Yankees Are Good For Baseball

[Crash Course]

See: http://www.netshrine.com/20040720.html

Discussion welcome and appreciated.

[manny tortolero]

Nice article. I always ask myself how many of the Yankees players today will be one day in the HOF: Jeter, Rodriguez, Sheffield, Mussina, Brown, Rivera and who knows with Giambi, Williams and Posada. Is like an itinerant all-star team playing everywhere.

[RedSeat]

The argument against the Yankees is that their massive payroll creates competitive imbalance. Certain teams start the season with little or no chance of winning because they can't compete with less than half of the Yankees' payroll. And how much does that contribute to the woeful home attendance figures when the Yankees are not in town? Sure, the other owners like the attendance bump, but I'm sure they're more concerned about the other 75 or so home games.

[Crash Course]

I think the 40% jump in attendance says the fans like to see a great baseball team. And, I think it says that teams like to see their team beat a great baseball team. Fans in many ballparks over the last couple of seasons react to the Yankees series like it's their World Series.

And, as far as the competitive imbalance claim, isn't that just limited to one of the six divisions?

[RedSeat]

I think the 40% jump in attendance says the fans like to see a great baseball team. And, I think it says that teams like to see their team beat a great baseball team.
Yes, but fans would rather root for a great baseball team. The 40% bump is definitely a positive thing. But the best situation for baseball would be for all teams to draw well at home for their own sakes, not because of the team they're playing.

And, as far as the competitive imbalance claim, isn't that just limited to one of the six divisions?
Not entirely. Teams compete for free agents, too. If the economics of the game were different, more teams could afford to keep their homegrown stars instead of constantly rebuilding. And more teams could bid competively for the free agents who do end up on the open market. If your team needs to upgrade in the same position the Yankees do, too bad.

[Crash Course]

Last time I checked, Yankees only have a 25 man roster and only 9 regular position on the field (include DH) - plus a 5 man rotation, etc.

It's not like the Yankees are grabbing every FA. See the Angels. See the O's. Teams other than NY are signing free agents to big $ contracts.

If a team like Montreal (Vlad) or Oakland (Foulke, Miggy) or Cleveland (Thome, Manny) are losing FAs, it's not because of the Yankees $. Talk to the Angels, Bosox, and Phils.

[JamesI]

The Yanks increase attendence, yes.

That does not make them good for baseball.

[mgoettsche]

This season has been widely hailed as one of the most competitive seasons in years (LOTS of years). Apart from the Yanks and Cards, each of the division races is extremely tight. The competition for the wild card is even tighter. Former basement teams like the Brewers, Pirates, Tigers, Devil Rays, and Rangers are all enjoying a renaissance of sorts. All this while the Yanks have spent more than ever before. What has happened the past couple of years in the playoffs? More to the point, what has usually happened over the past 30 (since FA started)? Also, before FA, how many teams legitimately had a shot at the WS crown? 3 or 4? I'd say that's still true...Yanks, Cards, BoSox, and Angels all have a pretty decent shot, with 3 or 4 other dark horses.

It looks as if a model (not talking moneyball either) is being fleshed out where teams are getting smart about how they construct their team and how they maximize usage out of their players before they cash out. Teams no longer have to have $100 million dollar payrolls to put out a competitive, exciting team.

Now if you buy all that, how are the Yanks bad for baseball? Teams love seeing the favorite, either to root for them or against them. I'm of the opinion that a powerhouse is generally good for the league, as long as other teams have a shot at beating them. Creates good storylines (archetypal good v. evil, David v. Goliath).

[Crash Course]

Teams love seeing the favorite, either to root for them or against them. I'm of the opinion that a powerhouse is generally good for the league, as long as other teams have a shot at beating them. Creates good storylines (archetypal good v. evil, David v. Goliath).

Well said. Agree. 100%. The numbers back this up too.

[Crash Course]

The Yanks increase attendence, yes.

That does not make them good for baseball.

If you say they are not good for baseball, then, in a sense, you're saying that they are bad for baseball. Why are they bad?

[TimmyB]

Oh help me.

The Yankees' financial dominance of the game is not good for baseball. Yes, it may give each host team (except Boston and Anaheim) an appreciable bump in attendance (and all the revenue that comes with it), but it's long term effect has been hard on baseball.

