The Yankees Don’t Spend Like They Used to

After a season that saw the Yankees win 103 games, an AL East title, and get within two victories of reaching the World Series, Aaron Judge called the season “a failure.” Brian Cashman was a little more diplomatic, saying “we failed in our ultimate goal but we did not have a failed season.” If winning the World Series is the only path to satisfaction for a team, failure is almost inevitable. That hasn’t always been true for the Yankees and their 27 titles — even after going a whole decade without a championship, the Yankees’ five World Series wins in 25 years is still the most in the sport. Only the Red Sox, Giants, Cardinals, and Marlins have multiple titles in that time span, with eight franchises boasting a single title and 17 franchises without a ring since the strike.

The Yankees are often known for operating in another financial stratosphere. Forbes put a $4.6 billion valuation on the club, roughly 40% higher than the Los Angeles Dodgers and essentially the same as the White Sox, Mariners, and Blue Jays combined. While the Yankees’ YES Network is valued at around $3.5 billion, 14 other teams’ networks combined recently sold for about one-fifth that cost on a per team basis. Forbes estimates that only two teams (Dodgers and Red Sox) have annual revenues within $200 million of the Yankees. Financially speaking in baseball, there’s the Yankees up top, then 50 feet of swimming pools full of gold, then there’s everyone else. But lately, when it comes to spending on the major league roster, the Yankees haven’t operated as a behemoth and have instead opted to swim in that gold. Such is their choice.

The Yankees don’t have to spend like they used to in order to be successful. They’ve been better with player development, better at holding on to top prospects, better with trades, and better at identifying diamonds in the rough. Getting there cost them several years of playoff baseball, but they are coming off consecutive 100-win seasons, and though those teams didn’t win the World Series, they put themselves in position to have a really good shot. Strengthening the organization overall has allowed them to spend on payroll like they are a run-of-the-mill rich team. They could do more to win even more games and provide a better chance at a title, but it is difficult to know how great the motivation is to do so when they are already winning a lot. It’s also hard to put into perspective just how much they could be spending when they have one of the top payrolls in the game.

To try and add to that perspective, here’s how much the Yankees have spent on payroll and the taxes that come with it over the last 20 years compared with league-average payrolls.

The Yankees sat below $100 million in payroll back in 2000 when Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, and Jorge Posada cost a combined $25 million. As those players got older and more expensive and the Yankees added Roger Clemens, Mike Mussina, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, and retained Bernie Williams, the team’s payroll grew. In 2003, it jumped up close to $200 million coinciding with a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Jumps in 2004 and 2005 saw the Yankees up to around $240 million, roughly three times the average MLB payroll. Then the team just didn’t move for more than a decade. From 2000-2009, Yankees payroll averaged right around $200 million while the rest of baseball averaged about $80 million. Over the next decade, MLB payrolls moved up $50 million on average while the Yankees didn’t keep pace on a percentage (or even dollar) basis, moving up around $40 million.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

There’s an argument to be made that the Yankees’ massive jump in the early 2000s outstripped what might have been reasonable compared to their revenues and financial status, and that staying at around $240 million reflected a necessary correction. Here’s where the Yankees payroll has been as a percentage of total MLB payrolls since 2000.

When the Yankees took their big jumps in payroll, they alone represented about one-eighth of spending in the game. As that spending stagnated in New York and rose elsewhere, the percentage dropped. While MLB payroll has gone unchanged the last few years — which the Yankees may hold significant responsibility for in 2018 — the team’s rise in payroll this past season has moved them up a bit, though they are still below 2000 and 2001 levels. Because percentages can be a bit opaque, I took those percentages and put them all in 2019 payroll figures to help show what the Yankees would be spending this past season if they were still occupying the same percentage of payroll as they’ve done in the past.

We can look at the expenditures from 2004 through 2009 and think maybe those payrolls weren’t, in 2019 buzzword terms, sustainable. The team needed to go up from their 2000 spending level because having Pettitte, Jeter, Rivera, and Posada all on bargain contracts isn’t something to be relied upon, especially if they wanted to win more than 87 games like that 2000 squad. Even under that reasonable assumption, going up 10% from 2000 and 2001 levels instead of 80% would still put payroll close to $290 million in 2019 dollars.

I’m not saying there is a correct number the Yankees should spending. But I think it is fair to point out that the team has been spending at much lower levels than they have in the recent past, that revenue sharing has gone down for the Yankees, that Forbes estimates the club has $156 million in profits over the last decade, and that they had enough money to buy back into a majority share of the YES Network (whose profits are shielded from revenue sharing). It’s also fair to note that the franchise’s sharp downturn coincided with their first pennant-less decade in 100 years, when they started the 1910s as the New York Highlanders. It might also be reasonable to note that the team made it to the ALCS with only two-and-a-half starting pitchers, and that in their first three losses of that series, their starting pitchers averaged under four innings per start, and that in a win-or-go-home contest, the team went with a bullpen game.

The Yankees haven’t been saving money over the last decade. Individuals and families save money; MLB franchises increase profits. The Yankees have spent this time increasing profits and looking for a way to win like they used to without spending like it. The past two seasons have proved successful in that regard. The resulting profits also serve to decrease the club’s chances of winning a World Series. It’s a choice the Yankees have made that differs considerably from the previous decade. The Yankees are trying hard to achieve massive profits and winning baseball, and those two goals often compete against each other. They did so last offseason and at the trade deadline, and it will happen again this winter. We will see what choice they make.





Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.

101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago

I’d also like to see the Yankees’ payroll+tax against revenue plotted against the MLB average payroll+tax against revenue.

Because, as far as I can tell, it’s currently less than that of the Rays (and nowhere near as high as that of the Red Sox).

