Rory from PAAPFLY has an interesting piece up, where he introduces a way to calculate how well a team uses its resources. We’ve all seen stuff like cost per win,  but that overemphasizes at the expense side of the ledger and doesn’t put teams in proper context against each other. His idea is fairly simple. Payroll ranking, minus win ranking. Teams that spend heavily and wind up in last place (like last year’s Mets) will fare worst with this formula, while the Yanks and Sox wind up somewhere in the middle. Here’s his post:

If money meant everything and every team who spent the most always had the most wins, you would expect that every single team would fall in line with their average payroll and average number of wins. Of course, we know that’s simply not true. Some teams have terrible GM’s. The Mariners had Bill Bavasi at the helm for several years, for example, while others have exceptional GM’s. Billy Beane – the obvious choice – of the Oakland A’s is regarded as one of the very best. I’ll also note that Tampa Bay has an exceptional (acting) GM in Andrew Friedman, unfortunately, he’s only been at it for a few years and thus his genius won’t quite be reflected in the results. Any who, once I had ranked each team by their wins and payrolls; I simply subtracted their win rank from their payroll rank to see whether they were positive or negative (+/-). What do I mean by positive or negative? Well, I wanted to see which teams had leap-frogged the ranks. Meaning, which teams had won more games than the field despite having spent less and thus won more games than expected were money the only factor in acquiring wins

Within the MLB, 17 of 30 teams (57%) fell within 3 teams (10%) plus or minus of where they should have been. 22 of 30 teams (81.25%) fell within just 5 teams (17%) of where they should have been. So there definitely seemed, to me at least, that there was a correlation between money spent and wins. The 8 teams that were essentially outliers and didn’t fall within 5 teams (17%) of where they should have were the 4 best teams and 4 worst teams in MLB, as follows:

Best                                                  Worst


1. Oakland Athletics (+15)               1. Baltimore Orioles (-15)
2. Cleveland Indians (+12)               2. Chicago Cubs (-13)
3. Florida Marlins (+9)                     3. New York Mets (-10)
4. Minnesota Twins (+8)                  4. Detroit Tigers (-9)

Here’s the part Yankee fans will want to see:

I like it, it’s a balanced approach to the old argument where one side only looks at payroll and the other side gives all credit and blame to management. It treats teams like the Yanks and Red Sox fairly. Yes, they have a competitive advantage but they’re also smart and utilize their resources well.

NoMaas did a post this morning about Boston’s “little engine that could” attitude and their 2010 payroll, which is slated to be about 170 million dollars. When I first saw that number, I thought that it was mistaken, and that it was simply the luxury tax number, which is based upon average annual value rather than actual salaries. However, Mike Axisa of RAB pointed me towards a Cot’s Contracts spreadsheet that puts Boston at about 166 million before pre-arb contracts are set, meaning they should finish at about 170M. They will almost certainly be paying the luxury tax, and will be forced to consider that when making moves during the season.

With the Yankees coming in at 212M at this point, that makes for a fairly sizable gap of 46 million dollars. However, the Red Sox have closed on the Yankees significantly this offseason, as the 2009 difference was 85 million (207 vs. 122). The Red Sox have attempted to paint themselves as the underdog for a while now, and a gap in payroll of 85 million allowed them to do so, despite the fact that they have been consistently among the most expensive teams in the sport. However, as they inch towards 200M themselves, it might be prudent for Larry Lucchino and John Henry to stop pushing the old poorhouse routine. To suggest that they need to “make the best of what they have,” as if they were a small market team that needed to make every dollar count, seems fairly ridiculous when they can afford to field a contender for 30 million more in salaries than the 2nd most expensive club in 2009 (the Mets, of course). The Red Sox are not an underdog. They are the second most expensive club in the sport, and it is time for them to stop the “little engine that could” charade.

