That article said nothing.

The author conveniently overlooked the Yankee's $200 million plus payroll.

Must just be an oversight.

The real difference between the Yankees and small market teams is the Yankees have their own TV network. The revenue from the YES Network allows them to spend the way they do. Don't be fooled by the payroll though. The Yankees technically made a loss this year, and most years. But I read somewhere that the Indians made money. People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

WHAT OTHER TEAMS COULD LEARN FROM THE YANKEES: that the Yankees are pretty and smart and rich and everybody loves them and your pathetic "team" is only allowed to exist in Major League Baseball because the Yankees need entertainment for their legions of fans.

I mean, what were those peons in Seattle thinking? That they'd actually be allowed their own title?

Furious Mongoose: The real difference between the Yankees and small market teams is the Yankees have their own TV network. The revenue from the YES Network allows them to spend the way they do. Don't be fooled by the payroll though. The Yankees technically made a loss this year, and most years. But I read somewhere that the Indians made money. People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

There already is a player salary minimum and has been for decades. I think what you mean is there would be a minimum total payroll for all teams. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

In the current system, I think only 2 or 3 teams had to pay luxury tax because of their high payroll. And there is simply no way the Yankees lost money this year. They make more on their TV contract than most teams do on all their revenue combined.

People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

I think there should be a cap and a floor. A lot of the small market teams, as you mention, make a lot of money of the Yankees, so they skip out on signing actual talent and just coast along. There needs to be more competition in the league and that will only happen when other teams are forced to be competetive and teams like the Yankees can't sign every big name that goes into free agency.

ThrnPhl: People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

I think there should be a cap and a floor. A lot of the small market teams, as you mention, make a lot of money of the Yankees, so they skip out on signing actual talent and just coast along. There needs to be more competition in the league and that will only happen when other teams are forced to be competetive and teams like the Yankees can't sign every big name that goes into free agency.

More competition? You mean having 20 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs the last decade is not enough?

Marcus Aurelius: The author conveniently overlooked the Yankee's $200 million plus payroll.

Must just be an oversight.

Right, because the Yankees won the WS every year. If Tampa Bay can get there, then anyone can.

/Except Pittsburgh and KC.
//And the Nationals.

ricewater_stool: Furious Mongoose: The real difference between the Yankees and small market teams is the Yankees have their own TV network. The revenue from the YES Network allows them to spend the way they do. Don't be fooled by the payroll though. The Yankees technically made a loss this year, and most years. But I read somewhere that the Indians made money. People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

There already is a player salary minimum and has been for decades. I think what you mean is there would be a minimum total payroll for all teams. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

In the current system, I think only 2 or 3 teams had to pay luxury tax because of their high payroll. And there is simply no way the Yankees lost money this year. They make more on their TV contract than most teams do on all their revenue combined.

The Yankees' Operating Income.

More competition? You mean having 20 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs the last decade is not enough?

And who has won the championships over the past decade? The Yankees and Sox make up half of them. What happened to once great teams such as the Orioles and Royals? There are a lot of bottom feeders fighting against the bottom feeders.

/Sox fan

ThrnPhl: More competition? You mean having 20 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs the last decade is not enough?

And who has won the championships over the past decade? The Yankees and Sox make up half of them. What happened to once great teams such as the Orioles and Royals? There are a lot of bottom feeders fighting against the bottom feeders.

/Sox fan

What about the Marlins, White Sox and D'backs?

There are teams in every sport who miss the playoffs year after year because many problems. This has nothing to do with the Yankees. In the NBA, the knicks had a huge payroll and sucked. Payroll isn't everything, so stop complaining (not to you, but to everyone).

Ctrl+F:

"Steinbrenner" - search string not found
"Faustian bargain" - search string not found

I came here for the payroll butthurt, left satisfied.

/Go Yankees! #28 next year!

when in doubt, throw money at it

ricewater_stool: There already is a player salary minimum and has been for decades. I think what you mean is there would be a minimum total payroll for all teams. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

It would force a few shiatty owners from stealing revenue sharing money for their own pockets instead ofs pending it on the teams.

Never have I read an article and learned nothing as I did from TFA.

ThrnPhl: More competition? You mean having 20 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs the last decade is not enough?

And who has won the championships over the past decade? The Yankees and Sox make up half of them. What happened to once great teams such as the Orioles and Royals? There are a lot of bottom feeders fighting against the bottom feeders.

/Sox fan

Yanks and Sox make up 4/10, not quite half. But is that really very different from the NFL or NBA?

Steelers and Pats make up 5/10 Super Bowls and Lakers and Spurs make up 7/10 NBA finals.