The facile line from desperate upvote-hounds is to cite the Yankees’ payroll as a way mock those who call Hal “cheap”…but that doesn’t actually account for how much freaking money the Yankees take in every year.

Rex Manning DayMember since 2022
6 years ago

In 2018, the Yankees spent the smallest % of revenue on payroll of any team in the league: https://www.pinstripealley.com/2019/4/16/18305860/yankees-2018-spending-payroll-percentage-revenue-lowest-mlb-priorities-winning-steinbrenner.

Their 2019 payroll was higher than in 2018, but even if we hold revenue constant from year to year, their 2019 payroll was still just 33% of their revenue, which would have been the second lowest rate in 2018. Adding in their luxury tax takes them all the way up to 35% or so, tying them with the Dodgers for the third lowest rate in the league.

To put their revenue in context, if the Yankees spent a league-average % of their revenue on players, they’d have a $300 million payroll. And if they spent as much as the Nationals did, they’d have a $400 million payroll.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

How much income a person or entity has doesn’t determine their thriftiness. Take the average cost for a Honda Civic is 20k. If Bill Gates pays 40k for one opposed to 3B is he cheap? Certainly 60k is a fraction of a percentage of his 106B net worth. Essentially that is the argument you are making here.

coolerking101
6 years ago
Reply to  rankdog

You’re not looking at this properly. When someone buys a car, they aren’t competing against 29 other car owners for the best car. It is completely fair to compare revenue/payroll in a competitive endeavor which is based, in no small part, on the ability of one side to buy better talent than the competition. That the Yankees have chosen to retain far more income than their competition, while at the same time, have been far less competitive on the free agent front is a simple fact.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  coolerking101

They would be less competitive on the market if they spent less money, they still rank top 3 in total payroll year to year. The fact that their revenue goes up based on the ambiguous information we have and not accounting for expenses and investor payouts, doesn’t change the force of nature the Yankees are on the free agent market. They spent more last off season than the whole entire Marlins payroll for crying out loud.

Rex Manning DayMember since 2022
6 years ago
Reply to  rankdog

“How much income a person or entity has doesn’t determine their thriftiness.”

… Yes, it categorically does. Read any “thrift expert” who provides budgeting advice and you will see that they use percentages, not raw numbers. The standard advice is to spend about 30% of your gross income on housing, for example, not that everyone should just spend $25,000 (or whatever) on rent.

The argument you’re making seems to be that thriftiness is measured by whether one pays market price for something. That is, Bill Gates could easily afford to spend $60,000 on a car, but a Civic only costs $20,000, so it wouldn’t be thrifty for Gates to spend $60k on a Civic. In reality, of course Gates wouldn’t spend $60k on a Civic, because *that’s not what Civics cost*.

The real point is that it would be perfectly reasonable for Gates to spend $100,000 on a new car, because that’s an infinitesimal fraction of his income, whereas $100,000 would be a truly insane amount for me to spend on a car. And literally the entire reason for that difference is that Bill Gates has much, much, much more money than I do. The question isn’t “Is that a fair price for that car,” the question is “Is that price something this person can afford?” And the answer absolutely depends on the person’s income.

Eminor3rdMember since 2019
6 years ago

Yankees are evil when they spend too much; evil when they don’t spend enough.

ScoreboardMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  Eminor3rd

Apologies Craig if I’m coming across as overly negative towards your pieces, but I’m not sure what the takeaway from this article is. Is it “the Yankees could spend more”? If so, weren’t they universally abhorred for doing that as Eminor alluded?

Furthermore, how would you want to see them spend more? Unlike the Cubs, Braves, and others I’m not sure where the Yankees could have really made a splash. Definitely don’t think Harper or Machado made sense. They were in on the Corbin, Cole, and Greinke bidding wars, should they have gone over the top in prospects or $$? They have already been linked to Cole this offseason and will likely pursue Strasburg as well.

Or is the takeaway that they should not be as profit driven by doing things like lowering ticket prices?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Scoreboard

I think this is more of a preemptive strike for when the Yankees inevitably won’t pay $200M or more for Gerrit Cole or Anthony Rendon. That said, I do think the relatively weak pursuit of Machado last year and their focus on the relief market suggests they are probably more interested in pitching depth than sinking huge amounts of money into one player. Whether one or the other is the better path for them, I am not sure.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

The point is that the Yankees have such massive revenue streams that they don’t have to choose a “path.”

If they signed both Corbin and Machado last year, without snagging Happ, their payroll and tax payments would be a lower percentage of their revenue than that of the Rays, much less the Red Sox.

scott
6 years ago

But they thought Happ would be good, which is why they snagged him. It’s easy to reallocate money after seeing how the players faired in hindsight.

And yes, they “could” have signed DJLM along with Machado, but it would have made no sense based on their roster with Machado. Was not going to happen, and DJ likely wouldn’t be signing a short term deal with much better and reliable players than Tulo blocking his path to consistent PT.

If we’re going to use hindsight to criticize Happ > Corbin, then you have to acknowledge, based on hindsight, passing on Machado was smart.

They do/did have to choose a path. There’s not unlimited roster spots, and you can only play 9 guys in a given day.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  scott

They didn’t think Happ would be better than Corbin. That’s why they offered Corbin significantly more money than Happ.

They just weren’t willing to give up the extra money to get Corbin, despite the fact that doing so would have made no appreciable difference to their bottom line.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Scoreboard

The takeaway from the article should be “the Yankees make so much money each year that signing all three of Harper, Machado, and Corbin would have left their payroll a lower percentage of their operating budget than the Red Sox’s.”

rangerpl
6 years ago
Reply to  Scoreboard

Yeah, I think what’s often missed is the opportunity cost associated with big free agent signings for teams that are already deep. There are only so many PA and IP to go around, so the net effect of adding a big FA is diminished because he’s taking opportunities away from another guy. You might be tempted to say he’s going to replace the worst guy on the roster, but that guy probably wasn’t going to get a lot of PA/IP anyway.