Recently, many have wondered why the Detroit Tigers would spend money on Johnny Damon after they traded Curtis Granderson due to supposed salary concerns. It makes you question whether or not Granderson was, in fact, sent to New York for that reason (maybe there was another issue that forced Detroit’s hand). However, from Lynn Henning of the Detroit News we learn that Detroit likely did trade Granderson mainly for payroll reasons, as the organization had hoped to alter its spending this winter. Henning writes that owner Mike Ilitch, going into 2010, had planned to employ greater budgetary discipline so as to “prune” payroll. The Granderson trade, as well as the decision to not offer arbitration to Placido Polanco, who later signed with Philly, were indications of this strategy. But, as Henning notes, Ilitch has since grown “nervous” regarding the offensive capabilities of his team, and this has led to a “revised” line of thinking. As seen by their interest in Johnny Damon, the club’s stance from December to February has “softened.”

Now that Detroit is seemingly prepared to spend more than they had originally hoped to spend this season, it makes you wonder whether or not the Yankees “got away with one” with the Curtis Granderson acquisition. Today, if Brian Cashman were to approach Detroit’s GM, Dave Dombrowski, about the young center fielder, perhaps he would not be named as an available piece. In fact, when you consider that the Tigers’ division rival, the Twins, had a productive offseason, which is partly why Detroit is compelled to sign Damon, trading Granderson seems even more unlikely.

Photo by Getty Images

I had promised a few readers an article on the PECOTA projections this morning, but will push that until next week because SG over at RLYW has suggested that their math is a bit off, and Colin Wyers has responded that they are looking into it. I will wait until there is more news on that before I discuss it.

Anyhow, Mike Lupica wrote a column this morning so ridiculously devoid of logic that it needed to be addressed. I am going to go at it FJM-style, addressing the most egregious suggestions made by the once-great writer whose opinions have, for the most part, jumped the shark.

The headline is that the Yankees have a budget. We are supposed to believe that this budget is the reason that Johnny Damon goes now. Sure it is.

Now you can take the Yankees at their word, buy this notion that they can’t spend $200 million on baseball players anymore. But if you do, you sort of have to wonder if the team really is rolling in dough, the way we’re constantly told.

Just because a team is “rolling in dough” does not mean that they should not have a budget. The fact that the Yankees were run as if they were a trust for fans for the last 30 years does not mean that they should be forced to operate that way in perpetuity. They have chosen to act like the business that they are, and maximize profits. Doing so requires setting a budget, so as to have some cost certainty when planning for the upcoming season. The Yankees are not cutting costs because they are running out of cash. Rather, they are doing so to try and become as efficient as possible.

But for now the story, and the Yankees are sticking to it, is that they’ve got a by-God budget. That they couldn’t afford what they say Damon wanted. Or what they thought he wanted. Or what they were afraid Damon’s agent, Scott Boras, might try to weasel out of them, because nobody can out-weasel Boras.

Really? Johnny Damon turns out to be the one guy the Yankees can’t afford? It would be like finding the one bar girl Tiger Woods didn’t want to take home with him.

Again, Lupica’s column shows a lack of understanding regarding a fairly basic concept. Lupica is trying to plant the idea that it is ridiculous for the Yankees to reject Johnny Damon after all of the money that they have spent on players. However, Johnny Damon is not “the one guy the Yankees cannot afford.” At this point, they have reached the line in the sand that they drew and therefore cannot afford anyone. This has nothing to do with them rejecting Damon in particular.

This Yankee budget, by the way, revolves around the completely arbitrary figure of $200 million. To them, it is some kind of magic number, even though nobody else in baseball spends anything close to that, has ever spent anything close, will ever spend anything close to that.

This is where the column loses me for good. Lupica baldly states that the Yankees budget is an arbitrarily drawn line when he has no evidence to that point. I do not think they need Johnny Damon, but it is hard to deny that he would help the 2010 Yankees. It is highly doubtful that they would not push the budget past 200 million for him if it was simply an arbitrarily drawn line. It is significantly more likely that they analyzed their likely revenues and projected costs and then came to a fairly precise figure that they were comfortable paying on salaries. To call the line arbitrary is a serious claim, and one that would require actual reporting and evidence to make.

