Originally Posted by Al C.risafulli
Aside from the initial post, I see nothing douchey about this thread that would cause one to hate Yankee fans. I do see a lot of complaining from people who root for teams that don't win, though, largely due to their tiny payrolls.
Jim has it nailed. There are teams that are profitable BECAUSE of the revenue-sharing money produced by the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers (last number I read was actually $77 million paid out by the Yankees alone).
Baseball also shares its merchandise revenue. Every time a kid buys a Jeter jersey, the Florida Marlins benefit as much as the Yankees do. I believe each team received $3 million last year from merch revenue; Nick Swisher cost the Yankees $5 million.
What confuses me the most about all the anti-Yankee, big-dollar, high-payroll sentiment is the strange idea that this is some new phenomenon, some weird, "modern baseball" thing that's a result of free agency or George Steinbrenner or something.
The Yankees have won 27 championships overall. The first 20 all came in the 41 seasons between 1923 and 1964, and the last 7 have come in the 45 years since. The Yankees have ALWAYS been dominant, certainly more so in the old days than today.
If Babe Ruth played today, baseball fans would hate him and say things like "I don't understand how anyone could root for a fat, womanizing, alcohol-abusing, egotistical dirtbag who cheats on his wife." But since Babe played in the 1920s and 30s, we look back on him fondly and wish that baseball had some kind of rules to prevent the Yankees from outspending every other team the way they do today.
The problem with this is that the Yankees of yesteryear were more dominant, filled with more superstars, with more of a disparity between the Yankees and the other teams. How else do you explain the Yankee championship runs of the 1930s and 1950s?
If you look at the bottom 10 teams in terms of 2009 attendance, here's what you get: Oakland, Florida, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Washington, Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore. Four of these teams didn't even EXIST prior to 1977. I believe that eight of them - EIGHT - are playing in (relatively) new or renovated ballparks. None of them drew more than 24,000 fans a game in 2009.
How is it that teams that can't even get 25,000 fans in the park are able to build new ballparks, and continue to exist? How is it that the Kansas City Royals - who have managed to play .500 ball just ONCE in the past TEN seasons - can continue to exist? How can the Kansas City Royals stay in existence, renovate their ballpark, not win more than 83 games in ANY season since 1994, draw 23,000 fans a game, and yet still remain a viable business?
Thank the Yankees and their giant payroll. And who did the Royals spend their free agent money on in 2009? Kyle Farnsworth, Juan Cruz, Willie Bloomquist, Horacio Ramirez, and John Bale. Great personnel decisions. Blame the Yankees.
The Cleveland Indians played at the same ballpark in the late 90s when they were selling out every game and winning the division (made the postseason 6 out of 7 seasons between 1995 and 2001). In 2009 they drew 21,500 fans a game, losing 97 games and finishing 21.5 games behind the Twins.
That's the Yankees' fault?
Sorry, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. The Yankees spend money on players and are committed to win. As sports fans, somehow we look fondly at Vince Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing," but disparage Steinbrenner for having the same attitude.
Not me.
-Al
|
11-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode