I FEEL uncomfortable defending the Yankees. It is unpleasant to find myself on the same side as Hank Steinbrenner. It is distasteful to be making a case for why the organization with the biggest wallet uses it.
But listening to one baseball official after another complain at the Winter Meetings about the Yankees’ massive spending is like listening to Cowboys officials act as if they were shocked that Pacman Jones got into more trouble or Terrell Owens can’t keep his mouth shut.
These are the Yankees. This is what they do. Good economy, bad economy.
Nevertheless, let’s ponder this question: What is more detrimental to baseball, that the Yankees gave a pitching-record contract to the 2007 AL Cy Young winner (CC Sabathia) and likely will have a lower payroll in 2009 than 2008, or that the Padres are working feverishly to trade the 2007 NL Cy Young winner (Jake Peavy) as yet another way to plummet their way to a $40 million payroll and irrelevance?
And, no, San Diego is not doing this to clear cap room for LeBron James in two years. It is doing this because its owner, John Moores, is going through a costly divorce. The Yankees are being criticized because they continue to try to win, and not a word is spoken that the Padres already have surrendered for at least 2009-10.
OK, that doesn’t do it for you? Let me paint this scenario: On Oct. 1, you are told the Yankees will not be going after Sabathia. That only the other 29 teams can sign him. You know that the largest pitching contract ever is Johan Santana’s six years at $137 million, and that it climbs to seven years at $157 million with a vesting option. Wouldn’t you think Sabathia – as a complete free agent – would do better than Santana?
So why when the Yanks give Sabathia a seven-year, $161 million contract is it open season on the overdogs? That contract is a natural progression of the market. If the Angels gave it to Sabathia, would there be any discussion about it?
Yes, I have heard the Yankees bid against themselves. The only other known offer was Milwaukee’s five-year, $100 million offer. So when the Yanks’ proposal went from six years at $140 million (a drop over Santana’s guarantee) to the $161 million, the criticism was that the Yanks went from $40 million more than anyone else to $61 million more than anyone else.
Except that is nonsense. If the Yankees were not involved, many more teams would have been, and the final deal would have been well north of $100 million. I will not criticize the Yanks for using a strength (money) to make such a power first offer that they prevented a field from forming to negotiate incrementally toward $140 million or more.
As for that final push to $161 million, it is still pretty darn close to Santana’s option-included dollars. But even if you don’t buy that, I believe it was still worth an extra $21 million spread over three years for the Yankees to:
1. Land the key to their offseason, which essentially unlocked the Yankees winter, and 2. Motivate the Yankees fan base.
Look at it this way, say the Yanks had signed Sabathia for that $140 million and decided concurrently to spend an additional $21 million over seven years in advertising, no one would have said a word. Signing Sabathia before Christmas is pretty good advertising. Heck, no one is critical that while many front offices are in cut mode, the small-market Pirates are hiring a bunch of sales/promotion people to sell Paul Maholm and Nate McLouth. If you don’t have a problem with that, why have a problem with the Yanks spending
$3 million more a year to boost their team-owned network while assuring better ticket/merchandise/etc sales?
As for the A.J. Burnett bidding, the Braves had been right there dollar for dollar with the Yankees. Like the Yankees, Atlanta had a sizeable chunk of salaries removed from their payroll and is looking to reinvest those dollars. Do you have a problem with the Braves? If not, why do you have it with the Yankees?
I know, because they can just outbid anybody. True. It also is true that in the era in which the Yanks have spent this way, baseball has become more – not less – popular.
It also is true that the Yanks are the mother lode to the industry: More than $105 million combined in revenue sharing/luxury tax is distributed from the Yanks to other clubs. And though the 30 teams share equally in items such as merchandise sales, MLB.com dollars, and rights fees for radio, TV and international media, does anyone believe there are as many Kansas City Royals jerseys sold as those of the Yankees?
In other words, much of the sport gladly takes the massive dollars generated by the star-driven Yankees with one hand, and then slaps the Yanks with the other hand when the Yanks purchase more stars.
Also, just in case you haven’t noticed, money does not buy championships. The Rays really did win the AL East and pennant with the AL’s lowest payroll. The Yanks haven’t won it all since 2000, and what they found is those big contracts to Jason Giambi types make even the Yanks grow old and inflexible.
So while you are doing that familiar rant about the Yankees destroying baseball – despite all recent evidence strongly stating the contrary is true – keep in mind that in 2011, the Yanks are very likely to have Sabathia, Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada and probably Derek Jeter creaking around at exorbitant dollars.
Thus the Yankees – whether their critics can ever accept this or not – probably again bought some short-term happiness and long-term misery this past week.