But does anybody believe that Johnny Damon, who helped beat the Yankees in 2004 when he was with the Red Sox and played such a spectacular World Series for the Yankees five years later against the Phillies, has to go because of money? Or because Boras made Brian Cashman mad?

Let me see if I have this straight: Boras’ No. 1 top-dog client, Alex Rodriguez, got to opt out of his Yankees contract during Game 4 of the 2007 World Series, show up the Yankees as much as anybody ever has, but that wasn’t a career-ender in New York?

Yes, I believe that Damon, who was a very good player for the Yankees, had to go because of money. I also believe that if Scott Boras had read the market a bit better and come down on his asking price prior to the Yankees signing Nick Johnson, Damon would likely still be a Yankee. Finally, I believe that Lupica is creating a storyline here that does not exist, by suggesting that they let Damon go due to problems with Boras and then comparing him to A-Rod.

Ignoring the fact that it was the Steinbrenners, not Cashman, who worked things out with Alex, the Yankees did not pass on Damon because Boras made them mad. As Lupica himself makes clear by citing the A-Rod situation, that is not the way the Yankees operate. They, like most properly run organizations, decide whether the player makes sense for them on the field and then make decisions based on that. The parallel to A-Rod is intellectually dishonest because it suggests a reasoning behind the decision that Boras himself has not claimed, let alone the Yankees. The Yankees’ sole issue with Scott is that he priced Damon out of their market and is now trying to suggest that they never entered the market.

You know what the bottom line is on this sudden bottom line the Yankees have? If they wanted Damon to play two more years here, he’d be playing two more years here. They just don’t want to say that. And for some loopy reason, they want to act as if they’re the victims here.

Lupica is suggesting that if the Yankees wanted Damon back, he would be back, and that they are simply covering up a lack of interest due to heretofore unrevealed reasons. However, the idea that “if they wanted him, they would have him” could be said about any free agent player and any team. If the Royals really wanted John Lackey, they could have offered him 25M a year and snared him. Again, Lupica misses a very simple point: the Yankees wanted Damon back, but only at their price. And quite frankly, they were right all along about Damon’s value, as evidenced by his difficulty even securing a one year deal. As Brian said on Hot Stove last night (h/t to YankCrank):

“We had a strong desire to have Johnny back, but not at all costs. We put a value on Johnny, shared that opinion on what that value was and Scott Boras and Johnny had a different value and a different opinion.”

Of course Cashman doesn’t want to be regarded as the guy who can only buy the World Series. Of course he wants to have the kind of rep as a personnel savant the way Theo Epstein and Billy Beane do. Of course he did make a whole series of terrific small moves to improve the ‘09 Yankees.

Except: Except none of those moves matters if Cashman didn’t get to spend nearly a half-billion dollars on CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett and Mark Teixeira last winter! And if the Yankees don’t win this season, you can only imagine what happens to this new budget next winter if somebody like Joe Mauer is in play. What kind of money will they throw at him?

Here is where Lupica’s gloves come off and he makes a startling accusation, suggesting that Cashman is deliberately staying away from a player who can help the club to help his own reputation. This claim is ridiculous for two reasons. Firstly, Cashman has never had a problem spending profligate amounts before. He may have gotten a bit ornery with the media about the whole concept of buying a title, but at no point has he made the choice to stay away from a player he legitimately believed was a need to save money. The Mark Teixeira situation illustrates that point perfectly.

Secondly, Cashman does not set the budget, Hal and the other financial managers of the organization do. Blaming Cashman for the organizational policy is irresponsible and dishonest. While Cashman could go to Hal and ask for the budget to be extended, that sort of move is typically reserved for the game-changers of the world, such as Mark Teixiera. We have heard reports that Cashman was rejected by ownership when he had a deal in place for Mike Cameron at the trade deadline. Hal has tightened up the purse strings a little bit, and there is not much Cash can do about that.

