And they say they don't try to buy championships

[The Brain]

Originally posted by The Man
You think that the problem with other teams is that they aren't willing to take the risks or spend the money that the Yankees are? That if Milwaukee had some balls and spent $190 million that they'd become the new Yankees?

Milwaukee, no. They're owned by Selig's family, and he doesn't have a clue about aggressiveness on any matter-- if he was, he'd have made a decision on Pete Rose, rather than flounder back and forth for all this time. And it isn't just about throwing large sums of money around haphazardly. Peter Angelos, owner of the Baltimore Orioles, has made a habit of overpaying for players (Albert Belle comes to mind). It still has netted the team 4th place in the division for 6 consecutive years.

The following quotes in <a href=http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=klapisch_bob&id=1731633 target=new>this article</a> come from Brian Cashman, so naturally, go ahead and take it with a grain of salt, but I think it sums things up pretty well:

The Boss' most logical supporter is Brian Cashman, the GM entrusted with the Yankees' wealth. Cashman understands outsiders' envy, but says there's more to Steinbrenner than mindless check-writing.

\"If you think of a business as a circle, most people stay within that safe harbor,\" Cashman said. \"George Steinbrenner has taken risks over time that extend past that small circle, and those risks paid off. Now his business plan is much larger than when he started because he's not afraid to operate outside of the business plan.\"

Cashman went on to say, \"a lot of other teams have the chance to get a player for the stretch drive, but they say, 'we're not going to do it if we lose money. Unless we can guarantee a profit, we're not doing it.' It's that black and white. (Steinbrenner) is willing to take on that kind of player, even though he says, 'now, you better win.' \"

It's about the willingness to risk spending a little bit more than what might have been originally planned, in order to fill a need or compensate for a flaw in the team. Not just to get the flavor of the week (although Steinbrenner has been known to do <i>that</i> as well).

And if it were simply an issue of media market resources, the Mets and Dodgers would also be in constant contention, being located in the #1 and #2 markets, respectively. As it stands right now, the Mets are in rebuilding mode, and the Dodgers have just gotten sold to their second ownership since the O'Malley family sold them in 1998. Not exactly a good sign, huh?

The Yankees are going to sell out 50,000+ every game at ticket prices that are twice the price of other teams, no matter who they put on the field. Coupled with millions and millions of TV, advertising, and product revenues that dwarf that of any other team.

This point is true, except that it does matter very much who they put on the field. For the past few years, they have led the league in both home and road attendence. People come out to see the stars. You think if Steinbrenner elevated everyone from the Columbus Clippers AAA affiliate and fielded <i>that</i> team at the major-league level, that everyone would still pay exorbitant prices to see them?

<a href=http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/yankatte.shtml target=new>As you can see, only in the past 5 years has average attendance hovered around 40,000 per</a>. From 1982 until 1995 (the drought in between World Series, and the Don Mattingly era, oddly enough), the Stadium never averaged more than 33,000 per game-- and usually it was in the mid 20,000s. And it's not like there was a complete shortage of stars: Mattingly, Winfield, Henderson, Randolph, Piniella, to name a few.

And complain about the salary cap all you want, football has been more interesting then baseball for the simple reason that you have no idea who is going to be in it from year to year. That fact always creates an underdog; a cinderella team that everyone gets behind. Like the Panthers this year, the Bucs the year before, the Pats before that. Everyone's got a realistic shot and that uncertainty gives every game more energy.

The football "salary cap" is as flexible for them as the "luxury tax" rule is for baseball. Sure, it's easy to get players that you want in football, when you sign them to $4 million-a-year contracts, but can then give them $15 million signing bonuses which have no impact on your payroll.

But let's be completely fair: Baseball has 25-men rosters, with 8 regulars and (presumably) 5 starting pitchers, plus reserves. Football has a roster size of 53, with at least 22 starting (offense and defense, obviously). No football team could afford to lock up all of their money in a handful of players, when you have to pay so many 1st-stringers, not to mention all the reserves.

In baseball; playoffs are playoffs. Anyone can go on a run and win a series, but with the regular season you can pick 75% of the playoff teams in April. And you could probably pick 50% of 2005's playoff teams at the beginning of 2004.

In the <a href=http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/standings/index.jsp target=new>2003 baseball regular season</a>, 4 of the 6 divisions finished with teams within 7 games of the leaders. In the NL Central, there were three teams within 3 games of each other at the end. How can you say that 75% of the playoff teams were wrapped up in April if there were still 66% of the divisional playoff spots still being contested in <i>September</i>? And that doesn't even factor in who would then get the wild-card slots. Only Atlanta and San Francisco absolutely dominated their divisions last year.