(Let me quickly inject into my rant that I am a firm believer in the concept of well-run teams and poorly-run teams meaning a lot to the product that goes out on the field vs. small and big market teams. However, none of this happens in a vaccum Taking the anti-Yankees as an example -- Omar Minya may be a genius... but he doesn't have the money to develop and keep or to acquire impact talent.)

Looking back at baseball as an industry... the late 1970s and 1980s were baseball's boom years. Baseball, at the time, was relying more on national TV contracts and less on local deals (certainly less so than compared to today).

What did we see? A lot of different teams playing in the playoffs and World Series. Lots of contending teams, too. Baseball, again, as an industry, was wildly profitable because over the course of those 15 years, it felt like, at one time or another, everyone had a chance. The fans came out in great numbers (numbers that still haven't been approached since the strike of '94) and spent their money on all things baseball.

Teams like Kansas City, Detroit, Milwaukee, San Diego, Toronto and others had periods of great success, and never (well, not until the early '90s) did their fans have to worry they were "small market".

Look at the NFL -- it is not unreasonable for the fans of almost any team to think, hey, this could be our year. Last year's losing record does not equate this year's results. And while the NFL no longer has the teams that everyone either loves or hates to the degree they used to, I think Tags and Co. will happily sacrifice the loss of dynasties to fan increased fan interest (read: $$$ spent) almost across the board. They share the wealth and everyone benefits. If your management is incompetent, well, too bad. But, every smart team has a chance.

MLB would benefit greatly from an atmosphere where the fans in 25 cities thought, hey, this could be our year. The economic inbalance doesn't help foster this (and yes, I say this as a card-carrying member of RSN -- a so-called large market team). Most teams would much rather be competing on a more level playing field than waiting for the occassional crumbs from the visiting Yankees.

[Crash Course]

Tim - hasn't it already been proven that big payrolls do not always mean a winning team?

[TimmyB]

Absolutely. I attempted to say that much in my post.

There are always going to be well run teams with smaller payrolls (Oakland, Minnesota, sometimes Florida and even sometimes Montreal and so on) who use a combination of player development and smart acquisitions to contend.

I'll even go further and say that some teams (Milwaukee over the past 20 years being the poster children for this) used their small-market status as an excuse for their inept management.

However, when the Yankees investment in their starting rotation is nearly that of other teams entire payroll... there's an inequity. (I also do not for one minute fault NY for doing this -- they are playing within the rules as they are written.)

Again... none of this is happening in a vacuum. Well run teams will contend more often than not. However, imagine what Minnesota or Oakland could do with an extra $50M. Or the creativity that Cashman would have to employ using $75M less. The teams with fewer financial resources tend to be cyclical in nature. As the rules go right now, the Yankees, barring complete front-office ineptitude, will not be hit like other teams by the money cycle.

[Crash Course]

I'll repeat what I said to James - if the Yankees are not good for baseball, then you are saying they are bad for baseball. You claim that they are bad for baseball because they have resources that other teams do not. Is that the Yankees fault? Or, is it more the fault of baseball? Baseball may be bad for baseball, but, the trouble in the system is not the Yankees fault.

To the point of the SOTS feature, if anything, the Yankees help baseball by making money for teams that need it.

[RedSeat]

Is that the Yankees fault? Or, is it more the fault of baseball? Baseball may be bad for baseball, but, the trouble in the system is not the Yankees fault.

To the point of the SOTS feature, if anything, the Yankees help baseball by making money for teams that need it.
IMO, it is the system that's flawed. But the Yankees are at the very least the poster child of the flawed system, and at worst, they're the initiators of the system.

The ideal system would promote larger interest and attendance regardless of the opponent. I think this ideal is less likely to happen when one (or 2, 3, or 4) team(s) has such a huge financial advantage.

I'll acknowledge that the Yankees draw out the larger crowds, but I also believe their dominance is at least partly responsible for the low attendance at other games.

[Crash Course]

Can't it be that the "low attendance" at the other games is the normal base line and the Yankees just are a good thing?

[nyy26wc]

Can't it be that the "low attendance" at the other games is the normal base line and the Yankees just are a good thing?

That's why I say is happening.

[guidry49]

As a Yankee fan- I'll grant you that they are the poster child...appropriately or not, is another issue.

But I blame the owners who think owning a team is a right, rather than a privledge....and most of them are crying poverty with a loaf of bread under each arm (to quote my nanna). If you can't afford it- then step off- we'll find another multi billionaire who can.

