It's almost like the Yankees spending money short circuits people's brains. Can all that green really cause people to become blind? I guess we're seeing what a poor economy can do to some rationale. Let's get a few things straight about this whole situation.
First of all, if Peter Gammons, a known Red Sox supporter, can admit the Yankees aren't "bad for the economy" or "bad for baseball" as some moronic fans seem to want to pin as a reputation on New York, than anybody should be able to see the logical side here. Are there boycotts of Walmart or retail shopping? Has a Best Buy President ever come out in the news and said Wal Mart shouldn't be allowed to sell electronics for such cheap prices because they make too much revenue and it isn't fair? Is anybody blaming Jeffrey Loria and Carl Pohlad for keeping payroll artificially low? In Loria's case, why hasn't anybody questioned when he does things like he did in 1997 and 2003 when all of a sudden the Marlins can afford to triple their payroll on a spending spree? Why hasn't anybody wondered why they don't always keep that payroll if they can afford it then? When the Twins get this new stadium (granted it's outdoors), is Major League Baseball going to demand they raise payroll since they will clearly be making extra money?
No, none of this has happened or will happen, but when the Yankees, in a new Stadium, with 86 million dollars coming off the payroll, coming off consecutive years of record setting home attendance in one of the biggest parks in baseball, consistently selling out opposing stadiums everywhere they go, just snapping a 13 year streak of making World Series bids and earning playoff revenues, sending 27 million dollars to the rest of MLB in taxes for spending "too much money", in the media capital of the world (even if they share the city), and while being worth nearly twice as much as the second wealthiest franchise in all of baseball, decide to purchase three players, their first big contracts via Free Agency where they took players from other teams since Jason Giambi in 2003, all of a sudden they are the worst people in the world?
Why don't we read what Yankees' President, Randy Levine had to say via the New York Times?
“We are usually in the top of road attendance and we get some of the highest television ratings, both when we play national games and when we visit other teams,” he said. He said if the Yankees’ new stadium, which will be ready for the 2009 season, allows the team’s revenue to increase, then “so will the revenues of the rest of the game.” Levine added: “We are sensitive to the economic times and our fans. We believe it is good for the franchise and good for the fans to put the best product possible on the field, and that is what we strive to do.” Levine singled out the criticism that he said some ESPN’s commentators had directed at Yankee spending and said he wondered why they were not criticizing their own network for reinvesting in its product by outbidding Fox by millions of dollars to acquire the rights to the Bowl Championship Series." Or maybe we should all pay attention to the Houston Chronicle, which states the Yankees' spending is good for Baseball. Richard Justice writes this on his blog: "At the rate the Yankees are going, I'm not sure anyone can compete with them," Milwaukee Brewers owner Mark Attanasio told Bloomberg News in an e-mail. "Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap." This is silly talk. This is the same guy that fired his manager with 20 minutes left in the season. This guy doesn't get it. If he owns the Brewers long enough, he'll understand that when the Yankees are really good, every other team benefits." He then went on to point this out, which everybody has lately been ignoring: "I heard Peter King on the radio yesterday saying how terrible it is for baseball, how every team in the NFL has a chance to win and that if baseball doesn't get a salary cap terrible things will happen. He did mention that baseball has a different champion every year, but added that really didn't count for much in his mind. (If he wasn't impressed by eight different champions in nine years, he could have mentioned that 18 of 30 franchises have made the playoffs at least once the last three years or that the National League has had 10 different franchises win a pennant the last 11 years.)" The fact of the matter is as fans of other teams, what are you complaining about? The Marlins play in a football stadium, they draw no home fans, I would know, I've been to more games than most people in South Florida. By all stretches of the imagination, there is still no Marlins fanbase, and the only two titles they have both lead to firesales the next season to make sure of keeping it that way. What happened to all that extra money from attendance when 60,000 strong started showing up to Dolphins Stadium for their playoff runs? Where did that money go? Nobody cared because nobody cares about the Marlins, and even they have found a way to win and beat the Yankees in the process. Does a team like that deserve to spend anywhere near the same money as even, say, the Braves? Baseball needs big market baseball, it needs biggest market baseball and it needs the little guys too, but gun to your head, which is more dangerous? An owner worth three billion who pockets what ever money he makes from consecutive years winning the central divison in the American League, or an owner who takes his massive profits and puts it into the onfield product in exchange for more massive profits? I'll take the former. If all owners spent what they made, Baseball would still exist. If all owners took the Carl Pohlad approach, there would be far less motivation, far less new stadiums, far less appeal and the rich (the owners) would only get richer even if there was. Now what seems un-American or bad for economic times? Spending money on an internal product? Drawing fans into the American economy? Boosting revenue and paying higher taxes as a result? Or trying to build an outdoor stadium in the heart of Minnesota so nobody will come and the public will still have to pay for its prices?
The Yankees are doing nothing wrong, there is nothing illegal here, nothing to see. They put their money where their mouth is and they try to make the team competitive every season. Sure, what they did to New York taxpayers if it was intentional was wrong, they shouldn't have had to borrow more money to complete the Stadium. That mistake also happened before the economy fell apart, it wasn't like the Yankees were spitting in the faces of the unemployed then.
You wonder why Yankees, and now Red Sox fans act elitist? That's why. Because we know our owners want to win as much as we do. All owners say it, but guys like Hal Steinbrenner, John Henry and the Wilpons mean it. The Yankees make the most money and they act accordingly. Maybe it gives them a step up during the regular season but as we've seen there are many ways to build a champion. A middle market payroll with some good draft picks like the Phillies, a few high prized players and scouting and development here and there (the Red Sox), or losing for a decade and collecting the highest draft picks and waiting for them to reach their prime (the Rays). There are many ways a team can make the postseason and many ways a team can go deep into the post-season.
I'll place my allegience behind a team with a plan rather than one who just exists. For my money, owners of the Royals and Pirates, or the Twins and Marlins are a lot worse for the game than the Yankees. And even in those four examples, they have all shared success at some point. There's a reason baseball is thriving and it has nothing to do with the Yankees spending too much money.
Recent Comments