Finally, Lupica suggests that the Yankees will disregard the 200M budget next offseason should they be unsuccessful in 2010. While this may be true, it simply ignores the fact that the budget is not a static number that applies uniformly to every season, nor should it be. They set the budget based on a number that they think gives them a chance to win and still be fiscally responsible. If, next offseason, they feel that it would be smarter for the club to have a 230M payroll and add Cliff Lee or Joe Mauer, and that they could sustain that payroll due to added revenues, it does not represent inconsistency. It shows an understanding of the marketplace and their place within it.

I also wanted to note that the fact that writers such as Lupica having decided to rip the Yankees for having a budget after years of ripping them for not having a budget is so incredibly ridiculous as to leave me speechless. I will let Mike Lupica circa 2000 do the talking (h/t to Craig):

The Yankees continue to live big and baseball dies a little bit at a time, even as this as treated like some kind of boom period. If you even suggest that there is something wrong with the assembly line we see working at Yankee Stadium, you’re just anti-Yankee. More and more the Yankees are treated, especially by the local media, like the company in a company town.

The same man, this very morning, wrote a column that criticized the Yankees for creating a budget and sticking to it. Only in NY, my friends, only in NY.

What did you think of Lupica’s column?

Tom Verducci recently ran an “efficiency” study to determine which MLB teams get the biggest bang for their buck. Essentially, he figured out cost per win (Opening Day payroll divided by wins) and used that number as his starting point. From there, it got a bit more complicated:

Cost Per Win is good, but it’s only a start. CPW doesn’t consider what a team achieved, and because the gap in payrolls is far greater than the gap in wins, CPW skews toward small-market teams who don’t spend and don’t contend often. The goal in pro sports is to win titles, not just games.
That brings us to Step 2: what did the team achieve in the past decade? There are five levels of achievement in baseball:
1. Give your fans a pennant race (defined here are finishing within five games of a playoff spot).
2. Make the postseason.
3. Win a postseason series.
4. Win the pennant.
5. Win the World Series.
Now comes the fun part. I assigned teams what I call Achievement Points for every level reached, with graduating values the more they advanced through the five levels: one point for being in a pennant race, two points for making the playoffs, three for winning each postseason series, four for winning a pennant, and five for winning a World Series. A team could accrue a maximum of 21 points for a world championship season.

Verducci finds that by his measure, the Yankees are the 23rd most efficient club in the sport. I have had a general discussion on this issue in the past with Maury Brown, reprinted here. While the broader issues are the same, Verducci’s study has much greater flaws and will be widely disseminated, to the point where Yankee fans will probably be forced to spend time parrying with people citing these results. As such, I wanted to address a number of flaws with the study.

1) The most obvious problem with the study is that it creates a false relationship between efficiency and winning, suggesting that efficiency is based directly on the fortunes of the club. However, this simply ignores the fact that baseball is a business. As such, the goal is not simply to win, but rather to make money, with winning being the easiest way to achieve those ends. The most efficient clubs are not those that win on the cheap, but are those that maximize profits.

2) Building off the previous point, clubs may make decisions that are not considered efficient by Verducci’s standards but help make them more profitable. For example, the Yankees may bring in big names rather than depend on prospects because it is better for their bottom line in terms of merchandising and their TV network. Signing superstars helps extend the brand, and has helped the Yankees turn from a powerful team into an international conglomerate, despite the fact that the club stopped winning championships as this transition was taking place. Even if the spending is not entirely “baseball” efficient, big time free agents bring people to the ballpark and makes them turn on their TV sets. I would guess that if you compared payroll to increase in total profits since the mid 90’s, you might find that the Yankees as an enterprise do better than everyone else. Quite simply, some of the things that they do that may be inefficient from a baseball perspective are profitable, and are therefore efficient in terms of their overall business.