Also- from a logistic stanpoint- some of these decisions make no sense...take Florida for example....you have a warm weather state- and both stadiums are a joke. You have the Marlins playing outdoors where the chance of rain is always 50+%...who would want to drive out there if the game is going to be delayed? And you have the D-Rays, inside a dome when it is 85 degrees and sunny outside? Bad planning.

Also- speaking of owners making bad decisions, a good topic was brought up on Baseball Tonight regarding these no-trade clauses- the consensus was that they should only be given to "top" players....or- if you give a no-trade clause- you should counter it with performace clauses....any thoughts on my incoherent rambling?

[Crash Course]

What about 5 & 10 guys?

[nyy26wc]

No trade clauses are benefits.

People get benefits as tradeoffs for other things.

So, sure, eliminate no trade clauses. Just expect salaries to increase a little bit as the players who otherwise would have gotten the benefit of the no trade clause just gets the benefit changed into monetary equivalences.

And before anyone complains about a group of employees getting their benefits, I have to ask whether they hold themselves to the same standard. I have to ask them whether they are opposed to employees getting benefits or whether they are just opposed to people other than themselves receiving benefits.

[mgoettsche]

I'll put my conclusion first since this is lengthy... :D

My big point is that nothing has really changed, and the recent talk of competitive imbalance is misleading...it has ALWAYS been there since the dawn of FA. There are some teams that are able to bid on the best FA, and there are some teams that won't. Look throughout the past 30 years, and you will see that 85-90% of all of the teams have at one time or other been a part of bidding at the upper-end of the food chain. The reason why certain teams (ie Pirates, Brewers) never felt "small-market" before was because Baseball never publicly talked about it as a way to force contraction/stadium builds before. This still doesn't change the fact that those teams are "small-market", and that if they hope to put out a competitive product (which is proven that they can do), they need to have smart management and a great farm/talent evaluation system.

...OK...

Big question is: How is it different today than 10/20/40 years ago?

The Yanks won their titles in the late '90s largely with homegrown talent and a couple of high-priced FA/rent-a-player types. They set themselves up for success by developing a great farm system (getting lucky that many panned out) and they had $$$ to fill in the missing 1 or 2 pieces. All-in-all, a well-run ballclub with money to spend. However, during the same period of time, they weren't head and shoulders above other teams with regard to spending. Only the past 3 years (telling, since NYY haven't won the WS in any of those years) did their spending dwarf the competitors. Look at the numbers (thanks to Pappas' website):

'96: NYY, Blt, Clv, Atl ($45m-$52m), several teams ~$40m
'97: NYY, Blt, CWS, Clv, Atl ($50m-$57m), several teams ~$45m
'98: Blt, NYY, Clv, Tex, Atl ($55m-$68m), several teams ~$50m
'99: NYY, Blt, Tex, Atl, La ($73m-$85m), several teams over $60m
'00: NYY, Bos, Blt, Atl, NYM, Ari, LA ($77m-$92m), several teams ~$70m

After that, a gap widens, although there were several teams (Bos, LA, NYM, Ari, Cle, Tex, Atl, Ana) that still spent a lot. Also, please note the NYY spending has *always* been in the top 5 in the league, even during their lean years.

Just throwing that out for a baseline to a few thoughts:

1) The well-run teams with at least some money win. This is not new. Look at the Braves/Blue Jays/'97 Marlins. Most every team that won going back to '85 (hard to look up payroll before then) finished with a payroll in the upper half, most with one of the top 5 or 6 payrolls. The most glaring example of a team winning with a small payroll occurred last year! This stat holds true for teams making the playoffs as well.

What is some money? Using Fla last year as a baseline, I would say to play, you need a minimum $40-45m payroll. Enough to field a talented young team with one or two high-priced FA (like IRod). 4 teams this year fall below of that number, and interestingly enough, all 4 are surprises this years (Pit, Mil, TB, Cle), one of which has a legitimate postseason shot if they get a closer.

2) Spending money without good management ensures only mediocrity. Yanks in '80s/early '90s. Dodgers under Malone. Rangers under first years of Hicks. Tigers in early '90s. Lots of examples throughout the past 30 years.

3) All teams run in cycles. The Yanks will come down, fairly soon too, I might add. The farm system is dry, the lineup is aging (no young stars at all), and the FA SP have been injury prone. The last three years are telling...the Yanks simply aren't as good as they were in the late '90s. George can keep spending, but I don't know that it will help.

