<p>And in that respect you’re wrong. The ability to spend drastically more money than any other team is an advantage, whether the money is spent wisely or not. Whether something is an advantage is not contingent on how it is used. That’s just the definition of advantage - no debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most Cy Young quality pitchers don’t having any advantage. I suppose it’s been said that Maddux was great because he always got the call on the edge of the plate, but that would be an advantage whether he was a good pitcher or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are crazy if you think I said that. I said that the people that know nothing and care nothing about baseball buy the hat, etc. because of the city. Not a </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Forbes’ numbers don’t include the money from the YES Network. It’s worth noting that YES shows more than just the Yankees. A similar network in most other markets simply wouldn’t be feasible, brand or no brand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t recall claiming victory, except for pointing out where you’re objectively wrong.</p>
<p>I never said that you claimed victory, I said that if you want it so depserately bad that this thing has been dragged out for such a long time, you must crave some satisfaction. The YES network is TV, and I said that is a different entity that is based upon the brand. Promotion of brand can be attirbuted to market, but if something is not quality, then it will not generate the most revenue (see: Mets. They do not have as good a quality team as the Yanks do, and that is a reason why they make less. They spend less as well, and have not existed as long as the Yankees. But if the market is so important as you claim, then I am correct in saying that the reputation and brand built by the Yankees is a reason why they make more than the Mets). </p>
<p>Gee, I guess CC Sabathia has got no advantage over Joba Chamberlain. Grienke must not have an advantage on the mound, neither does Lincecum. So natural talent is not an advantage?</p>
<p>The way the Yankees got money is an important factor as well, one that you cannot deny. And if someone has an “advantage” and does not use it properly, it is no longer advantageous. You shoot yourself in the foot when you do that. Something must be utilized in the proper fashion to be truly advantageous. Does a guy who (hynpothetically) throw 110 MPH have an “advantage” if he has no control on the ball and is wild? </p>
<p>Forbes stated that the “baseball” entrrpise was losing money in 2007, and the TV revenue and whatnot made up for losses. Forbes is right. </p>
<p>Go ahead and say I am horrendously wrong, I can live with it. We have differing opinions, and I have offered (what, 4 or 5 times now) to let the thing die, amicably agree to disagree. Nope, you wanted more, and that insinuates that you need to be deemed “winner.”</p>
<p>With the 110 MPH guy I was saying there is no advantage because he has no command. His “inherent advantage” is being able to throw that fast. You said the Yankees only advantage is cash, no matter how you spend it. If a pitcher has a rocket arm (his built-in advantage) and does not use it, then he is misusing his edge, and it is no longer advantageous. </p>
<p>I must say that I disagree that natural talent is an advantage, if used properly. You agree with me in that a pitcher with a laser arm, his natural advantage, and no command is practically of no use. That was my whole point this entire time, that yes certain advantages exist but bad decisions blow that edge. </p>
<p>You just kind bailed (no offense) about the Forbes thing. We were talkin about what is “baseball” business and how TV money came into play. We both know that a larger market is more prone to drawing in more money, but the Yankee reputation is what kept them afloat, that has been my point. Even when the Yankees baseball operations riches are completely spend, the “brand” picks up the slack. And a “brand” is not just based on location, a high-quality product must be fielded to draw more people to that brand. A big market does not hurt by any means, but there has to be something to draw “random fans” to the organization. </p>
<p>Bottom line, it is profit. but how you earn/spend money is important in pro sports, we can agree on that I think. I mean especially in baseball, without the cap, where you try to earn as much as you can to reinvest in the team to win titles, but the owner of course wants a healthy cut.</p>
<p>Ok, but that doesn’t mean the advantage doesn’t exist. The point is that season after season the Yankees’ money gives them a much better chance at putting together a great team and a vastly greater margin for error in management. Aberrations happen in individual seasons, but over multiple seasons success becomes much more a function of money.</p>
<p>OK, I respect your opinion TCBH. I do not deny that (bundles of) money can be a wonderous advantage, but the way in which you allocate those excess finances defines the advantage. The way I see it (which we differ in opinion), you do not have an advantage right off the bat (no pun intended) by just having money, no matter how much you spend. Putting it into wise investments gives the true advantage. Look at the 2008 team, which spent over $200M, and the Yankees missed the playoffs. Then with a similar payroll, they are in the World Series this year (with a new-look team from the new FAs). The amount of revenue helps (no doubt actually), but the players you put sign/trade for/develop are the “real” advantage.</p>
<p>Just an illustration of my point, here’s a plot of the cumulative wins vs. cumulative payroll for each franchise over the past 3 seasons. As you can see, R-squared is .4, so the correlation coefficient is .63 which is nearing a strong correlation. It also shows how huge the gap is between the Yankees and anyone else.</p>
<p>The Yankees have only had 1 really good season (counting this year) the last 3 years. Yes, we won a division 3 years ago, but a 1st round playoff exit and missing the playoffs the last 2 years are not quite “succesful.” Yes, going to the playoffs in general does make more money, but the Yankees expectation is to win every year (a bit far-fateched IMHO), so we have had some bad years. It’s like how in other sports, “elite” teams are not supposed to lose in the first round or miss the playoffs entirely. We obviously know the Yanks spend money, but they did not put it in the right places the last few years. We lagged in having a truly dominant starter (like CC has been this year and hopefully will be in the future). Sure, we can spend $200M and win lots of games (though early playoff exits and missing the playoffs are a semi-failure and total failure, respectively, in my opinion), but what good did that do? Sometimes graphs do not tell the true tale of the tape.</p>
<p>I mean winning the World Series is the objective every year for just about every team in the league, though others have a different agenda (like trying to even make the playoffs). One thing I do find interesting: if MLB instilled a cap, where would it be at? Like would $100M be a good figure, or should it be closer to $65-75M? And if teams spend less now (with no cap), and they stay at the same payroll for whatever reason if there was a cap, then those teams still cannot complain. I mean revenue-sharing would have to be instilled as an “equalizer.” Luxury tax $$$ is supposed to go to teams with less money, but do you believe that it does? I have read about some conspiracy theories how luxury tax goes straight to Selig and he does whatever with it, etc.</p>
![http://i206.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/winsvspayrollmulti.jpg"]MLB](http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/Iam3elliott/winsvspayrollmulti.jpg%22%5DMLB){kind=link}
