I’ll take the opportunity this evening while Boston Celebrates its World Series victory to speak to something I’m passionate about.
Being a Cleveland Indians fan in New York isn’t always easy. Of course ‘97 and ‘07 have been sweet to knock the overpaid Yankee’s from the playoffs. Now, I’ve had a lot of “discussions” with Yankee fans about the problems with payroll in baseball. I think I’ve heard most of their arguments and below I will attempt to point out the flaws in the thinking.
First, a little context. My argument is that it is blatantly unfair to allow a game to continue to be played on a completely uneven playing field where one team can spend over three times the amount of another team. It is no different than giving one team ten or eleven at bats to the others nine. I don’t understand how someone could be proud of a team under these circumstances.
Now let me examine some of the most common arguments I hear:
1.) Because they don’t win all the time and small market teams sometimes win the World Series it is fair.
This one has been put forth by WFAN host Chris Russo! Of course this argument doesn’t wash because no one is suggesting that unfair advantage in payroll guarantees victory it just increases the likelihood of it. Imagine my analogy of a team getting ten at bats per game. Would they win all the time? Hardly, but would it be fair or reasonable to allow that to continue?
2) Other teams are owned by rich owners who could pay hundreds of millions of dollars if the wanted to.
Yes, we should all have owners who are willing to dispense their personal wealth and dismantle their fortunes so that our teams can win the big one. But most owners (all owners!) are business people who spend what they can hope to get a return on. There are more people in the New York (and Boston) area and therefore more revenue. It’s not up to Rich guys charity to bring fairness to the game.
3) The Yankees have always won with their core, homegrown talent.
This, on a very shallow level, is true. If Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Petite and the like had come up with Cleveland, I’d be proud of them too, who wouldn’t? But this argument suggests a couple of misnomers. The suggestion is that the Yankees win and have won all those World-Series by virtue of their great farm system and administration and not because of their payroll, and for this you have love the inability of a Yankee’s fan to understand how good they have it. Not only does lack of payroll prevent other teams from signing the big name free agents, but it also means that any star player on my team will eventually be wearing pin-stripes (or Red-Sox or Dodger Blue). Could you imagine facing the Indians this fall with Bartolo Colon, Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome still there? Could you imagine have Jeter hired away and come back to beat you? The Yankees payroll allows them to keep their best players and dilute the talent of their competitors.
4) The Yankees increase the revenue of all the other teams as fans pay big bucks to come see all the all-stars.
This argument has gained a lot of traction lately and I suspect some idiot on the radio has been saying it and Yankee fans have been lapping it up. But it’s non-sense. You really think that A-Rod coming to Cleveland three times a year brings in more money for the Tribe than if he played on our team for 80 home games? Yes, people will come out to see Jeter, Damon, Clemens, A-Rod and the rest, but there’s nothing to suggest that people wouldn’t pay money to see them if they came in one or two at a time. And over the course of a year that might work out to more revenue. This is really a double slap. You drain all the talent from the rest of the league and then want to claim credit for the extra money we get for the three games you play in our house? That’s the definition of a self-serving argument.
5) Other teams with large payrolls don’t win as often as the Yankees.
My contention is that large payrolls give an unfair advantage. I’m not saying the Yankees (at least in previous years) haven’t used that advantage well, it’s just unfair.
OK, I’m sure I’m forgetting something, but once I get a few of my Yankees friends to chime in, I’ll remember.
5 Comments to “Too Much Money in Baseball?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Let’s compare a few numbers which may surprise you…
Cleveland’s Payroll 2000 – 2007:
Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
2007: $61,673,267
2006: $56,031,500
2005: $41,502,500
2004: $34,319,300
2003: $48,584,834
2002: $78,909,499
2001: $93,360,000
2000: $76,500,000
NYY Payroll 2000 – 2007:
Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
2007: $189,639,045 *
2006: $194,663,079
2005: $208,306,817
2004: $184,193,950
2003: $152,749,814
2002: $125,928,583
2001: $112,287,143
2000: $107,588,459
as per Cot’s Baseball Contracts.
