More on the Yankees payroll arguments
Khoi Vinh on the Yankees and Payroll
For almost a decade, the Yankees have consistently maintained the highest payroll in Major League Baseball while failing to bring home a World Series title, and during that time the grousing took the form of ridicule. What Yankees fans heard then was: “See? You Yankees can’t buy championships, even with all of your money.†What we hear today is: “See? You Yankees just buy championships with all of your money.â€
This is not a coherent line of argument, but then again it would be naïve to look for any motivation here other than envy, because the logic at work is so suspect. It’s pretty safe to say that a good number of those who hate the Yankees because of their payroll are unabashed capitalists, too; they’d be very unlikely to begrudge the fact that the highest valued, best performing organization in any given market also led that market. That’s not just capitalism, it’s the way capitalism is practiced in America.
I always find this kind of argument sweet. It’s like when people born in to rich families who attend private prep schools and are legacy-admitted into the finest universities in the country wonder why people in abject poverty don’t just, en masse, pull themselves up into prosperity.
Baseball-wise, that was me for a long time. The guy who owns the Twins is worth billions, why doesn’t he just spend a billion instead of bleating about how poor his stadium revenues are?
And that’s actually a valid case — many of the teams in baseball are never-full ticks sucking blood out of the sport, and baseball (and Selig-as-commissioner-with-bajillions-in-his-fund) should be ashamed about it.
But here’s where that whole argument goes wrong: let’s say that the Yankees devote more of their revenue to payroll than any other team. That’s admirable, and they should indeed be lauded for it.
Except… it costs every team, no matter how cheap, about forty million just to keep the lights on and the minor leagues running, and so on, and it’s more like sixty million. Then it’s another thirty million to pay a cheapo major league team.
So let’s say there are three teams:
Team Lamprey plays in a market of 1m people and have a cheap owner, and take in $60m in operating revenue.
Team Modest plays in a market of 1m and tries to compete, and they take in $90m in operating revenue.
Team Rich plays in a good but not New York market and tries to compete. They take in $175m in operating revenue.
Team Yankees… they take in $250m in operating revenue.
You see the problem already. The lights-on-and-field-a-team pays 50% of their revenue to keep the lights on. Team Modest, 30%. Team Rich, 17%. Team Yankees, 10%.
Now that’s an exaggeration to make a point (the Yankees end up paying more to keep the lights on), but that’s how it sorts out. I happened to have Pappas’ numbers from 2002 up (here) and the two teams with the lowest non-player expense:operating revenue ratio were the Yankees and Red Sox (check out the Mariners, by the way, and that massive non-player expenses line. I believe that’s us buying Ichiro).
Beyond which, when teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who are big enough to have their own cable networks they can move revenue off the books do so, they really shouldn’t get credit for that against teams that have to account for their Fox Sportsnets payments normally.
The problem is not that the Yankees spend, or that their fans live in a bubble of privileged and can’t seem to grasp that they’re the beneficiaries of a broken system. It’s that because of the way MLB is set up, the Yankees and the Mets operate like government-sanctioned monopolies. In any equitable world, the New York metro market supports three, maybe four teams. And we can talk about how you manage that, or how you might start one of those teams, but the result of having only two teams is exactly what Posnanski pointed out: both New York teams get to operate as if they’re two franchises. They can, year in and year out, spend vastly more on everything, compete consistently, and when they’re weak, they can add a team’s worth of payroll in one off-season to shore up a few positions and then go on happily.
That’s insane.
And crowing about how the Yankees once sucked doesn’t obviate any of that. They’re like some scion born to a super-wealthy family that gets into Yale, stumbles around life for a while making a jerk of themselves… yayyyy, education can’t overcome everything. And then they decide to go into, I don’t know, golf course ownership, and of course they’ve got a ton of backers from family friends, effectively unlimited capital to work with, even after they blow up the first few tries and they’re mysteriously let off the hook for some bookkeeping shenanigans during that time, and ta da! Fourth time’s a charm, they’re golf course moguls!
Is it envy to look at that and wonder if perhaps there were many more people who couldn’t have done better and more important things with the same advantages, as we are to think with the Yankees? Sure. Maybe.
That’s the point. I’m a fan of a relatively wealthy team that spends a lot of money on payroll, having long been a fan of a really poor team that spent nothing, and for all my carping about their constant inflation of how much they’re spending on payroll for PR purposes, this is way better. But my team would have to absorb the A’s (or better yet, our hated interleague rivals the Padres) for us to enjoy the kind of advantages the Yankees and Mets do.