So baseball actually comes out ahead there.

that was one of the dumbest articles EVAR. all he basically said was have good players top to bottom, every position, pitching and fielding, who can almost always get the job done. cause that doesn't cost money. retard

FTFA: "A related characteristic of Yankee teams is that have they hit from top to bottom."

What a farking bag of tool. Yeah, because possessing a loaded line-up has nothing to do with payroll.

fark_me_running: that was one of the dumbest articles EVAR. all he basically said was have good players top to bottom, every position, pitching and fielding, who can almost always get the job done. cause that doesn't cost money. retard

It is more like he said it is more important to get batters at the top of the order who are great at getting on base and having no weak spots in the batting order than focusing on having the best middle of the line-up power hitters.

That's a lesson, if you are agree with it, that can apply to any level of payroll. Pay less for middle batters, more for top and bottom.

The solution for my favorite team:

Bill Gates needs to buy The Mariners.

Bill Frist: fark_me_running: that was one of the dumbest articles EVAR. all he basically said was have good players top to bottom, every position, pitching and fielding, who can almost always get the job done. cause that doesn't cost money. retard

It is more like he said it is more important to get batters at the top of the order who are great at getting on base and having no weak spots in the batting order than focusing on having the best middle of the line-up power hitters.

That's a lesson, if you are agree with it, that can apply to any level of payroll. Pay less for middle batters, more for top and bottom.

He also seems to be saying the above is more important than having the best 1 and 2 starters, which again is a lesson that could be applied to any payroll.

mainstreet62: I came here for the payroll butthurt, left satisfied.

/Go Yankees! #28 next year!

Must have been hard to be a Yankees fan for those 8 long years between championships.

I'm a Mets fan. I do not like the Yankees. But the people who biatch about payroll annoy me even more.

Guess what? They're not breaking any rules. Hate the system if you want, but I'm never going to have a problem with a team using the resources available to them. It's not their fault that they can do it, and it's not their fault that few other teams can.

And yes, any system with a salary cap also would need a salary floor.

Bill Frist: fark_me_running: that was one of the dumbest articles EVAR. all he basically said was have good players top to bottom, every position, pitching and fielding, who can almost always get the job done. cause that doesn't cost money. retard

It is more like he said it is more important to get batters at the top of the order who are great at getting on base and having no weak spots in the batting order than focusing on having the best middle of the line-up power hitters.

That's a lesson, if you are agree with it, that can apply to any level of payroll. Pay less for middle batters, more for top and bottom.

What evidence is cited in the article, or anywhere else, that the Yankees pay less than ordinary teams for middle batters?

Theguybehindtheguy: What evidence is cited in the article, or anywhere else, that the Yankees pay less than ordinary teams for middle batters?

He doesn't mention the payroll but he says:

The Yankee championship teams were always strong in the middle of the order, but with the exception of the current team, not among the top three-four combinations in baseball. From 1998-2000, Paul O'Neill and Bernie Williams were batting in the middle of the Yankee lineup. The most home runs either of these players hit in these years was 30. The highest slugging percentage for either player was 575. These are good numbers but did not stand out in the offense heavy late 90s. Yankee championship teams were good in the middle of the lineup, but there real strengths were that their top two hitters got on base and that nobody in their lineup simply could not hit.

Presumably the lesson he is claiming there is that it is better to have no holes in the lineup and great leadoff guys than to have the best middle line-up hitters.

Obviously it is even better to have ALL of that like the current yankees do.

Buy umps instead of players?

Lol. I love how it was a farking crisis that the Yankees hadn't won a Series in 9 years, but now all of the sudden they're a dynasty again, winning "1/3 of the WS's since 1995".

I was going to go on a screaming rant here, but looks like others already covered most of the major points. Still, it's always amusing to me how people keep coming back to the whole "Oh, Yankees win with home grown talent, you just need to keep your prospects" thing. Like the Royals had a chance in hell of keeping Damon/Dye/Beltran/Sweeney together in the mid to late 90's, when teams like the Yanks and Sox were throwing them astronomical contracts.

Yes, some teams don't care about winning and are quite happy to field bad teams and reap luxury tax money. The point is, even if a "small market" team wanted to win, their revenue, or lack thereof, puts them at a competitive disadvantage against teams like the Yanks, Sox, Dodgers, etc. It's a Catch-22 that is almost impossible to climb out of.