Forbes.com provided the following breakdown on team earnings for the same period:
Cleveland:
2007: 25 million
2006: 35 million
2005 27 million
2004: 10 million
2003: – 1 million
2002: -4 million
2001 4 mil
2000: 17 mil
NYY:
2007: -25 mil
2006: -50 mil
2005: -37 mil
2004: -26 mil
2003: 16 mil
2002: 19 mil
2001: 22 mil
2000: 18 mil
Those are not typos – the yanks have operated with huge losses since 2004.
“Not only does lack of payroll prevent other teams from signing the big name free agents, but it also means that any star player on my team will eventually be wearing pin-stripes (or Red-Sox or Dodger Blue).”
If your owner were willing to accept less of a profit, a la Steinbrenner, or John Henry of the Red Sox, then I’m sure the tribe would be able to hold onto some of their stars.
” The Yankees have always won with their core, homegrown talent.This, on a very shallow level, is true. If Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Petite and the like had come up with Cleveland, I’d be proud of them too, who wouldn’t?
Why “on a very shallow level”? The dynasty of ‘96 – ‘00 was based on a core of homegrowns, period. Unlike the “Bronx Zoo” teams of the 80’s, the yanks changed course during George’s exile, and developed young talent, rather than trading it all away for stars. While the yanks had the highest payroll in the game for most of those years, it was not out of line with the other teams – in ‘01, for example, the yanks 112M didn’t exactly dwarf Boston’s 110M, or Cleveland’s 93M.
“But this argument suggests a couple of misnomers. The suggestion is that the Yankees win and have won all those World-Series by virtue of their great farm system and administration and not because of their payroll”
In truth, a great farm system together with a smart FO, which used ample resources wisely, allowed the yanks to win those 4 WS. Since ‘03, however, (I suspect because of the operating losses) less money has been devoted to player development, proving, as we saw in the ’80’s that money alone can’t buy championships.
The numbers at the top of your post show that the Yankees always have more to spend. Even if you accept the numbers at face value (and you shouldn’t – read on), The Yankee’s payroll minus their losses always comes out higher than the Indians PR plus their profits, so you’re proving my point.
Yankees fans, who won’t admit that the Yanks success is directly linked to their ability to make money often paint George Steinbrenner as a superior owner and deride Cleveland owners for their poor leadership. This of course is a comical depiction. It’s funny because out of one side of their mouth their advocating “sound business practices” and out of the other they suggest operating at a loss to keep up with the Yankees. Now, I don’t have an MBA, but I do know that spending more than you make doesn’t work for very long. So how do the Yankees do it? Well, they don’t. The problem with your numbers, Sheriff, goes like this (from hardballtimes.com):
This is from New York Magazine:
And this from the NY Times:
What’s going on is a shell game in which The Yankees show a loss in a particular year, but in which the value of the team goes up $200 million in that same year. All the while they’re making a profit which exceeds their losses from the Yes Network. But, the Network being a separate entity does not enter into Forbes assessment of annual profits.
Furthermore, the ridiculous rush to spend over the past five seasons hasn’t resulted in a championship – the WS victories came while the Yanks were making a hearty profit.
Why “on a very shallow level”?
This was explained. Your core stays together because of your ability to resign all your players. Posada just got 52 million. Cleveland CAN’T do it. They would get shut down if they tried to run a $50 million loss.
“in ‘01, for example, the yanks 112M didn’t exactly dwarf Boston’s 110M, or Cleveland’s 93M”
Now this is ridiculous. Just because the Yankees payroll is completely off the charts and absurdly out of proportion to all other teams and three times that of Cleveland now doesn’t mean that 19mil in ‘01 isn’t a HUGE advantage. It’s kind of like when you see a gas station now selling gas for $3.00 a gallon and you think, “That’s Reasonable”. 19 Million dollars was the cost of an ace or two in ‘01 and could easily have made all the difference to the Tribe.
“in truth, a great farm system together with a smart FO, which used ample resources wisely, allowed the yanks to win those 4 WS.”
I agree with that. Especially the ample resources. Cleveland’s FO has proven to be one of the best in the last 12 years, if not the best. And their farm system is second to none. But lacking the “ample resources” we come close, but no cigar.
“But lacking the “ample resources” we come close, but no cigar.”
“19 Million dollars was the cost of an ace or two in ‘01 and could easily have made all the difference to the Tribe.”
