Gentemann@xanga wrote up an interesting
post about the Yankees' revenue this season—how the team turned a profit despite having, by far, the largest payroll in the league at $201 million. And, since the aforementioned striped titans just pulled off their first World Series win since 2000's Subway Series, articles on the subject abound. We've chosen two that offer a keen financial perspective.
The Washington Times—a paper composed of, ahem, non-New Yorkers—
took a harsh look at Yankee finances, calling the team's World Series win "a solid return on an investment." The Yankees spent over $400 million dollars acquiring this season's killer lineup: securing pitcher CC Sabathia's seven-year contract at $161 million; paying A.J. Burnett, another pitcher, $82.5 million for a five-year commitment; and spending $180 on Mark Teixeira, a first baseman who signed on for eight years. It was, according to the Washington Times, a "shopping spree."
But the season remained profitable. The Yankees have been raking in cash from their new stadium, which allows for more expensive seats and offers year-round dining. And the team's 2009 payroll was actually less than that of the year previous, as the Yankees dropped expensive players like Carl Pavano and Jason Giambi. The bottom line is that the Yankees remain financially blessed, and will likely pick up some more top players for next season, like St. Louis Cardinals' left fielder Matt Holliday.
Joe Posnanski, a columnist for Sports Illustrated, wrote up a great (albeit cynical) article on the Yankees' unparalleled spending. The team has shelled out the top payroll in the league since at least 2002, topping out at $85 million more than anyone else in 2005, and shelling out an extra $52 million this season. Posnanski compared it to "playing the video game on cheat-mode."
What's interesting, though is even a mega-dominant team like the Yankees can often appear not-so-dominant, due to the nature of the game, which tends toward a low win percentage. The playoff teams this year each won at least 56 percent of their games, with the Yankees leading at 62 percent. Defeats are par for the course (oops, wrong sport) in baseball, unlike football, for example, where top teams would have win percentages in the 70s and 80s.
And when the regular season ends, Posnanski suggests the post-season games are designed for entertainment value, not necessarily to award the best group of players. The short series competitions showcase strengths in hyped match-ups that last for only a couple of games. The chaos of the short series is, Posnanski argues, a remedy for the Yankees' dominance; he writes, "Hey, if the game is rigged, rig the game."
What do you think about the Yankees' spending? Do you agree that the nature of baseball somewhat masks the team's advantage?
Comments (2)
Don't forget how much they spent on A-rod!! (although the deal was made in 07) I'm still spiteful that he left the Mariners for that extra dough.. but I guess he'd be stupid not to have taken it especially since the Yankees are like the "harvard" of the MLB. I'm sure all the players want to be part of them at some point in their careers. sigh.
who cares about the Yankees spending. they're the fuckin best!!! 27th World Series Championships!!!