Note that the entire FA era is about teams taking shots. If you have a team that looks like it can contend, try to get that one piece. Look at Toronto in the '92-'93. Florida in '97. Arizona in '01. LA in '88. It is in this regard alone that there is a competitive imbalance, but this is not new to the last 5 years.

Only the extremely fortunate, well-managed teams can string together any sort of run at success, irregardless of money. That Atl has managed to still compete while being in rebuilding mode is remarkable.

4) Every era has had a time when there were only 3 or 4 legit contenders, a handful of darkhorses, a few pretenders, and a few just stinky teams. If you look at win distributions for the last 30 years, nothing has changed.

Some last points...

*Some good points about the national TV contract in the '70s-'80s. Cable really killed ratings...too much competition for the eyeballs. That said, it is hard to argue that baseball is not enjoying a resurgence in the eyes of the fans. Attendance is up across the board. Ratings are up dramatically. Lots of teams are either competing for the playoffs, or fielding up-and-coming teams that can compete in the next couple of years. IMO, this has been one of the most exciting seasons in years! Would this be happening if there was little in the way of competitive balance?

*The revenue sharing setup is a step in the right direction. The Yanks are contributing to other teams' development when they spend so much. In addition to the boost in attendance for Yanks games, the Yanks have a positive $$$ impact on the game.

*I like the football analogy. Don't know that the % of playoff hopefuls changes vs baseball...looking at last years projections, there were about 20 NFL teams vying for 12 spots. Seems there were about 16 baseball teams with a shot at 8 spots. I agree that the salary cap is a far superior system for balancing play, although I don't necessarily think it equates to a higher caliber of play.

whew...

[Ytown Tribe fan]

The Yanks don't hurt baseball. Smaller market owners trying to BE like George hurt baseball.

They are the natural rivals to every team, despite not having won a WS in awhile.

Besides, it's funny to hear Yanks fans whining about lack of depth in some department or other. Like Halliburton execs whining about the price of oil. Also, every so often George whines about something or other regarding "fairness" -- that alone is better than half the material written for "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

[mgoettsche]

The Yanks don't hurt baseball. Smaller market owners trying to BE like George hurt baseball.

They are the natural rivals to every team, despite not having won a WS in awhile.

Besides, it's funny to hear Yanks fans whining about lack of depth in some department or other. Like Halliburton execs whining about the price of oil. Also, every so often George whines about something or other regarding "fairness" -- that alone is better than half the material written for "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"


I like that...kind of like "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

[RedSeat]

The Yanks don't hurt baseball. Smaller market owners trying to BE like George hurt baseball.
I agree with that to some extent. I've never made the argument that the Yankees are bad for baseball. What I believe is that my ideal scenario can never be realized as long as there is such a huge payroll disparity across the league. So while they're not necessarily bad for the game, they are incompatible with the direction in which I'd like to move. And this applies at both ends of the spectrum. Several owners are guilty of not spending enough.

[guidry49]

Going back a bit to the "benefits" statement....fringe benefits, like a no-trade clause, should be based on performance. If a player does not produce to their "market value"- they shouldn't be given these no-trade clauses, or they should be revoked. So- I have no problem putting these clauses into their contracts- but if they don't put up the numbers, it should be revoked....you might even see a nice decline in players going on the DL because of a sore ego.

The owners baby and pamper too many players, and then they wonder why they are stuck with a .230 hitter making 10 million dollars that they have to put on waivers.

A no-trade clause is a privledge....and a no-trade clause to certain TEAMS is an absolute joke...don't even get me started on that.

[JamesI]

I think the 40% jump in attendance says the fans like to see a great baseball team. And, I think it says that teams like to see their team beat a great baseball team. Fans in many ballparks over the last couple of seasons react to the Yankees series like it's their World Series.

And, as far as the competitive imbalance claim, isn't that just limited to one of the six divisions?

I think the 40% jump is just the fact that the Yankees have more fans across the nation than do other teams.

And, isn't the fact that 1 of the 6 divisions is decided every year before the season begins bad for the game?

The Yankees biggest problem is probably the crappy system in which they seem to benefit more than any other team. No other team could afford to pay Giambi 17 mil a year and not care if he stinks since they can just go out and get some one else.
The Yankees can afford to sign any player they want. They can afford to have 8-9 all stars a year.