Cleveland’s payroll was 19M higher than that of Seattle, the team that defeated them in the ‘01 ALDS. In fact, in 3 of the past 8 years, the Tribe’s payroll exceeded that of the eventual WS champion – in ‘01 by 8M, in ‘02 by 17M, and in ‘03 by 3M.
We seem to be in agreement that money alone doesn’t win championships; it just makes getting to the postseason a much safer bet. To chalk everything up to payroll is too simplistic, IMO. I could understand your position (bitterness??)
a bit better if the yanks were in the AL central, and more of a direct threat to Cleveland’s chances of making the postseason crapshoot.
” Your core stays together because of your ability to resign all your players.”
Didn’t Cleveland have a core of players they kept together from ‘95-’01, when they finished first in the central evry year save ‘00?
“Cleveland’s FO has proven to be one of the best in the last 12 years, if not the best.”
I would very much like to hear your proof for this – not saying it isn’t true – I just don’t know that much about Cleveland’s FO…
“Now this is ridiculous. Just because the Yankees payroll is completely off the charts and absurdly out of proportion to all other teams and three times that of Cleveland now doesn’t mean that 19mil in ‘01 isn’t a HUGE advantage. It’s kind of like when you see a gas station now selling gas for $3.00 a gallon and you think, “That’s Reasonable”. 19 Million dollars was the cost of an ace or two in ‘01 and could easily have made all the difference to the Tribe.”
Ridiculous? By your logic then, Boston, with its 110M payroll should have posted one of the best records in the AL, right?
Wrong. 5 teams finished with more wins than the sox. They recorded 34 fewer victories than Seattle, a team with a payroll 36M smaller…
Sheriff:
I don’t quite get your point about the winners in some years having a lower payroll than Cleveland. Are you making the “because teams have won with low payrolls, the system is fair” argument? It’s not logical on any level. My statements quoted by you there are unaffected by these facts and stand unchallenged as far as I can tell. Yes Cleveland was beaten by a team with lower payroll. But out of the three times the Indians and Seattle met in the era we are discussing, Cleveland won twice. By the same token Cleveland exceeded the Yankee’s success in ‘95 ‘97 and ‘05 with a lower payroll. What’s your point? Seattle is to be complimented for doing well that season. So what? What does that have to do with anything?
When you make these kind of statements you show that you have no understanding of the harm the Yankees kind of spending does to mid and small market teams. We do compete with the Yankees in terms of the wild-card and we must spend to be ready to face the Yankees, or someone else who has had to spend to keep up with the Yankees, in the play-offs. ‘05 and ‘00 (I believe) are examples of years that Cleveland finished out of the playoffs and would not have if the Yankees hadn’t been occupying one of the four AL spots. So I guess now you understand my bitterness. Finally.
“By your logic then, Boston, with its 110M payroll should have posted one of the best records in the AL, right?”
Huh? where did I say a higher payroll guarantees success? As a matter of fact I point out that it doesn’t in the original post. Just because some teams spend their money poorly (like the Yankees this year) doesn’t mean they didn’t have an unfair advantage. It’s all a matter of percentages with baseball, so you improve your chances with money – well you pointed out that we agree on this so where are you going with this?
“Didn’t Cleveland have a core of players they kept together from ‘95-’01, when they finished first in the central every year save ‘00?”
Now, I don’t expect you be an expert on Indians history, but here you’re way off. Cleveland’s GM in the early 90’s John Hart (not the guitar player) was widely questioned for his strange signings of young, unproven talent to long term deals. By sheer brillance (IMO) he signed Kenny Lofton, Omar Vizguel, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome and Co. to long term deals as youngsters. Of course praise was later heaped on him for these great moves. Those deals ran out in ‘01. How many of those guys resigned? Who didn’t have the $ to sign them? Now do you get it? Your team has the money to keep your core, mine doesn’t.
On the other hand, maybe the cure has already come about. We’ll see if the profit sharing rules allow Cleveland to keep this core together (and maybe sign one or two reasonably talented free agents). If so, much of my reason for griping may already have been resolved.
“I would very much like to hear your proof for this – not saying it isn’t true – I just don’t know that much about Cleveland’s FO…”
I don’t have “proof”. Proof is hard to come by when discussing opinions. But, in addition to the facts stated above, seven out of twelve years in the playoffs with such payroll limitations is downright impressive. I would suggest equal or superior to the accomplishment of 12 for 12 with unlimited funds.