Come To Think of It...Go Ahead, Hate the Yankees But Be Sure To Take Their Money

I wrote an article the other day that has generated significant interest, albeit mostly people commenting to say that I'm crazy for suggesting that the New York Yankees are well within their rights to spend money as freely as they see fit.

I even had the gall to opine that it is actually good, not bad, for the game of baseball.

Well, the hatred of the Yankees extends beyond the average fan. Many of the Major League teams themselves are aghast by the holiday shopping spree the Evil Empire has been on, signing three major free agents for almost a half billion dollars.

When you add in the outrage over the Steinbrenner's requests for publicly financed government bonds to help pay for their new stadium you, well, just about have anarchy. Especially if you dare take their side of the story.

And imagine that I'm not even a Yankees fan! No sir, never have been, never will be. In fact, maybe that's why I'm able to separate out the feelings of anguish and instead focus on the issues.

The first issue, of course, is the spending on players' salaries—most recently the eight-year, $180 million deal they gave first baseman Mark Teixeira.

As those of you who read my last piece know, I do not think the world has ended because of this. In fact, the Yankees are likely to have a payroll that's slightly lower than last years due to long-term contracts to players like Jason Giambi and Carl Pavano coming off the books.

Also, the Yankees are awash in cash. They have a new stadium, their own television network, and thus their revenue stream is the highest of perhaps any sport and certainly the highest in baseball.

Is that fair? I don't know. They certainly have an advantage due to their location in the largest city in the U.S. But the cost of living there is high, and the price of the team, should someone ever buy it from the Steinbrenners, would certainly reflect that advantage.

But my main point has been that I'd rather see a team put some of that revenue back into the team in the form of payroll, as they try to win, rather than put those profits into their pockets.

And no, baseball does not need a salary cap. First off, revenue sharing has helped ensure that even the small-market clubs can compete. And second, the competitive balance problem, if there even is one, is not likely to be resolved by instituting an artificial limit on the amount a team may spend.

I say "if there even is one" when referring to a competitive balance issue because of the following facts. As ESPN.com's Keith Law has pointed out, over the last two years, teams in the top five in Opening Day payroll made the playoffs only 50 percent of the time.

Teams in the top 10 made the playoffs only 45 percent of the time. And that's even with the skewing factor caused by teams that increase payroll when they intend to contend that upcoming season. 

According to Law, the only thing salary restrictions would do is increase owners' profits. He goes on to say that "baseball's competitive balance problem can only be solved by eliminating incompetent GMs."

And it really bugs me that teams that openly criticize the way the Yankees operate still take their money. Thanks, in part, to the revenue sharing that teams get mainly from the Yankees, there is more parity in baseball than in any other major sport.

As Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle writes, "Nothing is better for the sport than a furious spending spree by the New York Yankees." He contends that there is more parity in baseball than even in the NFL.

As Murray Chase notes, "other teams are only too happy to take the Yankees’ money. The Yankees will pay more than $110 million in revenue sharing and luxury tax this year, and with the added revenue from the new stadium next year they expect the bill to be about $150 million."

Now, how the smaller market teams choose to invest that money is up to them.

And as for the public financing deal that the Yankees are hoping for? May I remind everyone that Steinbrenner is putting about $800 million into the new stadium; it is only about $200 million that they are asking for funding on. And one could argue that a new stadium will be of benefit for all New Yorkers.

And anyway, there is precedent for such a thing. New York City currently subsidizes: 614 ball fields, 991 playgrounds, 550 tennis courts, 51 outdoor swimming pools, 10 indoor swimming pools, 36 recreation centers, 14 miles of beaches, 13 golf courses, six ice rinks, three major stadiums, and four zoos!!

All for entertainment purposes, much like Yankee stadium. And anyway, much of that $200 million will go to improving the city's infrastructure around the new stadium.

You can come to think about all this any way you see fit. But I choose to focus on the facts. And when you do that, isn't it a bit hypocritical for teams to cry foul when the Yanks spend money, yet those same teams are only too happy to cash the revenue sharing check? I think so.

So go ahead, hate the Yankees, but don't let the facts get in the way.