I admit I am biased against the Yankees. Its not just because I'm an Orioles fan, the Yankees are only part of the reason the Orioles are uncompetitive (really bad owner and management being a much bigger part). All dynasties are bad in my mind.

But the main thing I hate about the Yankees is the average fans. Any fan who acts like the Yankees haven't won in 3 years so now its their turn just angers me. And I live in Yankee country so I'm surrounded by it.
Of course, most of the Yankee fans like this know so little about baseball that they could not name the rest of the teams in their division or which division the Yankees are in.

[Joseph]

the yankee's advantages would be reduced and the team would be made more mortal if MLB put a team in Jersey.

[Crash Course]

Agreed 1000%. A team in NJ would impact the Yankees attendance, somewhat, and their ratings (and TV money as well). If MLB had did this around 3 years ago, it would have had a bigger impact. The longer they wait to do this, it will have less of an impact. The Yankee brand now is snowballing big time. It may get so big that not even a 3rd team could melt some of it away.

[mainsr]

I will take a back seat to nobody as a Yankee hater. But they get a little of a bum rap. If I strip away the emotions, the way that I think the club really does hurt the game is its resistance to revenue sharing. Baseball has both the biggest disparity between teams' local revenues among the major sports and the least revenue sharing. That means that the Yankees, which have by far the biggest local revenues, have the most ability to spend money on payroll. Absent a salary cap (which punishes the players for the owners' lack of self-control), the only way to enforce some modicum of equality among the franchises is revenue sharing. Baseball does very little, mostly, from what I can tell, because of the Yankees' opposition. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that George is perpetuating a system that gives him an advantage that the Lakers and the Patriots, to name two, don't have.

[Crash Course]

Dude - watch how much money the Yankees will fork over to other teams at the end of this season. That's revenue sharing, if anything is.

[mgoettsche]

I will take a back seat to nobody as a Yankee hater. But they get a little of a bum rap. If I strip away the emotions, the way that I think the club really does hurt the game is its resistance to revenue sharing. Baseball has both the biggest disparity between teams' local revenues among the major sports and the least revenue sharing. That means that the Yankees, which have by far the biggest local revenues, have the most ability to spend money on payroll. Absent a salary cap (which punishes the players for the owners' lack of self-control), the only way to enforce some modicum of equality among the franchises is revenue sharing. Baseball does very little, mostly, from what I can tell, because of the Yankees' opposition. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that George is perpetuating a system that gives him an advantage that the Lakers and the Patriots, to name two, don't have.


I buy this, although the new system is far better than anything baseball has had before. Based on their spending, the Yanks give far more to the pot than any other team.

Can baseball ever get to an NFL-type revenue sharing system? Doubtful...they have to give the Yankees some concessions somewhere. But they should continue to push towards it.

[mainsr]

Dude - watch how much money the Yankees will fork over to other teams at the end of this season. That's revenue sharing, if anything is.

The amount is piddling. Just because the Yankees put far more into revenue sharing than any other team doesn't mean that baseball has meaningful revenue sharing.

Before JFK cut taxes, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 91%. Now, it's 35%. The top tax rate may seem high/confiscatory/redistributionist to some now, but it isn't in a historical context (it exceeded 60% every year from 1932 to 1963). Same with baseball's weak imitation of revenue sharing, which really isn't revenue sharing, anyway; it's a "luxury tax" on player payrolls.

[Crash Course]

Piddling? The Yankees' luxury tax bill for 2004 will probably be around $23 million for this season. In addition to the tax, the Yankees will pay at least $50 million towards baseball's revenue-sharing plan.

Most guesses say the actual number, of the two combined, will be closer to $100 million this year.

Split the difference. Make it $86 million.

Steinbrenner gives up $86 million to the other teams, from his pocket, and that's piddling?

[JamesI]

Steinbrenner gives up $86 million to the other teams, from his pocket, and that's piddling?
Yes. It barely makes a dent on the teams finances. The revenue sharing/luxury tax does nothing to stop Steinbrenner from adding any amount of salary.

[Crash Course]

I would disagree. With his current payroll, etc., he has to pay $80-something million. If not for the tax, etc., instead of a $180-something million payroll, he'd probably have a $250-something million payroll.

[mainsr]

Steinbrenner gives up $86 million to the other teams, from his pocket, and that's piddling?

Look, any "revenue sharing" system in which just a handful of teams contribute (Yanks, Red Sox, and Angels are the only ones, as I recall) is piddling.