3) The study ignores the fact that some clubs have a lot more money than others, and therefore are acting more efficiently by signing a sure thing to a big money deal rather than depending on cheaper players who generally have a lesser track record. Revenues need to be included in the equation.

4) It also glosses over the fact that not every situation is created equal, in that it ignores the competitiveness of the team’s division. Clubs in the NL West know that they do not need to spend to build a 100 win club, as they can win the division at 92 or so. Those in the AL East are not quite as lucky. Context is extremely important, and this study ignores it until the very end of the article, at which point it references this issue but makes no suggestions as to how to properly adjust the data.

5) The scaling of how much a playoff run is worth v. a series win v a WS win, etc is asinine, and does not reflect that the primary goal is to make money. The numbers are arbitrary and have no relation to reality, and then are arbitrarily subtracted from cost per win. Basically, the math in the study makes absolutely no sense, and renders the results meaningless.

I am not trying to suggest that the Yankees have been run perfectly, because there have certainly been some inefficient decisions. However, the Yankees have become a billion dollar conglomerate over the last 10 years, and have parlayed their method of operation into constant contention, a handful of championships, and more money than any franchise in the sport. Baseball is a business, and the bottom line is what matters to those running the club. By that measure, the Yankees are far from inefficient.

From George King (NY Post):

At Friday’s trade deadline, the Yankees added utilityman Jerry Hairston Jr. and nothing else. Not wanting to add payroll, the Yanks weren’t serious players for lefty Jarrod Washburn, who went from Seattle to Detroit.

So, what are the chances of making a deal now that a player has to clear waivers in order to be traded?

“Who knows — if it makes sense we will look at it,” GM Brian Cashman said. “There will be opportunity for people to do deals in the new deadline. What that means for us remains to be seen.”

If Hal Steinbrenner didn’t allow Cashman to take on significant money before July 31, it’s unlikely he will do so now. However, the Yankees are locked in a tight race with the Red Sox, and if Aceves isn’t right and Mitre continues to get spanked, they will be forced to make upgrades.

Multiple sources said yesterday that players will get through waivers this year more than in recent years due to teams not wanting to get stuck with a contract via the claim process.

King is basically saying that Hal Steinbrenner prohibited significant payroll additions at the trade deadline. He also says that, because of financial concerns, the Yankees were never serious players for Jarrod Washburn. That can be disputed, however, as Bryan Hoch notes that the Yankees didn’t make a serious play at Washburn because Seattle’s demands were too high. They reportedly wanted Austin Jackson, which wasn’t going to happen—not for a 2-month rental. Still, as Steve Lombardi points out, the Yankees could have bargained with the Mariners, right? Sure they wanted A-Jax—everyone asks for a team’s top prospects at the outset—but considering what they got for Washburn from the Tigers, it seems as though they would have lowered their demands if Cashman was truly persistent. What, then, is the truth? Did financial concerns limit Cashman or was it the Mariners and their unreasonable requests?

In the end, I believe that the Yankees didn’t want to take on Washburn’s contract which ultimately explains why he isn’t with the team today. Everything they’ve said about the M’s wanting A-Jax is simply disinformation to make it look like they actually tried to get Washburn. We heard numerous reports leading up to the trade deadline claiming that the Yankees wanted teams to pay the salaries of trade targets like Bronson Arroyo and Brian Bannister, which support this theory. Based on the information at hand, it really seems like the Yankees aren’t going to make anymore moves this year unless they are absolutely forced to—not because of unfair trade packages, but because of Hal Steinbrenner’s fiscal philosophy.

From Joel Sherman (NY Post):

The Yanks are among the teams that have checked in on Washburn. However, as of this afternoon the two sides still had not discussed names. In addition, Hal Steinbrenner has ruled that the team cannot take on significant money the rest of the season. That is a huge reason why the Yanks are not players on Roy Halladay. Washburn has about $3.7 million owed to him the remainder of the season, which could be a hurdle for the Yanks.

$3.7 million a hurdle for the Yankees? The Yankees can’t absorb that? Is this legit or is it just posturing? What’s interesting here is the dynamic Hal Steinbrenner adds to the Yankees. Hal is characterized as the frugal spender, one who is restrained and conservative with his wallet. However, is that merely an image that helps the Yankees posture with other teams, forcing them to eat significant chunks of a contract, or, is it actually true? He did open up the bank for Mark Teixeira, however, that was something that Brian Cashman had to convince him to do (reportedly). Based on what happens at the trade deadline, whether it involves Washburn or another player, we could find out what Hal’s all about in terms of his financial flexibility.

Despite the well-chronicled signings of the top three free agents on the market to massive, multi-million dollar deals, the Yankees actually shrunk their payroll by about $8 Million, according to Bob Nightengale of USA Today. Other teams engaging in George Costanza-like shrinkage include the Red Sox ($10M) and 12 other teams in total. Despite this trend, the average salary did actually increase by 4% to $3.26 million, so you may want to hold off on starting that fundraising telethon for starving baseball players.

With big ticket items like Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon, and Andy Pettitte coming off the rolls next year, the team from the Bronx is in a position to further streamline their organization by promoting Phil Hughes to fill Pettitte’s shoes as well as Austin Jackson to plug the hole in left field, with Swisher moving to right, taking over for Nady, who is also a FA after this season.

The OF is really the only fluid situation going forward, with the IF positions all locked up long term. With no decent SS FA’s, Jeter appears entrenched in that spot, barring a blockbuster, but in the OF, anything could happen. The Yanks could have 2 to 3 spots in that area open (possibly even 4, if you consider a DH/OF option). Much depends on how Gardner plays, how Swisher bounces back, if Nady builds on his breakout last year, etc. It’s also conceivable Damon or Matsui comes back to fill the DH role, though I Cashman seems to be trending young with most major decisions of late and I suspect they may want to leave the DH spot open long term for Posada.

Overall, the Yankees, despite being committed to several long-term, big-money deals, seem to have a decent amount of salary and roster flexibility.  There are many options in the outfield, of both in-house and free agent varieties.  Future catcher should be filled in-house, but if not, there are names like Joe Mauer who will be available soon.  Mariano can seemingly go forever, but if not, there are candidates both within and without.  The only trouble position in the future would appear to be shortstop, if Jeter’s defense (& offense) deteriorates to the point where he becomes a liability.  There are no soon-to-be FA’s at that spot, nor are there in-house options (unless Angelini has a breakout season).

From Alex Speier of WEEI.com:

This year’s Opening Day payroll would be lower than five other clubs’ marks at the start of 2008. For the first time in six seasons, the Sox will be closer in payroll to Tampa Bay than they are to New York. With that in mind, the Red Sox owners earlier this spring made the case that Boston is more in line with the rest of Major League Baseball clubs than they are with the Yankees, who are expected to tilt the scales at more than $200 million.

The article goes on to discuss how the Red Sox number is a bit low because all of the long term deals they signed with their pre-free agency guys (Pedroia, Youkilis, Lester) were back-loaded. However, the piece does miss a point that needs to be made every time spending by the Yankees and Red Sox is discussed.

There is an indisputably large gap between the Yankees and Red Sox in terms of financial outlay. However, the argument that the Sox are now a member of the pack is specious and uninformed. The Yankees and Red Sox put significantly more money into the draft and player development than most other clubs, even those such as the Mets who typically are fairly loose with their money. The Sox have just shifted their spending to the type that does not show up on the payroll and therefore is untouched by the luxury tax. The Red Sox are not on the Yankees tier of spending, but neither are they part of any sort of group on a lower tier. They are just as much alone in second place as the Yankees are in first.

Maury Brown of The Biz of Baseball recently wrote about the Yankees profligate spending over the last decade in an article special to MLB Trade Rumors. Here was his basic point:

To be exact, I have now have pulled together end of year payroll figures for the last decade. In looking over the totals, this much is clear: the Yankees spend, and outspend all comers by a considerable margin.