Baseball has been dodging bullets when it comes to competitive advantage for the past decade or so, Moneyball/Moneyball-type strategies have allowed smaller payroll teams to succeed, big payroll teams have occasionally made foolish deals, blind luck has been involved, etc. But starting this year, I really think we're going to see a swing the other way. You can't have a system where top teams are allowed to have payrolls 50-100% higher than even the league average, and not expect those teams to dominate over the long run. I predict over the next 10 years, you'll see at least 8 World Series champs with a top 5 payroll, and each year there will be no more than 2 teams make the playoffs with less than a $100 million payroll.

Bill Frist: ThrnPhl: More competition? You mean having 20 out of 30 MLB teams make the playoffs the last decade is not enough?

And who has won the championships over the past decade? The Yankees and Sox make up half of them. What happened to once great teams such as the Orioles and Royals? There are a lot of bottom feeders fighting against the bottom feeders.

/Sox fan

Yanks and Sox make up 4/10, not quite half. But is that really very different from the NFL or NBA?

Steelers and Pats make up 5/10 Super Bowls and Lakers and Spurs make up 7/10 NBA finals.

So baseball actually comes out ahead there.

I want to "this" real bad, but...

Everytime I try this argument out, those who are arguing about Yankees WS championships switch gears and say that it's stupid to only argue through championships.

I give up.

Bill Frist: Presumably the lesson he is claiming there is that it is better to have no holes in the lineup and great leadoff guys than to have the best middle line-up hitters.


Well, he can claim it all he wants, but he cites nothing that, ya know, actually supports it.

Your copy-pasta only speaks to one team's production. I can phrase it thusly: "The middle of the order for the Yankees didn't produce as much as the top 2 or 3 teams."

That has absolutely nothing to do with a lesson for smaller market teams about paying less for middle batters, and more for top and bottom.

fark_me_running: that was one of the dumbest articles EVAR. all he basically said was have good players top to bottom, every position, pitching and fielding, who can almost always get the job done. cause that doesn't cost money. retard

Pretty much this.

Theguybehindtheguy: That has absolutely nothing to do with a lesson for smaller market teams about paying less for middle batters, and more for top and bottom.

Sure it does. It doesn't say anything teams like the Nats who are miles away from contending, but it says something to teams that are contenders but don't have quite the payroll of the Yanks.

As a Yankee fan, I find this article ridiculous

The third major characteristic of these Yankee championship teams has been the willingness of both Joe Torre and Joe Girardi to use their closer for more than one inning.

They mention it in the article, but.. you know, having Mariano Rivera makes that a lot easier

Also

Yankee championship teams were good in the middle of the lineup, but there real strengths were that their top two hitters got on base and that nobody in their lineup simply could not hit.

Don't have bad hitters. Seriously, that's what the message is there.

While the author can't make a point to save his life. The general idea is there, while money buys good players it doesn't mean they are going to be the right players for the team. The Yankees were good from 1994-2001 because George had no control over the team. Gene and Cash were still running the team from when the Boss tried to dig up dirt on Dave Winfield. Then he got control back in 2001 and we got old, fat, and overpaid. All Yankee fans have Cashman to thank for this new team.

JohnHall: They mention it in the article, but.. you know, having Mariano Rivera makes that a lot easier

You can't deny the whole "closers can only pitch one inning!" thing is pretty silly though. Not everyone has Mo, but lots of teams have good closers who get used less than they could be.

Theguybehindtheguy:
What evidence is cited in the article, or anywhere else, that the Yankees pay less than ordinary teams for middle batters?

I think what the article was trying to say. that Teams that don't have large Yankee-esque payrolls could have similar success by doing two things.

1) concentrate on getting lead off hitters who can get on base consistently. (Which is cheaper than paying big money for middle of the lineup hitters to hit home runs.)

2) using your good closing pitcher for more than 1 inning per game.

Bill Frist: Theguybehindtheguy: That has absolutely nothing to do with a lesson for smaller market teams about paying less for middle batters, and more for top and bottom.

Sure it does. It doesn't say anything teams like the Nats who are miles away from contending, but it says something to teams that are contenders but don't have quite the payroll of the Yanks.

"We spent elevnty brazilian dollars on our 3-shiatters, who didn't produce as well as expected. We then spent another eleventy brazilian dollars on our 1-2 and 6-9 hitters, who did pretty well. This shows that small-market teams should concentrate on the top and bottom hitters instead of 3-5 guys."

Really?

JohnHall: Yankee championship teams were good in the middle of the lineup, but there real strengths were that their top two hitters got on base and that nobody in their lineup simply could not hit.

Don't have bad hitters. Seriously, that's what the message is there.

It also helps when you have a Hall of Fame shortstop leading off for you, with a career .409 OBP in the leadoff position. So come on, other teams: Just find a Hall of Fame-caliber leadoff hitter who will give you a .400+ OBP over 15 years! I mean really, it's not rocket science!