This is a great example of what a fool Bud is. George gets far more local revenues than anyone else. That means he can pay guys more in the majors, but it also means he can afford a bigger and better front office, more minor league teams, more minor league coaches and roving instructors, more scouts, etc. But the "luxury tax" focuses only on ML payrolls, nothing else. It does nothing to address a significant advantage he has everywhere else. The majors should be concerned with competitive balance overall. The luxury tax addresses only Bud's primary concern: High salaries. So George gives up bucks there but maintains his advantage everywhere else.

Baseball's revenue sharing goes nowhere as far as the other sports.

[Crash Course]

The Yankees have the same number of minor league teams as every other team. In fact, less - IIRC, they do not field an instructional league team.

And, as far as the front office, Stein is famous for being very tight with the dollar there. He believes that people should feel honored to work for the Yankees and that, itself, allows him to pay them less.

[mainsr]

The Yankees have the same number of minor league teams as every other team. In fact, less - IIRC, they do not field an instructional league team.

And, as far as the front office, Stein is famous for being very tight with the dollar there. He believes that people should feel honored to work for the Yankees and that, itself, allows him to pay them less.

I didn't say that teams with a lot of local revenues do necessarily pay up for non-major league talent. I said that they can. Clearly, the Yankees are doing something better than in the days when they just threw money at guys like Gamble, Collins, and Hawkins.

The front-office salary stories? I'll believe 'em when I see the numbers. Clearly, there is no reason for any team to pay up for support personnel. But the actual operations people? I have my doubts that Steinbrenner's cheap.

The Yankees have 3 Class A affiliates.
3 in Class A: Diamondbacks, Orioles, Red Sox, Cubs, Indians, Rockies, Tigers, Astros, Expos, Mets, Yankees, A's, Phillies, Pirates, Padres, Giants, Mariners, Cardinals, Devil Rays, Blue Jays
2 in Class A: Angels, Braves, White Sox, Reds, Marlins, Royals, Dodgers, Brewers, Twins, Rangers
All the teams with 3 A teams have on Rookie club; all the teams with 2 A have two Rookie teams (except the Royals, who have one). The difference is that A teams are significantly better than rookie teams, which are effectively tryout camps. So the Yankees do have an advantage, and that's before we look at the instructional personnel.

[mgoettsche]

And their minor league system still stinks... :D

Just playing Bud for a second, what kind of changes can be made that George wouldn't veto? My take is that any changes need to be incremental, and that some changes have been made lately moving baseball in the right direction. As I understand it, there is a limited revenue sharing system in place (not sure of the details), and there is the luxury tax.

Here are some thoughts:

*Local TV revenue gets split 75-25...75 for the team, 25 for the league
*Merchandise gets split 75-25 (I believe the NFL is somewhere along this model)
*Institute a salary floor...if teams are getting subsidized from big revenue earners, they need to not behave like Donald Sterling.

What do you think? Probably better than what baseball has now, but not too oppressive for George.

[JamesI]

Teams need to be forced to spend the money they bring in from luxury tax and revenue sharing. I can understand George being pissed to pay out 80 million to see it go into the pockets of greedy owners.

[nyy26wc]

I wonder what would have happened if there was some other team in the majors that had a streak of winning division titles that was longer than the Yankees. I wonder what would have happened if such a team was on a national TV station. I wonder what would have happened if such a team was owned, first by an individual, than by a corporation with far more resources than George Steinbrenner. I wonder whether we'd even be having a discussion about whether that hypothetical team was good or bad for baseball.

Just wondering.

[Crash Course]

What a Brave concept! ;)

[mgoettsche]

touche....

Now why couldn't the Dodgers under Fox have been successful? :(

[Deep Blue]

They could have been - they just chose not to be !

Obviously George is not the only obstacle to revenue sharing here - and in order to make revenue sharing meaningful then the local TV revenues need to be counted - accurately - and included as part of the pie. I am not sure how willing TBS/WGN/YES will be to do this. Until they see it as necessary for the financial well-being of all baseball, and by extension, their team and their network, I think revenue sharing will just be a melancholy mirage.

And I would agree that the revenue sharing should be accompanied by a spending floor of some sort. Or maybe take the English soccer model - finish in last place a time or two and get demoted to the minors, and lose your shot at the pie :)

[Crash Course]

Did you miss NESN when you mentioned TBS/WGN/YES? ;)

[Crash Course]

Hanging out yesterday, waiting on a knee X-ray (I'm OK), I read in old copy of SI that the Yankees are on pace to break the records for most fans to games on the road, and for the season.

