Odd Thoughts

In Defense of the Yankees

If you're a regular reader of this page or you have ever talked baseball with me, you know that I have no love for the Yankees. I can't claim to have the same ire for them that a die-hard Boston fan would have, but it's pretty close. Largely because I believe that hating a team is just as important in following sports as loving a team. However, we shouldn't blame the Yankees for the A-Rod deal or the already stacked team they had before they got him. We shouldn't blame Steinbrenner, we shouldn't blame the Rangers, and we shouldn't blame A-Rod. The problem is the system.

Free agency and the way baseball has operated for the last thirty years is really the problem. The way it ran before was a problem too, and the players knew that, but it was as though they all got together in 1973 and said, "Hey we could get out of this ditch and go get in that one over there." Steinbrenner and company are simply operating within the system they've been given. It could have just as easily happened in some other town with some other team and some other owner. There's absolutely nothing keeping David Glass from spending the kind of money Steinbrenner does. (What? you haven't heard of Glass? He's the owner of the Kansas City Royals. He's also the CEO of a little group called Wal-Mart.) On three occasions today I heard radio people make an argument that other owners don't have the luxury of spending like George because their teams don't operate in the black. But that's just a pack of lies in itself.

First of all, I really would be interested to see how much baseball teams make or loose in the real world when all of the accountants are being honest with each other. I seriously doubt that only the Yankees and Mariners have turned profits in the last three years, or that 80% percent of all teams have operated in the red for the last 25 years. How could that actually be the case?

Second of all, I strongly suspect that the Yankees, even in the Steinbrenner era, have always turned a profit - at least by MLB accounting standards. Let's not forget that from 1982 through 1993 the Yankees failed to win their division even once, in fact, they were fourth or lower in six of those 11 seasons. But, the Yankees spent the money and got lucky and then kept pumping money in the system to keep the team afloat and stayed lucky. From this line of argument two other arguments flow: 1) Spending money on high-priced players does not guarantee success, and 2) Perhaps spending more money will put more people in the stands.

Pertaining to the first argument, consider how many teams have spent a ton of money with little or no success at all in the last ten years. In 1999 and 2000 the Mets were good, then they added Roberto Alomar and Mo Vaughn and fell apart. They thought they'd do better by throwing more money at the situation by signing Tom Glavine the next year, and they were still bad. The Orioles in the mid to late 90's spent a ton of money to build a veteran team and made two post-season appearances in '96 and '97 and have been below .500 ever since, but they still had a high payroll (part of which they couldn't control). The Dodgers and Rangers have boasted the highest paid player in the league and neither of them even have a post-season appearance to show for it. Some teams do it with money and some do it with luck, but it takes both to build a team that stays great.

Pertaining to the second argument, look at the Astros. The Astros might make the playoffs this year, they might even make the World Series, but even if they fail to do both, I imagine it will be hard to get Astro tickets all year. All they did was maintain a decent team with an average payroll and then juice it up a little bit. And the Astros are not alone. There are several other teams that not in the biggest markets that have a team to sell this year, and all of them but the A's did it by spending money. People in San Diego will have a reason to go to the ballpark. People in Philadelphia have a reason to go to the ballpark. But the only reason to go see a Pirate game or a Brewer game is that the Cubs, Astros, and Cardinals will each play in those cities ten times this year. If these "small market" clubs would spend a little money and show their citizens they're at least interested in building a winner, maybe they would care. By the way, I find it interesting how the Mariners and Braves, two teams that were considered small markets in the 80's, are now considered to be the biggest markets outside of New York/LA/Chicago.

All that is to say, the Yankees just take advantage of the system. You can still hate them, but you can't say they cheat, and you can't say it's not fair. Every other team in the game has the same opportunities as the Yankees.

That being said, we can't ignore the fact that there is a problem, but the problem is with the system, and the system will not be changed in the least until after the 2006 season. This is what the players wanted. They like it like this. They believe that it is within the best interest of baseball for things to go this way. I know that possible solutions are difficult to find, but you can't tell me that this is the best situation for Ben Sheets and Jason Kendall.

Posted by at February 17, 2004 12:17 AM