And I don’t see that the presence of bloodsucker teams makes it okay for the Yankees and Mets to enjoy such crazy unbalance. In an ideal world, a good ownership group would sense opportunity and buy one of those teams, move them to New York, and we’d have some competition. That the system is broken and rewards both established geographical monopolies and cheapskates doesn’t mean that either is in the right, or that no action should be taken with regard to both.
And as long as baseball lets those two grow endlessly fat on their geographical advantage, everyone is going to take rightful glee when they fail to make anything of it, and they’re going to rightfully throw rotten fruit when they do.
Griffey’s Return, What It Means
It’s official – Junior is coming back for another victory lap, signing a one year deal to fill an unspecified, reduced role on the 2010 team. The casual fan will be thrilled. We are a bit less so. But, the should he return arguments are now moot. He’s on the team next year, so let’s look at the implications of what this actually means in terms of the roster.
If we assume that the M’s are going to carry 12 pitchers again, that leaves them with a four man bench. One of those spots is reserved for the back-up catcher, and now Junior occupies another. That means the final two bench spots have to serve as the reserves for the other eight spots on the field. The in-house candidates for those spots are currently Jack Hannahan, Bill Hall, Matt Tuiasosopo, and Ryan Langerhans.
One of those players just lost their jobs. There isn’t room for all of them in Seattle anymore. If we say that Tui is the likely starter at third base (and I’d say that’s probably the most likely scenario, given the current roster), then Hannahan makes the team as the default reserve infielder. He’s the only one of the four who can play shortstop, so he’s got a more secure role here than the rest.
After that, it would come down to Hall versus Langerhans. Langerhans is the better player, but Hall is probably going to win out. The M’s are on the hook for $1.3 million of his 2010 salary, while Langerhans can be non-tendered without a cost. Hall also offers a RH platoon option for Saunders, plus the ability to play 2B/3B if need be. While Langerhans is a better outfielder, he doesn’t offer the same positional flexibility that Hall does, and with a roster spot now being reserved for a part-time pinch hitter, that becomes a deal-breaker.
So, unless the M’s decide to go with 11 pitchers next year, this probably ends the Ryan Langerhans era in Seattle. The M’s have essentially traded in about half a win worth of value (the difference between Langerhans/Griffey in on-field value as a reserve) for the expectation of better team chemistry.
We wouldn’t have made this move. That should be obvious by now. It won’t destroy the franchise, but it’s an inefficient use of resources, and exposes the team to some real problems if Gutierrez gets hurt. The M’s just became a little less likely to win in 2010.
Griffey to return in 2010, Stone reports
See here. Details as yet unannounced.
I expect the now-standard split of reactions:
1. Griffey “deserves” (or “earned”) a spot based on fan love, past contributions, clubhouse chemistry, etc
vs
2. Griffey can’t hit or field any more
LaRue Gets Front Office to Talk Prospects
Yesterday’s edition of the Tacoma News Tribune had Larry LaRue asking one of the more easily answered questions of the hot stove season, which prospects could contribute next season? The thought being that if players like Kelley and Jakubauskas broke through last year, well surely there would be someone else who could surprise as well. The first part is Zduriencik wading through the old tropes of prospect discussion: you can’t count on players until they’ve established themselves, no one will be given a job outright without work, and in our case, Tui, Moore, and Saunders are all coming to camp with the opportunity (emphasis) to win jobs. This much we already know. Easy though it is to say, one of the quick litmus tests you can run during prospecting season is to see which outlets include those names in the top ten and which are trying to be cute by loading the list with ’09 breakthrough players. But after those standard talking points are dispensed with, things start getting a little interesting. Take a gander…
Read more
Branyan Wants Multi-Year Deal
Jim Street checks in with a quote from Russ Branyan, who is willing to hit the free agent market in pursuit of a multi-year contract.
“I’m not a bad guy, not a selfish guy,” he said from his offseason home. “I don’t know if there is a two- or three-year deal out there for me, but I would like to have more than a one-year deal. I don’t want another one-and-done [contract].”
Wanting security doesn’t make Branyan selfish or a bad guy. But he’s not getting it. He turns 34 in a month and he has a herniated disc in his back that caused him to miss the last two months of the season. Nobody is guaranteeing him any substantial money in 2011. He can look for a two or three year deal, but he won’t find one. Not in this market, not with his back. He also added:
“My agent [Danny Lozano] said he’s confident that we will get something done with Seattle,” Branyan said. “He also told me not to take the [one-year offer] personally. It’s just part of the negotiating process. He knows and the Mariners know I would take less to play there than somewhere else. All I want is to be treated fairly.”