Rockies in 1993 hold the record for most fans, home and away. Interestly, the 2000 Reds hold the record for most fans drawn on the road in a season - that was Griffey's 1st year in the NL.

Never would have guessed 2000 Reds.
1993 Rocks, yes, because of the home attendance.

[Crash Course]

This is very interesting - note the teams making the quotes:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/sports/pro/sports1-071304stein.htm

Consequently, whether he’s sniping at Torre or his players, or being investigated for commenting on Arizona’s Randy Johnson, or gloating his team is on pace to break the Colorado Rockies’ 1993 mark of playing before 7.1 million total attendance as the most-watched in history, the result is a boost for the sport.

On the road, the Yankees are worth an extra 13,000 a game when they come to town. Whether they come to cheer their Devil Rays or jeer the Yankees, they come to see the monster Steinbrenner has built.

“Obviously, George is somebody who attracts a lot of attention,” said Pirates owner Kevin McClatchy. “He has a high profile but I happen to think that’s good for the game. When you think of the Yankees, you think of all the great players they’ve had but you also think of George.

“You really can’t separate him and the Yankees. He’s a real personality and I think that’s good. He’s not only an important person in the game in New York but also outside. He generates a lot of interest and that’s a positive for our sport.”

The Yankees, said Minnesota Twins general manager Terry Ryan, are the strongest link in the chain, and by extension, make everybody else stronger.

When Major League Baseball has enjoyed its most vibrant and healthiest times, it has done so with a strong Yankee team.

“He’s got the highest profile franchise in our industry and with that comes a lot of attention,” said Ryan. “Regardless of what you think of the Yankees, they help the game of baseball for a number of reasons: One, attendance, on the road they draw well everywhere they go and at home they draw three million.

“Internationally, the Yankees are a respected name. A lot of that is George Steinbrenner and the tradition.”

Steinbrenner added Gary Sheffield, Rodriguez, Javier Vazquez and Kevin Brown in the offseason, and many on the New York radio call-in shows thought the season was an afterthought.

The spending infuriated many nationally, who took delight when they stumbled out of the gate. However, in the process of setting attendance road records so far in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Arizona and Boston, the Yankees righted themselves, and with the best record at the All-Star break, are considered frontrunners to win a 27th World Series title.

They have basically won one out of every four championships over the past 80 years. Is such dominance good for the game?

“Whether or not he’s good or bad for the game probably depends if you’re a Yankees fan or not. If you’re a Yankees fan, I’m guessing most people love George Steinbrenner,” Ryan said.

“If you’re not and you’re the Twins or the Seattle Mariners or the White Sox, that’s always an owner and organization you have to respect, because you know you’re going to run into a team that’s going to have a lot of talent and play the game right.

“Especially a team like the Twins and smaller markets, a lot of that revenue sharing comes directly from the Yankees. That’s helped support a lot of our causes here. For anybody who criticizes, they accept the rules. And that’s benefited many of us.”

[Deep Blue]

Did you miss NESN when you mentioned TBS/WGN/YES? ;)

Unfortunately, that's kind of like listing the baseball teams in Ameica and remembering the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, but forgetting to list the Lakeville Blue Claws.... Point well taken though. Fundamentally every local TV deal would have to be properly valued - not sure how or by whom unfortunately. My overall point is that if I were runing WGN or TBS or YES (or even little NESN :) ) I would be reluctant to help provide a true valuation without some compelling reason.

[JamesI]

What a Brave concept! ;)

Had the Braves been more successful doing the World Series, had the Braves ever had a payroll more than 50% higher than their rivals, had the Braves seemed like they could add whatever they needed each off season and each trade deadline, maybe we would be.

[guidry49]

why are the yankees good for baseball?????

4 pages of responses and counting.....countless baseball debates over beers....family rivalries and crazy bets with friends.....that is why.

It's like saying Dr. Evil is bad for the Ausin Powers movies....who are you going to root against????? The evil Expos empire????

[mgoettsche]

Great quote!

This discussion and one about McGriff's hall-worthiness call to mind a discussion we were having in our 11th grade English class regarding Huckleberry Finn. Folks were debating back and forth as to whether Huck Finn should be considered an all-time great novel...it was really passionate on both sides, which was unusual even for an Honors English class. I said just the fact that there was so much debate about whether it was great de facto made it a great novel, and most of the folks agreed with that.

