http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0203/1503295.html So much for the new Collective Bargaining Agreement forcing the New York Yankees to curtail their spending. Owner George Steinbrenner stopping at nothing to improve the Yankees, and sources familiar with their books told the New York Daily News last week that the team's current payroll for 2003 is an all-time high of $164 million -- about $24 million more than at this time a year ago. That's $45 million more than the second highest, the Mets' $119 million, according to figures obtained by the newspaper. New York's payroll also is almost 60 percent greater than the division rival Boston Red Sox, who are sixth highest in the majors at $103 million. The size of the Yankees' payroll compared to baseball's other 29 franchises was a major reason the CBA includes the so-called "luxury tax," which is geared to increase competitive balance by discouraging overspending. Both New York teams will try to shed some salary before the season begins, according to the Daily News, but if their payroll levels remain where they are, they will be the only two teams in baseball forced to pay a luxury tax. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, any team with a 2003 payroll number exceeding the "threshold" of $117 million would pay 17.5 percent on the excess. As they stand now, the Mets would have to pay about $350,000 and the Yankees $8 million to $9 million. And every time a team exceeds the luxury tax threshold, its tax rate rises. "Winning and appealing to fans is where the money is," Yankees chief operating officer Lonn Trost told the Daily News. "We also are growing the next generation of fan with our approach." In the days after a surprising first-round playoff loss to the Angels, Yankees executives sounded as if they were working for other small-market clubs. They vowed to cut salary and general manager Brian Cashman even said the club's payroll wouldn't have to match the $140 million they had tied up at the start of last season. "You don't have to spend that kind of money to win," Cashman said at the time. When Cashman couldn't find takers for overpriced players Rondell White (due $5 million in 2003), Raul Mondesi ($7 million) and Sterling Hitchcock ($6 million) and Matsui and Contreras became available, the team decided it could not do without the latter two. Matsui was signed for $21 million over three years, Contreras for $32 million over four years. "What we see with the Yankees is that there has been no change in priorities," a baseball official told the Daily News. "Certainly they talked about cutting payroll and ... there's no disputing they made an effort to. It was probably always their plan." If the Yankees were to trade either Mondesi, White of Hitchcock in the coming weeks, it would not only reduce the payroll but also their luxury tax number. "But they still believe the best way to make money is to put fans in the seats with a winner on the field," the baseball official said. "There are things in place that would deter most teams from spending, but these guys won't let it compromise their first priority." According to the Daily News, the $164 million figure includes benefits but not performance incentives, which cost the Yankees an additional $4 million last season (mostly to left-hander David Wells). That figure also is greater than any other franchise's. Agents point to this component of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, as well as the increased revenue-sharing plan, as "market shapers." Only a handful of free agents found themselves signing this offseason for what they wanted, which has fueled the current talk about collusion by owners. "Really, how can you compete when somebody is spending 80 or 90 million more?" Hall of Famer George Brett told the Kansas City Star. "The only thing you can do is catch lightning in a bottle like Oakland or Minnesota. (The Royals) haven't caught lightning in a bottle." Brett was part of a group that made an unsuccessful attempt to buy the Royals, who he played 21 seasons for before retiring in 1993, after founding owner Ewing Kauffman's death. "I can't see myself staying in Kansas City as a player," Brett said. "Not now. It's all changed. I would sign one-year contracts." Fair, real fair.
The Yankees are right. The money comes from the fans. Fans come to a winning ballclub (think bandwagon). This has been and will be a sucessful strategy for them. Unfortunately, more owners don't use the same philosophy. Not that high spending guarantees a championship, or even a playoff berth (see Red Sux).
And yet the LA Clippers are currently one of the most profitable NBA franchises. I guess there's more than one way to fill one's pockets as a sports owner. One wonder if the $164 million payroll really translates into more than $20 million returned vs. a $144 million payroll would. i.e. would the revenues be the same for the Yankees with a significantly lower payroll?
Radio and tv networks make their money selling ad time. The ad time sells because people are watching. The people watching, you guessed it, FANS. This isn't rocket science.
Its still dumb that they can spend that much more on their team. The reason they have so many "fans" is their market is 10-20 times bigger than most other markets in baseball. Winning or not, they would still make more money than everyone else.
No kidding. Yet you leave out the rather important factor of market size. Any idea what the Yanks/Mets tv ratings/share were over the last 2-3 years compared to the rest of MLB?
There is no comparison between the deals owned by teams like the Yankees, Mets, Cubs and Braves and deals with other teams like the Astros. It is not even close. It's like the difference between getting paid a middle manager salary and the salary of a CEO. Steinbrenner isn't doing anything except reaping the reward of living in NYC. That is why baseball's salary structure and revenue sharing is an absolute disaster.