I’d still be fairly confident that the M’s and Branyan will work something out too, but if he’s really dead set on getting more than one year, it’s going to take a while. He’s going to have to hit the market, feel the cold sting of rejection, and realize that the M’s were being fair. He’s just too risky to give a mutli-year deal too.
Ichiro Wins GG, Gutierrez Does Not
The Gold Gloves have been announced, and predictably, Ichiro won one and Franklin Gutierrez did not.
You should not care. These are about as meaningful as the teen choice awards. The people who vote on them don’t really put much thought into it, nor do they really know what they’re doing. They don’t represent defensive ability in any real way, shape, or form.
It’s a broken system. You should feel worse for Rawlings that they attach their name to this than for Death To Flying Things, who most people recognize as a superb defensive player.
Day two, franchise held hostage: no news in Griffey news
How can this be taking so long?
Version 1:
Z: “We loved having Griffey here, but we need to go another direction for DH next year… and our outfield is packed.”
Goldberg: “Okay!”
Version 2:
Z: “The business and marketing folks tell me I can pay your client $2m to not hit again next year as our designated hitter.”
G: “Okay!”
Version 3:
Z: “The business and marketing folks tell me I can pay your client $2m to not hit again next year as our designated hugger.”
G: “Okay!”
or
G: “Sorry, Ken wants to play every day he wants to play.”
Z: “I’m sorry we couldn’t come to an agreement then.”
Elias rankings for free agents out, no surprises
Well, not if you read USSM, that is. Downloadable as a PDF from USA Today.
M’s only have two B-rated guys, Bedard and Beltre (appropriately). So if the M’s offer those two arbitration, and they turn it down, they’ll get a late draft pick. Unless the signing team only signs one “B” rated guy, at which point something else happens, unless some other criteria is met. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, and it’s not really worth hashing out just yet until they’ve filed for free agency and been offered arbitration or not.
Washburn, who many people speculated would end up rated, is not. Doesn’t matter, the whole rating system has so little to do with actual value that you might as well call it the Gold Glove Award.
The Jones Gold Glove thing
So supposedly Adam Jones’ brother leaked that Jones won a Gold Glove. This is already being reported as coming over Franklin Gutierrez and a grave injustice and so forth… but it’s not, not yet, and I’m not sure why everyone’s jumping on this.
There are three Gold Gloves given in each league for outfielders, and they’re not position-divided. Jones could well win as well as Gutierrez. Just look at the last few years of AL voting, when we’ve seen two and even three center fielders win in a year (Hunter, Sizemore, Ichirio!)(and Vernon Wells).
Also, I don’t see why we should really get worked up about this if it’s true. It’s like bemoaning the Oscars, or NBA officiating. The surprise would be if the Gold Glove voting made sense for once.
Recommended reading: “Commie Ball”
Michael Lewis writes a long piece for Vanity Fair on Cuban baseball players and the conviction of Gus Dominguez. Check it out.
ObMarinersTie: Betancourt’s contract with the Mariners results in Gus Dominguez’s kids being threatened and, later, Betancourt’s varied stories and unwillingness to testify on Dominguez’s behalf leads to his conviction. Long quote on page seven:
it was the smuggler’s word against the agent’s, and there was really only one person who might have broken the tie: Yuniesky Betancourt. The Dominguez side never called him as a witness, mainly because they had no idea what he might say. He’d already told three different stories, two of them to immigration agents, about how and when he’d come to the United States. He declined to return phone calls, and slammed the door in the face of the private eye they’d hired to track him down. As his former agent went to trial, VÃctor Mesa’s old shortstop was back in Seattle, playing in their home opener. And on top of it all, he’d unwittingly provided the U.S. government with an explanation for why Gus Dominguez needed to smuggle ballplayers in from Cuba: to make back the money he’d lost on Betancourt—for, having stiffed his smugglers, Betancourt then stiffed the agent who had fed and housed him for six months. He signed the contract with the Mariners that Dominguez had negotiated on his behalf, but paid whatever commission he paid to someone else. (A grievance regarding the allocation of the commission is ongoing.) The money Dominguez lost on Betancourt, the U.S. government argued, threw his business into disarray. He became desperate—so desperate that he ordered up five more players from Cuba.
Sigh.