ThrnPhl: What happened to once great teams such as the Orioles and Royals? There are a lot of bottom feeders fighting against the bottom feeders.

The reason the Yankees didn't win more than they did was front-office stupidity. They didn't create a baseball team so much as a fantasy baseball team. Had they tried to make a team with any chemistry to it, this probably would have been at least #28 instead of #27. Maybe even #29 or #30.

Bill Frist:

Yanks and Sox make up 4/10, not quite half. But is that really very different from the NFL or NBA?

Steelers and Pats make up 5/10 Super Bowls and Lakers and Spurs make up 7/10 NBA finals.

So baseball actually comes out ahead there.


You're comparing the success of the Steelers and Pats, two small market teams, to the Yankees and Sox? Isn't that the exact opposite of your position?

San Antonio can compete in the NBA. Pittsburgh can compete in the NFL and NHL.

In baseball, the Venn diagram of top payrolls and playoff appearances is idiotic.

Very few "small market" owners are whining about the Yankees, since they're pocketing millions of dollars per season thanks to baseball's luxury tax and revenue sharing system.

The Florida Marlins, who have no fans, stand to make a profit of something like $40 million this year.

It's the fans doing all the whining.

crimsin23: /Except Pittsburgh and KC.

As a Royals fan this is true.

savage henry: You're comparing the success of the Steelers and Pats, two small market teams, to the Yankees and Sox? Isn't that the exact opposite of your position?

Uh, no... the question was not about who dominates, but about the level of domination. The MLB is not dominated by a small number of teams anymore than the other leagues.

I'm not sure why you think it is better to be dominated by a small market team than a big market team... don't get what you are getting at.

Also... Boston is the #5 media market in the country and the Pats represent the whole of New England. How exactly are they "small market"?

Sooo....you can win a World Series easily if you:

1. Have a HOF leadoff man, and a better than your average bear #2
2. You have good pitching
3. You have decent middle of the lineup run production
4. You have a closer who can go 2 innings when you need him to
5. (unspoken) You have the money to afford all of these things

Of course! It's so obvious! Why didn't I see it before? Teams that aren't the Yankees can win easily...if they manage to have all of the same advantages that the Yankees do.

/wow
//that's some brilliant writing right there

Theguybehindtheguy: "We spent elevnty brazilian dollars on our 3-shiatters

Filtered!

WTF Indeed: All Yankee fans have Cashman to thank for this new team.

Yeah! Look how Cashman was able to win a World Series after only picking up two aces and a top of the line slugger in the offseason, to add to the two stud free agents the Yanks have hired every other freaking year.

I don't begrudge the Yanks ownership for spending the money they can, but I actually feel bad for Yanks fans in this way. They can't actually take as much pleasure in watching their team win the championship as fans of other teams do, because they know its just a result of blunt-force free agent acquisition.

I'm sure there are Yanks fans who would like a salary cap so their team could compete on a level playing field with everyone else.

FTA: These include the two dominant starter theory which states that the team with the two best starting pitchers will have the best chance of winning the championship

Sigh.

/didn't care after the Cards washed out. Was too dumbfounded.

Debeo Summa Credo: I don't begrudge the Yanks ownership for spending the money they can, but I actually feel bad for Yanks fans in this way. They can't actually take as much pleasure in watching their team win the championship as fans of other teams do, because they know its just a result of blunt-force free agent acquisition.

I agree that having an underdog scrappy team win is always more fun to root for.

That said, I vastly prefer the MLB system to the NBA's "You lucked into Tim Duncan/LeBron James/Michael Jordan in the draft" finals trophy.

What could possibly be fun about rooting for that?

crimsin23: ricewater_stool: Furious Mongoose: The real difference between the Yankees and small market teams is the Yankees have their own TV network. The revenue from the YES Network allows them to spend the way they do. Don't be fooled by the payroll though. The Yankees technically made a loss this year, and most years. But I read somewhere that the Indians made money. People are calling for a salary cap, just remember that a salary cap also requires a salary minimum. The owners in Florida, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc. won't like that piece of it. The way the revenue sharing works in MLB means the Yankees and other big market teams pay those guys a lot of money.

There already is a player salary minimum and has been for decades. I think what you mean is there would be a minimum total payroll for all teams. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

In the current system, I think only 2 or 3 teams had to pay luxury tax because of their high payroll. And there is simply no way the Yankees lost money this year. They make more on their TV contract than most teams do on all their revenue combined.

The Yankees' Operating Income.


I'm sure you realize that the article you linked to does not include the Yes Network, and is therefore useless, right?