To place this in perspective, the Yankees have never ranked any lower than 2nd in total player payroll at the end of a season since 1999. At the end of the 2001 season they had a player payroll of $114,457,768, second only to the Dodgers at $115,478,346.

But, what should show how much more George Steinbrenner and Co. enjoy spending is that the Yankees have spent over 42 percent more than the Red Sox over the last decade, and have exceptionally close outcomes.

I took issue with the implication that the Yankees spend inefficiently from a business perspective, and the following email exchange occurred, excerpted and reprinted with Maury’s permission, with my initial email first:

I understand the purpose of figuring out the cost of a win, but wouldn’t you say that the club really does not care about how much they are paying per win as much as they care about the expansion of the brand? Fact is, the Yankees of the last 15 years have gone from being a team to a brand, as you have noted in the past, and their big spending definitely helps in that regard. Even if the spending is not entirely efficient, big time free agents bring people to the ballpark and makes them turn on their TV sets. I would guess that if you compared payroll to increase in total profits since the mid 90’s, you might find that the Yankees as an enterprise do better than everyone else. My point is, that they definitely would like to be more efficient, but some of the things that they do that may be inefficient from a baseball perspective are profitable. Thoughts?

Maury’s response:

Possibly, but I would say that the growth of the Yankee brand comes from the World Series wins and mostly, plus the players developed, not gained through FA. While A-Rod is certainly an FA that draws, Rivera, Posada, Jeter, Bernie Williams, etc. came up through the system.

My contention is that spending in high figures in and of itself is not bad. However, one could argue that if the reasoning for the spending has to do with competing with the Red Sox, they have overspent. A classic example is the deal given Burnett this off-season… Over market value. There are other examples… Pavano is a great case.

All that said, the growth of the Yankee brand has occurred in part from some FA signings. The foundation, however, has been built on the veterans of the club that were developed.

My rebuttal:

Thanks for getting back to me, and I would agree with much of your point. However, I think that something like resigning A-Rod last offseason was more about star power than baseball. I bet they resign Jeter in a few years to a contract well above market, for the same reason- Jeter is a part of the Yankee brand. I just think that the difference in spending between the two clubs comes from the fact that not all of the Yankees moves are made with baseball in mind. The Yankees would never replace Nomar with Cabrera and Meintkeiwicz, purely from a business point of view. When they lose Pettitte, they dont dip into the minors, they trade for Kevin Brown. Some of these make baseball sense, but the need to have big names definitely plays a part.

Maury later added:

There are very, very rare occasions where a player’s star value can be quantified. Manny with the Dodgers could be easily seen, and certainly Fernandomania was another. But, the Yankees as a brand are bigger than some of its players. Jeter is the face, and I would sign him, just as they did with Rivera. But, beyond that, all the players appear expendable from a star power draw point, and that includes A-Rod.

When A-Rod joined the Rangers, television ratings went down. When he left, they went up. Winning cures all ills, or if you are the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs in the last 10-15 years, your brand is a greater draw than all but a handful of names on the team. When I go to see the Yankees, it’s to see the name associated with all the incredible history. The players are simply part of that great legacy.

I concluded the exchange with the following:

Well said. I would just point out that Yankees attendance went up in every year since 2000, even though they stopped winning championships. The Yankee brand in of itself is plenty, and combined with winning it makes for large numbers at the gate. But I wonder why those numbers went up even after the titles stopped, which leads me to the big free agents thing. When you win the offseason, you create excitement, and people run out and buy tickets to see the “new and improved” Yankees before a single inning is played.

Where do you stand on the issue? Do you agree with Maury, and feel that the Yankees have spent inefficiently with no real added benefit from their higher spending when compared to a team like Boston? Or would you side with me, and feel that the Yankees sometimes make inefficient baseball decisions because they are better for business and the Yankee Brand?