Dallas is a huge market, so are Los Angeles and Chicago. Why haven't the White Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Rangers, and Mets been tearing up the league? Maybe the people that aren't willing to invest in their team should sell to those who will, people like Turner who don't need to worry about market size. Maybe if y'all could convince Rupert Murdoch to buy the Astros you wouldn't b**** and moan so much. What I have never understood is why everyone complains about the Yankees, but no one is complaining about the Mets, Cubs, Braves, Red Sux, Diamondbacks, and Dodgers. All of those teams have had huge payrolls in recent years, but it is always the "evil" Yankees that draw everyone's ire. Actually, I do understand, it is jealousy that the Yankees know how to build a good team and whatever sorry team the whiners root for do not. BTW, the Yankees would be very good with a much lower payroll. If you cut Roger Clemons, Raul Mondesi, Contreres, Matsui, and a couple of pitchers not even in their rotation, they would lose about $50 million in payroll and would still be the favorites to win it all.
With the astro's, it's not about whether Mclane puts out the money. Its about key players (whiffwell, biggio, ect..) not performing in the playoffs. The astros have a competitive club on paper. Now whether these guys can get a extra base hit in the playoffs is another story.
People complain about those other teams too, but the Yankees are always the biggest spenders of them all (and they have the biggest market...funny how that works), so the Yankees get most of the criticism. The article posted in this very thread documents how the Yankee's payroll is $45 million more than the second highest team.
Dallas is a huge market, so are Los Angeles and Chicago. Hmmm.. New York: estimated 20 million in the metro area. Dallas: estimated 5 million Chicago: estimated 9 million LA: 16 million Only LA is comparable, and LA could spend like NY if they wanted to. What good does that do? Then you'd have two destabilizing teams in the league. Much better. BTW, the Yankees would be very good with a much lower payroll. If you cut Roger Clemons, Raul Mondesi, Contreres, Matsui, and a couple of pitchers not even in their rotation, they would lose about $50 million in payroll and would still be the favorites to win it all. Wouldn't it be nice if you could pick and choose what guaranteed contracts to just eliminate after the fact? You can't just chop off the $50 million worth of bad contracts on your payroll and say "they'd still be good".
Obviously they can't do it, or they would have already (minus Clemons, they just resigned him). My point was that that portion of their payroll is not helping them. They are not gaining a competitive advantage for all of their overpaid garbage. That isn't even counting the players that are good but still grossly overpaid, like a Derek Jeter. Their payroll is high, but they aren't getting their money's woth in a lot of cases. What reason is there to complain that their payroll is high when they are spending the money on players other teams wouldn't want anyway. BTW, the Rangers have a huge tv contract. That is why I included them. The Cubs were also able to get a huge tv contract. That makes at least 6 teams that can spend like the Yankees (Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Braves, Cubs, and Rangers.) If the White Sox could get a contract like the Cubs (both being from Chicago and all) that would be 7. That is 1/4 of all the MLB teams competing with the Yankees (Montreal doesn't count, owned by all the other teams). Jerry Collangelo showed a willingness to spend and won a world series, as did the Marlins. That shows that you don't even need the big market deals to compete. Beyond that, two of the lowest payroll teams were in the ALDS in Oakland and Minnesota. There seems to be plenty of competition in the league. I don't think any CBA is going to make it better than that, not that you could get a better deal out of the players association than they just got.
Good Point. Steinbrenner is simply playing within the rules as set forth my MLB. Until the rules are changed, things will remain the same and the Yankees will remain at the top of the baseball food chain. I cannot get mad at George for putting his money where his mouth is and trying to produce the best team he can assemble. I may not agree with the rules but I cant fault the guy for being the type of owner who wants to WIN at any cost year after year.
Eh. Stupidmoniker has it half-right. The Yankees do make good decisions. If the Red Sox, Dodgers, and Mets made equally good decisions, then they'd win more. But teams like the Astros, Reds, Devil Rays, etc... can't compete. Hell, the D'backs are in danger of bankruptcy. What was that you said about winning creating the market? Sorry. Arizona tried that, and is going to pay the penalty in the next few years. It's true that you can expand a team's revenue through winning. But there some teams have larger expansion potential than others. And the difference can be huge. The Yankees have good management. But their management isn't even the best. The A's, Mariners, and Astros have all made better decisions in the past decade. Want to count the # of championships they have? 0 last time I checked. The deck is stacked, and baseball is far less interesting when the largest club has a payroll 3 times larger than merely average ones (to say nothing of, say, the Twins).