There’s also a diminishing return as you accumulate more and more WAR on the roster. Regular season record is a poor predictor of playoff performance so if your goal is to maximize your odds of making the playoffs, 3 WAR isn’t worth as much to a team that is already projected for 100 wins as it is to one in the 80s or low 90s.

rosen380
6 years ago
Reply to  rangerpl

FWIW- since the wildcard play-in, here are the average regular season wins based on how far the team made it (8 seasons of data):

Lost LWC: 91.0 wins
Lost LDS: 94.7
Lost LCS: 93.8
Lost WS: 95.1
Won WS: 97.4 wins

… so at least directional.

rangerpl
6 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Wild card losers are going to have fewer wins because it’s a biased sample as division winners can’t lose the WCG because they don’t play in it. A better approach in my opinion is to count playoff wins as a function of regular season wins, since you need to win 11 playoff games to win the World Series (12 if you are a wild card team). I ran a regression like this on playoff teams between 1998 and 2018 (I already had a spreadsheet with data for this time period) and ended up with a regression coefficient for regular season wins of .134, significantly different from 0 at the 95% level (p=0.012) but with a very weak R^2, 0.0345.

yankeesknicks00
6 years ago
Reply to  Scoreboard

Give corbin the extra year. Give Cole whatever the fuck he wants this year. Failure to do that is them not doing enough

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago

This front office is impossible to love. Their approximate steps in recent years have been: (1) build a new stadium and jack the ticket and concession prices into the stratosphere; (2) do obnoxious shit like try to restrict resale of tickets so that the bourgeoisie won’t have to be bothered by the proletariat encroaching on their exclusive space; and (3) then spend even less money on the team than you used to spend, while (4) using the profit money so a couple of inherited wealth toolbags can do whatever it is that trust fund boys do.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

They’re far from the only team that jacks up the ticket price, but that’s what is really galling about the whole thing. Teams shouldn’t regularly have empty seats in the stadium, and if they do, it’s because their product sucks or their prices are too high. Given how many games the Yankees have been winning lately, it’s not the product.

(The Yankees, perhaps because there are a lot of wealthy people in NYC and it probably gets tourists, actually had the third highest attendance last year, which means their pricing scheme probably wasn’t that far off…but as a result, there’s zero reason why it shouldn’t be selling out nearly every game like in St. Louis and Boston).

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Based on their public statements, I’m 99% sure that they have just made the cold calculus that, drawing numbers out of thin air for the sake of argument, if they price all 1000 premium lower level seats at $500 and sell 700 of them, that’s better than pricing them at $250 and selling all 1000, and they’re ok with that.

It’s freaking lame and sensible business at the same time, and I hate it and I miss the crappy old ballpark and the owner who (however vile he was) cared more about squashing the Red Sox than protecting his inheritance.

RoyalsFan#14321Member since 2024
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Well, to be fair, selling 700 seats at $500 a piece is more money than 1000 at $250.

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago

Thank you for pointing out that I said it is “sensible business” that is also lame

sadtromboneMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

This seems to be the operating calculus behind MLB’s pricing schemes, and based on short-term profit maximization they would be correct to do it this way (based on the numbers you picked, this is true even when you take into account concession sales and other such things). The part that is annoying is that they have tickets with all kinds of different levels of desirability, and all kinds of different ways to sell tickets via group discounts and promotions. So you should be able to offer a product with differentiated prices to get a lot closer to selling out than they are.

yankeesknicks00
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

2 things

1. It’s a lot easier to sell out a smaller fenway Park than yankee stadium

2. The cards couldnt even sell out playoff games

tung_twista
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Your logic doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
Yankees have a lot of wealthy people and tourists so they price their tickets accordingly and still have one of the highest attendance among all MLB teams.
If anything, you should be criticizing teams like Rays or Athletics with poor attendance numbers for failing to price their tickets based on their market.
From a business standpoint, if you are selling out every single game, then it means your tickets are likely underpriced and most of that benefit is going to go to re-sellers, not the audience.

ThrasiusMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  tung_twista

The Rays have a location problem more than anything. It’s dirt cheap to go to most games. Plus you can bring your own food and non alcoholic drinks.

martyvan90Member since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

But they don’t jack up prices. It’s a tired, lazy, spoiled, cranky Yankee fan narrative.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203489/new-york-yankees-average-ticket-price/

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  martyvan90

Ummm, your chart says the prices have almost doubled…

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Ummm… That chart shows they jacked up prices crazy high over a 2-year period a decade ago after already averaging ~$240M/year in payroll (and peaking vs league) for 4 years and reaching close to $200M the year prior to those 4 — seems like they spent those 5 years charging very reasonable rates (at least relative to spending vs rest of league), especially in light of how the economy (and Wall St) was doing.

And looks like their ticket prices came back to earth a fair bit over the last decade, stabilizing around the current rate.

Even if you just draw a straight line from 2006/2007 to now, prices went up a not too unreasonable ~65% over an 11-year period — that’s a roughly 4.7% inflation rate. And for NYC area, I’m not sure that’s actually unreasonable at all — for instance, property values probably went up roughly as much during that period despite the crash and Great Recession (and recent cool off)… and property taxes even more than doubled during the last few years thanks to DeBlasio, et al even as they redistribute those taxes (vs actually using them where they’re collected) unlike most other places in the country.

Yeah, the Yankees definitely did some crazy jack-up around 2008-2009, but they didn’t keep that up though (and that came w/ other noteworthy qualifications)…

Like someone else pointed out above, “Yankees are evil when they spend too much; evil when they don’t spend enough.” And if they don’t charge “enough”, somebody else will likely come along to play middleman and scoop up the diff in resale profits, so the avg fan will still end up paying these prices anyway.