Life is good...

[mgoettsche]

Yet another argument for the salary floor...

The D-Backs received $19 mil from revenue sharing. Their total payroll was $29.5. In short, they spent $10.5m on players salaries.

Pretty ridiculous.

[Crash Course]

Does that include all the deferred money they owe? Do they stil owe deferred $?

[TimmyB]

Yet another argument for the salary floor...

The D-Backs received $19 mil from revenue sharing. Their total payroll was $29.5. In short, they spent $10.5m on players salaries.

Pretty ridiculous.

D-Backs or D-Rays? (I thought I saw a similar item about TB.)

[JamesI]

D-Backs or D-Rays? (I thought I saw a similar item about TB.)
Considering Johnson and Sexson combined are 29 million this must have been about the Rays. It is a good reason to get a salary floor...

[mgoettsche]

Whoops! Had D-Backs on my mind...it was the DRays

[Crash Course]

Two months after the SOTS, MLB.com validates it: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20040921&content_id=865586&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

First: On Sunday, the Yankees broke their home attendance mark, reaching 3,555,298. They had already set a new Major League road attendance record of 3,054,825, topping the 2000 Reds' standard of 3,016,074.

All season, through 149 games through Sunday, the Yankees have played to 86.3 percent capacity. On the road, they have drawn an astounding 88.1 percent capacity; the Boston Red Sox are No. 2 in this regard in the American League, with 76.2 percent.


amd more! Boon times in baseball are cyclical. But even for franchises at an ebb, when the Yankees visit, they bring the flow with them.

Consider the Devil Rays, potentially not the best example since they play in George Steinbrenner's backyard, giving Tampa Bay a strong identity as Bronx South.

Still, in Yankee Stadium, Tropicana Field and the Tokyo Dome, the D-Rays have played the Yankees in front of a total of 678,434 fans. That represents 20 percent of their total home-and-away draw for the season.

The operator of multiple parking lots around Arizona's Bank One Ballpark told the Arizona Republic the other day, "The only good games we had were when the New York Yankees were here."

For that three-day visit in June, the Yankees attracted 144,592 fans; the Diamondbacks haven't drawn a crowd larger than 38,000 since.

The Diamondbacks are one of several teams, along with the Mets, Blue Jays, Devil Rays and Red Sox, that had the Yankees at the top of their tiered ticket-price scale. It has been a bonanza for those teams and their cities, among those that have seen Yankees magnetism at its strongest.

A trip down the Yellow Brick Road:

• March 6, Dodger Stadium: On the first day the Dodgers put single-game tickets on sale, 33,000 of the total of 87,000 tickets sold were to the upcoming Interleague series against the Yankees.

• April 6, Tropicana Field: The stateside opener draws 41,755, the second sellout in Devil Rays history.

• April 20-22, U.S. Cellular Field: Three-game total of 92,218 is best for an April series since 1994.

• May 21-23, Ameriquest Field in Arlington: Record 148,894 attend a three-game series; the three crowds of 49,000-plus are only two fewer than the total the Rangers had in the three seasons Alex Rodriguez played for them.

• June 15, Bank One Ballpark: The Yankees prompt the Diamondbacks' first sellout since Opening Day, a span of 28 games.

• June 18, Dodger Stadium: 55,207, largest regular season crowd in the 43-year history of the ballpark.

• June 22, Camden Yards: 49,696, the largest crowd in park history.

• Aug. 26-29, SkyDome: Despite the Blue Jays languishing in the AL East cellar, the draw of 159,731 is their largest for a four-game series since 1995.

[PianoMonkey]

I have to agree with ya on this one, Crash. I think there's little doubt that the Yankees as a team, organization, and symbol are a very good for baseball. And though I'd like to say the attendance draws they have on the road are due mainly to the other teams' fans supporting them against the toughest of foes, we both know that's not the case. Nothing is more worrying than the number of Pinstripers Boom and I have to wade through at the K, a scant ten years separating us from one of the most hated rivalries in baseball.

So yes, I admit the E.E. is good for baseball.

Yankee FANS, other the other hand.... :p

[Crash Course]

Just saw an amazing stat in SI - -

1 out of every 10 fans that bought a ticket to a baseball game last year bought a ticket to see a game with the Yankees playing.

Wow.