is, there just aren't as many ways for a Pittsburgh or Kansas City or Cincinnati to turn things around. They can't compete for the best players in free agency -- and what's worse is that because they can't compete for the Sabathias and Teixeiras and Beltrans, it becomes tempting to overpay for second-tier free agents like Jose Guillen or Danys Baez or Jeff Suppan. Those kinds of mistakes can devastate a small-revenue team. The draft is a pretty expensive spin of the roulette wheel*. The richer teams spend more scouting and signing players all over the world. For those small-revenue teams, the walls are always closing in.
* The Pirates have had 10 top-10 picks in the First-Year Player Draft since this streak began -- six of them in the top five. These top-10 picks have included Bryan Bullington, Clint Johnston, Bobby Bradley, John Van Benschoten and Brad Lincoln. That, in a nutshell, is how you have losing seasons for 17 straight years. The closest thing to a success story was when then took Kris Benson with the No. 1 overall pick -- he won 43 games, lost 49 and was traded to the Mets.
But, truth is, nobody wants to hear the complaints. The Pirates and others have to find a way to dig out of the pits -- nobody's going to help them. Nobody's going to feel sorry for them. Those awful Phillies that had losing seasons 30 out of 31 years -- well, what happened to them? They signed a couple of young pitchers named Robin Roberts and Curt Simmons, that's what happened. They signed a Nebraska farm boy named Richie Ashburn, signed a local kid named Del Ennis and picked up a veteran pitcher named Jim Konstanty. And the Whiz Kids shocked the nation and won the National League pennant in 1950.
True, the Phillies got swept in the World Series. And they did not reach the postseason again for 26 years. But that's not the point, is it?
<< <i>What fourth outfielder makes 10 to 20 million? the number 3 outfielder Melky does not even make 1 million. >>
I was talking again more about players that are paid huge salaries but didn't contribute, but you being so literal that you didn't realize the discussion was centering around a debate about payroll from the last 15 years. In that context my examples do work sorry if it confused you.
This discussion isn't about winning the WS its about winning consistently enough to make the post season and from there its a crapshoot due to shorter series so your point about WS titles is moot.
Please stay on topic
AS for the 4th OF BS it is well just that more BS.
Back to the questions that you failed to answer.
Between 1946 and 59 the Bucs had 12 losing seasons. Dead last in 7 of them.
The Yanks meanwhile were in 10 World Series (notice NO mention of titles)
Lastly nothing confused me. You made a statement and as usual put a spin on it when you were called on it.
No mention of past 15 years was made in your original statement. Please be more specific if you want people to understand what you are talking about.
Steve
No you failed to respond and delivered typical BS strawman attacks on points that were never brought up. Tell me how the economics of MLB in the 40s and 50s are the same as they are now so that comparing losing streaks in the 40s and 50s is even comparable? How much payroll deficits did they have between teams? I don't know but you brought up the 40s and 50s as proof that losing streaks then are the same as now or was that not your point?
The debate here is how the economics of MLB are causing teams to not be able to compete no matter how shrewd they are due to limited funds. Saying look the Phillies lost a bunch back in the 30s or the Pirates lost a bunch in the 40s doesn't further the discussion (don't bother saying your typical "i never said anything about the Phillies, its an example showing how your example was flawed but you like to be so literal in discussions I think we should start using scientific notation for all major points just so we dont get confused).
Also the date range was mentioned in the article about going back to 1995 so I did do a math error there and should have used 14 years but hey you didn't read the articles anyway you just spout the same thing you did in all the other debates on this topic.
WE have also seen 8 different winners.
2 teams have won 2x, The infamous Yanks and Red Sox.
We also have teams that have been in 2x that are 1 and 1 (Phils and Cards)
That means in the past 10 years almost 50% of the teams have made it to the WS
Maybe they are all large market teams, I dunno. Tampa Bay? are the Astros, the Marlins the Rockies?
So that leads me to the conclusion that we have too many teams and those fans from those teams
should either switch allegience if winning matters that much to them, or simply accept the fact that no matter what they do it is what it is.
Now back to the Yanks and what it costs to see a game. Because they choose to spend 200 million on payroll and see the need too charge 100.00's of dollars
to see them play I have made the choice of not going to see them. I see them on cable and that is built into my cable bill.
I remember a few years back (10)? going to a game in Milwaukee (County stadium) Coors was being built. And was astounded on how cheap everything was.
To be honest with some of you I would take a losing team that charges what I could afford over a team that wins year after year and I have to mortgage the house in order to see them.
That is just me, This year I was able to enjoy the losing part (Mets) but still will not pay the price.
Steve
And you are one to talk about strawman attacks lol!
Furthermore, losing streaks matter regardless of when they happened.
What you fail to acknowledge is that today we have 30 teams! back in the day we had 16. Of course you have more teams
with losing streaks now. The pct is probably the same.
This is getting ridiculous. I've already agreed with you over the major point (the yanks spend more then anyone else) I agree!!!
IT IS NOTHING NEW. It has been going on since the 20's! Yes the amounts have changed that goes without saying. I only feel that in todays game the
smaller market teams have a better chance then they did back in the day. They never had revenue sharing and Lux tax back then, so that brings us back to sqaure one
what the eff are your Pirates doing with that money? They sure as heck ain't putting it in the major league roster!!
Steve
That was precisely my point.
Steve
I agree that ticket pricing might actually affect what the Yankees can afford to spend in the future. It looks like they went down about 500,000 in regular season attendence with a new stadium opening.
No matter how you slice the Pirates the most they can afford to spend is 70 to 90 mil a season on payroll. Right now they are spending good chunks on draft picks and supposedly going spend about 25 mil in FA. Like I said until they start winning I doubt they ever spend more than 40 to 50 mil a season.
I also don't want my team to bankrupt itself for one winning season or have 1 winning year (like KC) and then lose 10 straight again. I think they are playing it smart and trying to unload their "stars" and get a larger quantity of good players.
People want to say they sold off their team last year but every player on that team basically lost 90 games the season before so I don't know what keeping it together accomplishes, making deals like the Nady trade is their only way out.
Are you saying that the 27 Browns for example had the same payroll as the 27 Yanks??
Steve
People want to say they sold off their team last year but every player on that team basically lost 90 games the season before so I don't know what keeping it together accomplishes,
==============================================================================================================
Umm haven't they been selling off key players for a while now? Not just last year?
What does it accomplish? I guess you will never know since your team continues to sell off it's stars.
Listen, get in one more post, rebutt whatever I've said and lets put this one to bed.
We both have different views on this subject(s)
One thing we do agree on is that the Yanks spend more than anyone else.
Anyone that can read knows that. How much it correlates into wins is the question we disagree on.
Steve
Why do you keep supporting your team financially and emotionally when the owner does not have the same winning desires as you...and the rest of your community members do not either?
You guys couldn't even sell out the stadium in the early 90's playoff runs. So it is obviuos that the fans are part of the fault, just as the owners who are only in it to make a profit, and have no desire at all to try and win a WS.
The Yanks did it right.
If somebody wants to mimic them, then find a markert where they can make money, and then create an empire where they are recognized as the best in the business. EVERYBODY has that opportunity to do it. SOme just have not been good enough to create such an empire...some are just happy enough to make a profit.
The fools are the ones who just keep giving money to the owners who simply want to make a profit.
In reality, the Pirates should just be cut out of MLB. Maybe they can be a AAA team for somebody.
Hey Hoopster prove they didn't sell out in the 90s, what the playoffs, games on Monday? MLB isn't like the NFL there are 81 games, I am sure alot of teams don't sell out 81 games a season even when they make playoff runs. That doesn't prove the team has bad fans. Nice try, saying every other team can suck it if they aren't the Yankees though nice try you douche.
And he DID NOT make 10 to 20 million dollars.
He was the DH and played a few games at first base.
Yeah I know I'm being literal again.
And YES the Yanks do 'lose' money each year, it is accepted because the Steinbrenner family has seen the franchises
value go up from 10 million to over 1 Billion in less then 40 years.
Steve
If I paid my landscapers to build me a patio, but all they did was rake leaves...I wouldn't pay them anymore.
Stop paying them.
Also, why name calling? Are you sore that your mythical post season player is a product of randomness? You got off the Howard bandwagon pretty quick.
Its not name calling when a fan suggests that other fans cause their teams to lose and shouldn't be allowed to play thats just being a douche. A Pirates fan can suggest it but a Yankee fan doing it shows classless smuggness that is a hallmark of a douche.
You didn't read the other posts about how much the Pirates owner would have to spend out of pocket compared to the Yankees or Red Sox (100 to 150 mil) to have similar payrolls, it would cause them to lose all their money in 5 to 10 years even if they were billionaires. I don't see how you could say that would be a smart move for them.
lol
Guys, lets all remember that we are all friends here and we are just discussing sports.
Steve
Who made what I dunno, one answer to all this is to simply give
smaller market teams more money. Each team should have at least 150 Million
for payroll. I know the naysayers will say that teams like the Yanks would simply spend more.
Then you know what fellows? It all goes back to what I have tried to say all along.
THIS IS NOTHING NEW.
Steve
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
In other words, like it or not, the Yanks are playing within the "rules".
Teams can spend as much or as little as they want. However, the highest payroll doesn't always win championships...
Just ask the NYY from the past 8 years, Mets for a couple of years, and the same with BAL and SEA for a year or two.