Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
21. What are you talking about???
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:48 PM
Oct 2015

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)

I didn't say ANYTHING about owners that don't invest in their own team. I did say that some owners CAN spend a lot more than others and still make a profit.

In 2014, the Yankees made $508 million in revenue, the Houston Astros made $175 million. The Yankees were able to spend $203 million ON PLAYERS ALONE (not even the highest payroll that year), while the Astros spent $44 million. Could the Astros have spent more? Absolutely. Could the Astros try to compete with the Yankees in a bidding war for one individual player? Maybe, but they'd have to want that player more than the Yankees did, because no matter how much they offered. the Yankees could always afford to offer more if they wanted to. Could the Astros field the same lineup the Yankees do? Not a chance. If the Astros were stuck paying Arod and Sabathia $46 million for 2016 and 2017, they'd be fucked. They Yankees aren't. That's the advantage the big market teams have. They can afford to overpay players to make sure they get them, and if the players don't work out, they can afford a quality replacement, or to pay them to go away.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

By the way, your $19 million number is from 1996 (where they were the 5th lowest spending team in baseball). That year, the yankees payroll was ONLY $61 million (highest in the league). All of the teams that made the playoffs were in the top 14 in payroll. The Royals revenue was $43 million that year and after expenses, their operating income (after expenses) was $4.7 million. The Yankees revenue was $133 million and their operating income was $38 million. If you have a player go down or underperform, or if you need to add players at the trade deadline, it's a lot easier to replace them when you have $38 million to play with than if you have $4.7 million to play with. The idea that having more money isn't a significant advantage is total bullshit, and you know it. Kansas City and Houston already have to start planning for what happens when their players come up for a contract, but they Yankees can afford to resign any and all players they choose to.

http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1996/Income_Expenses.asp

http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1996/Payroll.asp

Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that their opponents are the Mets, KamaAina Oct 2015 #1
Obviously joeybee12 Oct 2015 #2
KC is 16 in payroll, Mets are 21 joeybee12 Oct 2015 #3
Doesn't that make them Beelzebub or something? KamaAina Oct 2015 #8
Satan West joeybee12 Oct 2015 #10
Adam's brother? KamaAina Oct 2015 #11
Small market teams can't compete with consistency. Once that developed talent reaches free agency, Auggie Oct 2015 #4
They made the WS two years in a row Yavin4 Oct 2015 #5
Your OP said "compete," not "make it to the WS." Auggie Oct 2015 #7
The Royals don't play in the same division as the Yankees. Yavin4 Oct 2015 #13
Like Zack Greinke? KamaAina Oct 2015 #9
When the Royals traded Greinke in 2010 they finished 67-95, 27 games out Auggie Oct 2015 #12
Bunk! Yavin4 Oct 2015 #14
Money enables teams to make up for incompetence. hughee99 Oct 2015 #15
Will you stop it with the rich owners propaganda Yavin4 Oct 2015 #16
All owners can make money, but a team that brings in $300 million can spend a LOT more hughee99 Oct 2015 #17
These are not some Mom and Pop organizations running on a shoestring budget Yavin4 Oct 2015 #19
What are you talking about??? hughee99 Oct 2015 #21
Over ten years (2006-2015) the Yankees have 928 wins ... Auggie Oct 2015 #18
So, a $200 million annual payroll nets out to only 108 more wins than Oakland Yavin4 Oct 2015 #20
11 more wins is the difference between going 81-81 and 92-70. (eom) StevieM Oct 2015 #22
That doesn't prove statistical significance. (eom) Yavin4 Oct 2015 #24
Over the last 10 years, only 12 teams averaged more than $100 million in payroll. hughee99 Oct 2015 #23
First, you haven't shown than a 10 win difference is statistically significant enough to support Yavin4 Oct 2015 #25
Did you say that all TEAMS should be able to run a competitive franchise over that span hughee99 Oct 2015 #27
I'm arguing both. Yavin4 Oct 2015 #28
In 1996, the year they Royals cut their payroll to $19 million, the Royals "pocketed" 4.7 million. hughee99 Oct 2015 #29
Another factor that you miss Yavin4 Oct 2015 #30
The Rays traded Price at age 29, and got Drew Smyly and Nick Franklin in return. hughee99 Oct 2015 #31
Excellent post. K&R. (eom) StevieM Oct 2015 #26
I have a soft spot for the Mets from the years I lived in New York.... marmar Oct 2015 #6
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Sports»Why this Yankees fan is r...»Reply #21