Look at how crazy (resale) street prices for Hamilton Bway tickets have largely been for instance! Seems like only way to get “reasonable” face value prices for that show is you either have to manage to snag tix the minute they become available many months ahead of time or get lucky at the box office just an hour or so before showtime (or something similar… or maybe you’re connected I guess)…

Unfortunately, that’s just how NYC and the free-ish market at work…

Personally, I’d rather watch most games on my 100″ wall projection at home (or even just streamed to my 27″ desktop LCD) instead — and ticket prices cannot possibly compete w/ that. IF only good seats are more readily available for the few times a year I’d want to attend in person (plus playoffs of course), I don’t mind the current ticket prices too much — most of the good (field level) seat prices seem comparable enough to good Bway tickets (other than Hamilton at resale) for the most part… so yeah, it seems in line for NYC…

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

Those ticket prices didn’t spike in 2008 and 2009 because of the payroll. That was the last year of old Yankee stadium and the first year of new Yankee stadium, which was the year they really tried to gouge everyone and then realized they overreached, but still settled well above prior ticket prices. It was a reasonable business move to raise the prices so high for the new stadium, but that doesn’t make it any less alienating to the public.

Again, I’ve been entirely clear that the Steinbrenners have defensible business reasons for doing what they’re doing and I can also call them a bunch of trust fund babies who don’t care about winning as much as their dad.

(Broadway is a totally different market by the way. You’re talking about 1000-2000 person theatres that are filled almost exclusively by tourists, whereas Yankee stadium is filled by New Yorkers and the bridge and tunnel crowd)

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

I didn’t say the ticket prices spiked only (or even necessarily primarily) because of the huge increases in payroll. But certainly, the payroll has some impact on ticket prices — and their payroll climbed drastically to that level for 5(!) years before the price hike.

There are actually multiple factors at play, which should include TV revenue.

Anyway, I’m not saying you should/have to like how they’re running the franchise, but you did seem to come across like fans are entitled to far more than what they’ve been putting out on the field or they should simply keep substantially prices lower.

And Bway is actually not totally diff wrt what I’m pointing out. There are plenty of New Yorkers who go to shows — my family (and many others I know) would rather go to a good show for the same prices. Sure, there are probably proportionately more tourists going to Bway shows than Yankees games, but that doesn’t change what ticket prices actually are (outside of the Hamilton example).

The New Yorkers who can’t afford the higher prices go for the cheaper seats for both Yankees games and Bway shows (except again, Hamilton) — of course, that’s also assuming their not Yankees-hating Mets fans or even Boston area transplants (or the like), LOL.

Me? Again, most times I’d rather just watch the game at home instead, which is both by far the cheapest and IMHO best way to actually watch the game itself (vs joining the fan crowd, etc, which of course has its own pros and cons). And I suspect most actual baseball fans (who might even bother to read FG vs casual ones) feel more or less as I do… and of course, the Yankees capture a lion’s share of their revenue thru TV…

antone
6 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Are the seats empty because the tickets didn’t sell, or is it because the people that bought it didn’t show up (for whatever reason)?

bigcheeseMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  antone

I think a lot of the seats behind home plate are corporate. So sometimes nobody shows up even though the tickets are sold. Also those tickets give you the lounge access with food, alcohol, and regulated temperatures. So I suspect that some of the folks using those corporate tickets are more interested in that stuff than watching the entire game so they are not always in their actual seat, especially on a day where weather is very hot/cold or raining.

thethinkingmansgame
6 years ago
Reply to  bigcheese

Agree with everything you wrote, but also the legends seats are almost all bought by businesses and corporations because it’s an easy tax write off as a business expense to woo clients. And when the Marlins or Orioles are in town those seats are more likely to be empty. I sat there with a friend one time for a late season game one of the years the Yanks missed the playoff because my friend’s dad was a bigshot partner at a law firm. If we didn’t use them I doubt anyone else at the firm would have. The food is ridiculous. Filet mignon and a full array of seafood. Eat the rich, vote Bernie Sanders.

Detroit Michael
6 years ago

For next time, that first graph would have been better if the vertical access started at $0. It’s more intuitive that way.

Anthony Princeton
6 years ago

George Steinbrenne’s death in 2010 might have had something to do with the spending even though he was retired by then.. Also, another way to look at it is that the Yankees have spent over $2 billion on player salaries the last decade with zero championships to show for it.

JustinPBGMember since 2018
6 years ago

I mean, how much have the Dodgers spent since their last title?

Austinmac
6 years ago

Hal is cheap, and since he showed it the Yankees haven’t been to a World Series. It’s not a coincidence.

MikeSMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Austinmac

They have won 203 games over the last two years, wouldn’t have won many more no matter how much they spent, and the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. Just ask the Dodgers.

“My team would win more if they spent more money” is the laziest argument in sports.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  MikeS

Do you know what helps make the playoffs less of a crapshoot?

Entering the season with 4 viable starters under the age of 35.

Just ask the Nationals.

Anyway, the argument isn’t “My team would win more if they spent more money.”

It’s “The Yankees aren’t investing as large a portion of their revenue in winning as other teams, despite the outsized volume of that revenue meaning that they could invest a much larger portion, while maintaining higher gross profits than those other teams.”

scott
6 years ago

Yankees should spend more, but the narrative they didn’t have a viable rotation is just incorrect. This very website had them as a top 3 rotation to enter the year.

Derek Carty spent the entire offseason arguing on twitter that Yanks had more P depth than any team other than the Dodgers.

Shit happened.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  scott

I didn’t say they didn’t have a viable rotation.

I said that two of their starters entering the season were over the age of 35…and I didn’t even mention that none of the other 3 had ever pitched 200 innings in a season!

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
6 years ago

Spending exorbitantly from 2002-2008 didn’t help them win more championships. The 2009 binge brought them a few years in the early part of the decade where they were so hamstrung with bad contracts that they trotting out players like Lyle Overbay and Jayson Nix on the regular. Again high payrolls =/= World Series win.

The Yankees are finally in a spot where they have very few albatrosses on their payroll (Ellsbury for one more year, Happ, again for one more season, and Stanton TBD – although likely an albatross). I don’t think they should be eager to do that whole thing again based on past history. If their goal was to win a World Series in the last year of the decade at any cost, then sure, spend the GDP of many small countries in one offseason and worry about it later, flags fly forever. As a Yankee fan, I wish they would do this sometimes, too. After all, this was the first decade since the 1910s where they didn’t win a pennant (nevermind how awful the team was in a long stretch from the mid-’60s to the mid-’70s, decade markers are the only thing that matters).

What the Yankees have made clear in recent years is that they will spend when it makes sense. LeMahieu on a reasonable deal even if it isn’t the most likely fit? Absolutely. A below-market deal for Severino? You bet. A team willing to deal the season’s MVP to shed some cash? Sign me up. Where it doesn’t usually make sense is for big-money free agents, thus them staying away. Again, if your goal is to win a World Series next year no matter what, then yes do that and worry about the dollars later. The Yankees nearly got there this year without big-dollar free agents, and there’s no guarantee they would get there with them, next year or seven years in the future. It’s almost like the playoffs are mostly random, and anything can happen when it starts (see: Dodgers, 2019).

As long as the Yankees have smart people in the front office, they’ll be fine I think, $220 million dollar payrolls be damned.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago

The thing you’re missing is that they weren’t actually “hamstrung” by those contracts, the way other teams might be.

Hal’s prioritizing higher profits than any other team in the MLB (both in terms of margin and gross dollars) is what hamstrung them.

If they spent as much money as a percentage of their payroll as most MLB teams, they could have afforded significant upgrades over the likes of Overbay.

TheGarrettCooperFanClub
6 years ago

Or was it that they were paying the other teams so much in luxury tax payments while getting very little ROI on their investments? Not getting anything from their players, and having to pay out dollars to their rivals is a no-win situation.

While we may have an estimation of their revenues, we don’t know what their profit is. I don’t imagine savings of $30 million from not signing Manny Machado is going to a new addition to the Steinbrenner mansion. That $30 million could be reinvested back to the baseball part of it in terms of player development, coaching, facilities, etc., and maybe that is part of the reason why the Yankees player development has been so good lately. We don’t know where that saving is going, and unless someone does know and can correct you and me, then I’m not speculating on it.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago

I mean…the most the Yankees have ever “paid other teams” via the luxury tax was $17m, split 29 ways.

It’s a bullshit excuse from Hal that people have bought into for some reason.

Anyway, they’d never put that savings of $30m into a new addition to the mansion. It’s going into a diversified portfolio that will keep that money growing significantly, while avoiding taxation on it.

The Yankees’ annual revenue is twice that of the Nationals, and half again that of the Sox.

They don’t have to “choose” between fielding the best analytics team, the best player development team, the best scouts, and a $300m payroll.

TheUncool
6 years ago

As already pointed out way above, “Yankees are evil when they spend too much; evil when they don’t spend enough.”

IF they spend what you seem to require of them and end up winning 3-4 (or possibly more) championships every decade, well, pretty sure most other fans and rest of MLB would not be happy about it… Probably only the players union and most of the bonafide solid (likely 3-plus-WAR) starting players around the league, who stand to gain all that much financially (while not minding their reduced chances of winning a ring, if they’re not on the Yankees), might be all that happy w/ that…

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

Sounds like we’re on the same page bud!

To be clear, you’re saying that:

If the Yankees spent as much of their revenue on player salaries as the Marlins do, they’d win more baseball games…and that player salaries would form a much higher percentage of MLB expenditures than they currently do.

Do you expect someone to disagree?

TheUncool
6 years ago

You’re missing the point.

Other than the players actually making all that much more $$$ (and Yankees fans, et al), the rest of MLB and fans, who make up most of the paying customers, etc, would not be happy w/ that. Hence, the “Yankees are evil when they spend too much” part.

Most people would like to see some semblance of competitive balance… or it just gets frustrating (for everyone else), boring (possibly even for Yankees fans 😛 ), etc.

fc27
6 years ago

It’s not even the entire $17 mil that is split 29 ways. Most of the money goes to paying player benefits an the industry growth fund. Only a very small amount goes to the other teams. Last year each of the 28 teams that did not go over the luxury tax received $24,000.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  fc27

Yeah, I adjusted for that – the raw tax was $34m.

fc27
6 years ago

Only a very small percentage of the luxury tax money goes to the teams under the tax. In 2018, each of the 28 teams under the tax received $24,000. Using that as an excuse to not sign free agents is ridiculous.

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago

Sooooo, NY sports team ownership is now the domain of failed man-children who inherited sports teams because they share DNA with someone, right? Cause we’ve now got the Steinbrenners, Jeff Wilpon, James Dolan, Chris Johnson, and John Mara. And they all SUCK (possible exception Mara, but have you seen the Giants lately?). Maybe time to revisit the nepotism policies.

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

That’s just ridiculous lumping the Yankees ownership (and performance) w/ all those others, especially the Mets.

You’re sounding more and more like you just have some axe to grind instead of being reasonable/realistic w/ your “critque”…

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

It is almost Festivus and I will air all the grievances!

Wonderful Terrific Monds
6 years ago

OK, but this is just a big anecdote. Another anecdote is that the Yankees also didn’t win the WS in 2004-2007 when their payroll was +$400MM in 2019 dollars.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago

Fun cutoff! Cleverly dodges the WS appearance in 2003.

Anyway, didn’t have nearly the analytics and player development capability at the time that they do now, but could get around it due to their massive financial advantage.

Now, that theirs are among the Top 5 in baseball…they’ve handcuffed themselves financially (incidentally suppressing player salaries around the league), and have therefore seen their first decade without a pennant in literally 100 years.

TheUncool
6 years ago

Ummm… seems like he/she’s just adding some missing context back into the discussion.

He/she didn’t try to claim the last 10 years didn’t happen or didn’t matter at all afterall.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

lol.

Yer man didn’t even include 2008, because it might have led someone more discerning than yourself to notice the arbitrary timeframe .

marcusthelionMember since 2020
6 years ago

The simple truth is that it is better for both the players & 29 OTHER fan bases when the Yankees radically overpay for mediocre or injured talent… or, better still, players who seem unable to succeed in the Bronx despite otherwise being solid big leaguers!
Yankee fans are, of course, especially frustrated by the likes of Jacoby Elsbury, Sonny Grey & Ed Whitson… making it all the more fun fun for the rest of us!
Don’t get me wrong: all ball fans are part of the tribe, & I love my Yankee-fan friends, but riding them for his stuff—and, sure, add Hal’s um-Steinbrenner like cheapness.
But ALL of the big-money owners are simultaneously fixated on what has become a virtual salary cap…
Have owners simply gotten smarter and less obvious about their collusion?
Owners can’t even throw the dog a bone & permit Marvin Miller into the HOF; why should I expect the tiger of ownership to have changed its stripes when team valuations are turning millionaires into billionaires?

CC AFCMember since 2016
6 years ago
Reply to  marcusthelion

No dude. There’s nothing good for the players about the Yankees restricting their spending. There’s not a single defensible reason that would be true. The other fanbases is debateable (maybe get mad at your own billionaire owners for not spending money they have?).

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  CC AFC

Problem w/ that thinking is it essentially assumes they all play in the same markets w/ the same demand, which is of course untrue.

Sure, some of diffs may be attributable to the ownership/management, but NYC is definitely NOT the same market as most others.

And it doesn’t sound like you necessarily want an actual salary cap or the like, eg. 100% profit sharing (after accounting for all the spending that should also be roughly equal… w/ adjustments for local economic factors).

Personally, I have no problem w/ some sort of reasonable salary cap or the like for competitive balance as long as it fairly accounts for other relevant factors… and I certainly don’t need to see some favorite team win it all more often than is statistically reasonable in a 30-team league. You (and maybe a couple others) complain the Yankees haven’t won in over a (mere) decade, but com’on now, there are 30 teams in the league and this ain’t the NBA or NFL…

Mike NMN
6 years ago

After more than a half century of Yankee rooting, I just don’t have a problem with this. The most exciting players on the Yankees right now are the younger ones who came up through the system, or the ones who were traded for as young players. And in 2019, add to that signings and trades of players who exceeded expectations. The Yankees have been poor at signing/developing/trading for starting pitching–they’ve had some poor luck and some unexpectedly poor performances, but the bullpen and the position players, it’s hard to fault what Cashman has done, on balance. Yes, I’d like a shiny lump of Cole in the Xmas stocking. But I’m not fainting over a team that won 103 games and did many in an exciting way.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  Mike NMN

I don’t think anyone’s blaming Cashman for what he’s done with the significantly reduced financial resources he’s received from an owner who refuses to spend as large a portion of his revenue on players as the Marlins do.

It’s more that the Yankees could be even better if they married their new approach to their vast financial resources, rather than handcuffing themselves.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

I am sure Marlin fans will agree with you. Why you go ask them if they think the Yankees are being cheap and see how they respond.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  rankdog

Oh, it’s much more likely they’ll agree with you!

I mean, being both terrible at reading and telling them to feel sorry for themselves? That’s Florida catnip!

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

Oh burn! Your argument is still ridiculous.

TheUncool
6 years ago

Yeah, and the Marlins, not to mention the Rays and A’s, of the world and their suffering fans (or lack thereof) would just love to be in the same league w/ such a Yankees beast… 😛

Next thing you know the MLB will only exist in the few biggest markets around…

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

Fun fact about all of those teams:

They spent much higher proportions of their revenue on player salaries than the Yankees did, last year.

scott
6 years ago

I’m not sure it’s exactly fair to point to the lack of length out of their starters in the playoffs as a byproduct of a lack of spending. They traded their number 1 prospect for what was considered the best P moved of the offseason. They were the only team in MLB that had 5 SPs with at least 150ip in 2018. Fangraphs depth charts had them as the 2nd or 3rd best rotation to begin 2019 (I forget which).

Agree with the premise, they should spend more. Just not sure I agree with that dig.

Charles
6 years ago

“…Forbes estimates the club has $156 million in profits over the last decade…” Huh? Is this supposed to be an annual average? As written, it means an average of only $16 million per year.

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  Charles

Yeah, that certainly does not seem impressive at all. IF they really only made that much total over a decade, their profit margin is actually pretty slim…

Joey Butts
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

Well, first we need to factor in that the Yankees are paying for their new stadium. If we ignore those payments since they’re only temporary, it’s more like a $50 million profit per year. Second, we need to factor in that Forbes is ultimately getting its numbers from the Yankees’ accounting department. They’re fudged. The article points out that only the Red Sox and Dodgers have revenues within $200 million of the Yankees. If Forbes’ numbers for the Yankees were accurate, then the Nationals – who had a payroll close to the Yankees – ran at least a $100 million deficit this year. Obviously that’s not true.

SenorGato
6 years ago

If anything teams not spending is baseball fan porn at this point….You mean to tell me they won a lot of games while spending less? Our owner is better than your owner at getting the best $/WAR!!!!!!111 Hal and the other owners, who are definitely not colluding and working us towards a salary cap, are just mad woke and hip like us kids. They like and know how to use analytics (I like those! I’m smart too!) to improve baseball and make it more like the Traditional Business it is

whiptydojoe
6 years ago

Replace “spend” with “win” and it makes for an even more enjoyable article title

curt schillings ketchup bottle
6 years ago

I’m ok with the Yankees being cheap, their failure to sign patrick Corbin probably cost them a championship this year.

Eskuire
6 years ago

Beautiful article, then top brass spits on it by dumping half a billion in FA this year, it’s the curse of good writing lol.

RMD4
6 years ago

This is indicative of a larger problem in general. [Hint: it rhymes with Bollusion)

In a four year span of 2013-2016, The Yankees played in a grand total of one playoff game. George would be mortified. Mr. Steinbrenner’s successor was his most “rational and prudent” son and has reigned in spending and he and the front office have shown to be content in being calm and collective while always making a sensible buck playing in the biggest market for millions of loyal fans. It’s no guarantee, of course, that spending more money over the past decade would have meant more playoff appearances or a pennant but I promise you it couldn’t’ve hurt. This complacency from the Yankees(!) has been the writing on the wall for future front office decisions by the 29 other teams.

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  RMD4

Well, problem or not, it’s certainly something… though it’s not like they tried to rebuild the Astros, Cubs and (gasp!) Marlins way or pull a Rays or A’s on people…

CliffH
6 years ago

Is the elephant in the room the changes to the luxury tax? NYY were the only ones to vote against that right? They wanted to spend more but the other teams put this policy in place deliberately to reign in their spending. If the NYY just kept spending anyway, would the luxury tax be even stricter now?

martyvan90Member since 2026
6 years ago
Reply to  CliffH

CliffH, so glad you wrote this. It’s probably why we’ll be without MLB baseball in 2021. “ NYY were the only ones to vote against that right? ” The luxury tax has been in place for two CBA’s.
The MLBPA is rightfully furious over owner service time manipulation, they’ve been late to understand practical impact of the steroid free aging curve, and they’ve seen salaries freeze while a dufus GM essentially talks about how he colludes with other GMs in preparation for the off season.
The owners challenge is they manage regional businesses without a significant national media contract like NFL or NBA owners. Baseball is funded by local revenue that local fans pay on a differential basis. In general the large market fan cost is higher (to attend or watch) than the small market fan cost. In addition, should the large market fan pay an even greater premium so small owner can continue to make a profit? There are multiple competitive balance and fairness issues.
The 21 CBA will have significant challenges with player compensation AND if revenue gets pulled in (hard to see how it isn’t,t) it’ll be ugly.

Shalesh
6 years ago
Reply to  martyvan90

No, for the 900th time, there won’t be a work stoppage in 2021. The current split of revenues is MLBPA/Owners 48/52. The goal for both is 50/50 and is easily accomplished by say, moving arbitration eligibility up 1 year so the best young players get paid more early in their careers. This can be done on the back of an envelope. Neither the players nor owners will throw out $5B each in a work stoppage for 2 points of revenue.

dl80Member since 2026
6 years ago

Not giving Didi a QO was an odd choice that a freely spending team would have done.

London Yank
6 years ago
Reply to  dl80

I really don’t understand this. Didi is a very good player for $18M. Their best infield is probably Didi at SS, Torres at 2B, LeMahieu at 3B, and Voit at 1B. It seems like they are committed to Torres at SS for the foreseeable future.

TheUncool
6 years ago
Reply to  London Yank

Well, they have to play Andujar somewhere… and if they somehow manage to land another expensive 1B or 3B bat that improves the team — Rendon is hitting FA afterall — they’ll need the open spot somewhere.

Sure, they could use better starting pitching more than offensive upgrade, but there are no guarantees they’ll land such given reasonable $$$, especially since aging SPs in FA are not exactly great, low-risk investments — and they’ve tried many times before…

I’m sure they’d love either Cole or Strasburg (or maybe both!), and they’re not quite that old yet. But if they require huge contracts that extend past their mid-30’s, does the investment actually make sense? I honestly don’t know what to expect they’ll end up w/, especially given current state of FA, but if Strasburg only requires say 5-year/$170M or Cole say 7-year/$240M (to end after their age-35 season), I doubt the Yanks will really balk at that… That’s even assuming either one is interested
(enough) in playing for the Yanks and won’t falter like so many others before them…

Even when SPs are young, they’re not guaranteed to pan out. For instance, they were frontrunners for Otani, but spurned for LAA of all teams… and then Otani hasn’t actually pitched more than a couple months across 2 years so far. Not saying Otani’s not worth it of course, but the fact remains he wouldn’t actually have mattered much, if any, to the Yanks in their recent 2-year run and we still don’t have any real certainty about Otani the SP going forward…

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  TheUncool

The thing about all your arguments is…they depend on either not knowing anything about the Yankees’ annual revenue, or thinking that it’s “unfair” to criticize an owner for preferring to accrue $150m in profit while missing the playoffs than $100m in profit while winning the World Series.

(Obviously, the annual profit that “The Uncool” is prostrating himself in defense of well outstrips $100m)

fuster
6 years ago

the Yankee player payroll should be at least $300M/annum

HoratioSky
6 years ago

So the richest team in the league is only spending about 170% of the MLB average team? Boo-hoo. As the national media tried to make people understand: “If only they didn’t have so many injuries!” “They should have won it this year and it would have been great because even though they go by different rules than everyone else, and are free to spend whatever the hell they want, they are still to be applauded for their gritty attitude and the terrible run of luck they had this year to have so many on the IL. Anything that pulls them closer to the other teams is a positive for baseball.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  HoratioSky

The richest team in the league is only spending 30% of their revenue on player salaries, which has led to a drastic decrease in player salary growth, even as the league takes in more revenue each year.

Or, in your terms, “The richest team in the league is only spending about 75% of the MLB average, in terms of payroll-revenue breakdown.”

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

So the Yankees are the reason 29 other teams have decided to flat line spending? It has nothing to do with draft slots, IFL caps, rules providing 12 years of low professional players between minors and majors? It has nothing to do with the end of PEDs extending primes making it more riskier to sign those 29-30 first time free agents to 10 year deals? Its clearly the Yankees not tripling up on the league average and taking everyone’s salary dumps anymore.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  rankdog

The Yankees’ choosing to spend less of their revenue than the Marlins is absolutely to blame for that flatline, because it firmly take some of the suitors off the table for any given negotiation, while simultaneously limiting the higher end.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

You are really stuck on this idea of payroll percentage aren’t you? Let me walk you through it in baby steps.
-Baseball allows teams to hang on to players for six years at in the minors and an additional six years based on service time in the majors. Their salaries are cost controlled. If you draft a kid at 16 like Gary Sanchez, he is 29 before he can negotiate on the free market based on his production.
-Player primes in the post steroid era end in the early to mid 30s giving teams control of players through most of their productive years.
-Owners have installed rules that impose heavy penalties on teams for over spending draft slots or IFL caps.
-Teams other than the Yankees have found that its much cheaper to take advantage of these draft slots and IFL caps by tanking and not improving their roster. We nearly had three 100 loss teams in AL alone and two others that within 6 losses of 100.
-There are more free agents looking for work because there are less teams trying to compete and improve their rosters through free agency.
– With the boost in analytics, teams are less apt to throw big contracts at aging and past their prime talents. Also more apt to look for market inefficiencies to exploit.

A good example of the problem is illustrated by Stanton. The big spending Yankees took his contract from the Marlin. This should have freed the Marlins to go sign a bunch of players on the market and drive up prices. Instead the Marlins pocketed savings including a big payout for the sale of digital media MLB made. Instead they followed the example of the Astros/Cubs and tanked.

stonepie
6 years ago

theres a middle ground between where they stand and going up to a 400 million dollar payroll. i wanted machado, they made do without him. corbin was awfully expensive so i didnt mind passing on him that much. Cole is the best FA pitcher in a long time and theres a very good chance they dont come close to him. eventually they need to make a big splash.
I know its hindsight but how bad was choosing stanton over yelich? Yelich had a very high floor, modest salary and the yankees could have afforded the prospect cost. Stanton could be the next ellsbury (although unlikely) and even if he rebounds, he’s going to have to obliterate the ball to compensate.

Rendon is the best fit for them imo when lookin at FA from the last few years. I think they’re more likely to open the check book for a position player then gamble on Cole, even if a SP might be more needed. They seem very risk adverse to long term deals with starters

HamelinROY
6 years ago

“the YES Network (whose profits are shielded from revenue sharing”

This is such a joke, MLB doing anything to appease the rich teams is not great long term for the sport

User79
6 years ago

There is a flaw here, and it’s measuring a team’s spending only by its payroll for the MLB team players. There are numerous other ways that Yankees’ revenue can be spent, including scouts, trainers, coaches, facilities, analytics departments, signing guys like Jasson Dominguez, etc. If there’s anything else, I might recommend the Yankees’ spend a bit more on sports health trainers or whatever it is that helps players prevent injury. =)

The Yankees’ product and performance are not solely based on the players in a vacuum. The 300 million they could have paid Harper or Machado is probably much better spent towards all the things I listed above, which over 10 years will probably generate more player value than either of those guys alone would have provided.

Of course it’s hard to quantify how much a team is spending on those other things. But I bet the Yankees spend more than most.

antone
6 years ago

Isn’t the goal more team parity? This seems to show that it’s working.

Cool Lester SmoothMember since 2020
6 years ago
Reply to  antone

Whose goal do you think that is?

I’d firmly wager that MLB players association doesn’t give half of a rat’s ass about parity – they want their members to get laid.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago

There is an argument to be made here the market itself is dragging payroll down at the top. The Yankees are far from the only big spender that has held its ground on new LT thresholds. The Dodgers and Red Sox have both sought to reduce payroll. These are just symptoms to the real problem though. The truth is there are more and more teams not making a real attempt to compete. You are seeing a divide where you have the super teams trying to win and tanking teams hoarding low cost talent and draft position to load up the farm.

With few and few teams competing for free agents and additionally trading away their better players to tank competing teams have options to locking into big contracts. They also have the leverage to wait out the market. The Yankees could have signed Machado to fix their infield uncertainty this past offseason but instead choose a less risky and comparable option in DJLM. It turned out in this example the Yankees spending significantly less led to more production. Why was DJLM available as an option? Because the 91 loss Rockies choose lesser unproven cheaper talent at second base.

Joey Butts
6 years ago
Reply to  rankdog

The Rockies signed Daniel Murphy when the let DJLM go. It’s some serious revisionist history to say that the Rockies chose “lesser unproven cheaper talent” and that DJLM was comparable to Machado.

rankdogMember since 2019
6 years ago
Reply to  Joey Butts

I was wrong on Daniel Murphy correct. However, I don’t rate Machado as high as a lot people do. He is 118 +wRC for his career. He is an average middle infielder and good 3rd basemen. I didn’t see the point in 30M/10+ year investment when he was needed for a half season of SS. Also DJLM was someone who the Yankee front office was high on and comparable in their eyes.

yankdogfan
6 years ago

I’m still confused with the Sonny Gray trade; he seemed like someone the Yankees could have used, and he was excellent.