If the Yankee$ go Godzilla this offseason...

[Mad Mark]

...and buy up every free agent in sight, do you think it will finally, finally convince the rest of MLB alter the rules and reign them in?

[waroriole]

Not as long as they're all still making money. Plus, as long as Bud is commissioner nothing to risk the short term profitability of the sport will ever be done, even if it is in the best interest of the game.

But, I don't think they'll go crazy....................... THIS YEAR.

[geschinger]

I don't think the Yankees will spend enough to make MLB take any kind of action.

However I do think that after the effects of the new stadium loophole are felt in the form revenue sharing dollars drying up for the have nots that there might be some interest in trying to address problems with the current system.

[Crazysilver03]

According to Buster Olney:

ESPN.com's Buster Olney says that he's heard that the Yankees payroll will down to the $180 million dollar range in 2009. This would be a drop of about $29 million, according to MLB Trade Rumors. The team has around $75 million in veteran salary coming off of the books, thanks to expiring contracts.

This is interesting to hear so it goes against your premise.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think the Yankees will spend enough to make MLB take any kind of action.

However I do think that after the effects of the new stadium loophole are felt in the form revenue sharing dollars drying up for the have nots that there might be some interest in trying to address problems with the current system.

That was a pretty stunning shift. Bud went for many years where his attitude was more-or-less "pay for your own stadium, or even a lot of it, and we'll blackball you for undermining our efforts to get free stadiums for everyone". Then suddenly the rules were changed so that teams like the Yanks can decuct enough construction costs to basically eliminate their revenue sharing payments.

We may see a worst-case scenario with the Yanks - they'll have almost no revenue sharing payments, little luxury tax, fantastically exploding revenues, and some restraint in the MLB payroll. They might go out and sign every international free agent, tons of signability draft picks, and gold-plate their minor league facilities and foreign academies.

They might be putting hundreds of $millions a year into building a sustainable organization of the type the O's hoped to put together. But the O's will be trying it at pennies on the dollar. We used to talk about beating the Yanks and Sox money with smarts and organizational production. But the O's are at least arguably behind and slipping in all three.

[Baroquen131]

And as unfair as it is, people will point to the Rays as saying that money doesn't make a difference once the games are played. While Yankee implosions are a joy to watch, their failed efforts won't convince anyone that they spend too much.

[Migrant Redbird]

... We may see a worst-case scenario with the Yanks - they'll have almost no revenue sharing payments, little luxury tax, fantastically exploding revenues, and some restraint in the MLB payroll. They might go out and sign every international free agent, tons of signability draft picks, and gold-plate their minor league facilities and foreign academies.

Until they open up their books and stop masking baseball revenue by giving sweetheart broadcasting contracts to their wholly owned network, we'll never know just how much money the Yankees actually make.

[Mad Mark]

According to Buster Olney:

This is interesting to hear so it goes against your premise.

Whenever a Yankee$ source talks about cutting payroll, he is almost certainly lying...however, with $75MM coming off the books for 2009, they could burn $50MM on free agents, and still lower their overall payroll by $25MM.

[nadecir]

They might be putting hundreds of $millions a year into building a sustainable organization of the type the O's hoped to put together. But the O's will be trying it at pennies on the dollar. We used to talk about beating the Yanks and Sox money with smarts and organizational production. But the O's are at least arguably behind and slipping in all three.

Makes you long for the offseason of 1997 again. Although we lost to the Indians in the playoffs, we had beaten the Yankees to win the AL East by two games. The Orioles had the highest attendance in the American League in 1997 with over 3.7 million at Camden Yards. Im 1997, the Orioles outdrew the Yankees by over 1 million fans, and outdrew the Red Sox by 1.4 million fans. In 1998, the Orioles had the highest payroll in baseball, and outspent the Red Sox by over 25%, and outspent the Yankees by 10%. Camden Yards was the only new jewel in baseball, and it was very hard to get tickets.

A lot has changed in about ten years. Many new stadiums have opened up across major league baseball, and 1.7 million fewer fans at Camden Yards go through the turnstiles. The Yankees now spend over three times the Orioles in team payroll, and the Red Sox spend about two times what the Orioles do.

We had a real chance to create a foundation that would have made us a contender for a long time after the 1997 season.

[Baltimoron]

That was a pretty stunning shift. Bud went for many years where his attitude was more-or-less "pay for your own stadium, or even a lot of it, and we'll blackball you for undermining our efforts to get free stadiums for everyone". Then suddenly the rules were changed so that teams like the Yanks can decuct enough construction costs to basically eliminate their revenue sharing payments.

We may see a worst-case scenario with the Yanks - they'll have almost no revenue sharing payments, little luxury tax, fantastically exploding revenues, and some restraint in the MLB payroll.[/b]

The Yankees revenue sharing payments will almost assuredly rise in New Yankee Stadium.

In the 2002 CBA, an agreement was made to allow teams to deduct "Stadium Operating Expenses", which includes stadium debt payments, from their "local revenue." Revenue sharing payments are a percentage of "local revenue." Under the 2002 CBA the percentage varied in the upper 30s-low 40s, under the new CBA revenue sharing is 31% of local revenues.

This change to the 2002 CBA is a big reason why the Cardinals built new Busch.

The Yankees will have about 40-50 Million in debt payments a year to deduct from their local revenues. At a 31% tax rate, that is about 12 - 16 million dollars.

I don't have last years revenue sharing numbers, but in 2006 I believe the Yankees paid like 68 million in revenue sharing.

According to this article, the Yankees grew stadium revenues like 20% in 2007, continuing its explosive growth of late. So its safe to assume they are gonna be paying at least 70 million in revenue in 2008 (likely more), even under the reduced revenue sharing tax rate (31%) put in place under the new CBA.

So assuming the Yankees don't make any new revenue form their same park, they would be looking at about a 12-16 million dollar write off next season and revenue sharing payments of 55ish+ million.

But we all know that New Yankee stadium is a massive spaceship filled with money gobbling luxury boxes that is going to explode the Yankees' revenue.

So does Yankee stadium increase the Yankees' local revenues more than 40-50 million in debt payments the Yankees will be able to write off? If so, I think the likely answer is yes, the Yankees will be paying more in revenue sharing in 2009 than they do in 2008.

In one way, its makes sense because they have to invest (build a stadium) to make revenue grow, and MLB is saying we will still tax the new revenue, but will give you a write-off for the building expenses you incurred so as to not create a disincentive to building a new stadium and growing revenues.

[DrungoHazewood]

The Yankees revenue sharing payments will almost assuredly rise in New Yankee Stadium.

In the 2002 CBA, an agreement was made to allow teams to deduct "Stadium Operating Expenses", which includes stadium debt payments, from their "local revenue." Revenue sharing payments are a percentage of "local revenue." Under the 2002 CBA the percentage varied in the upper 30s-low 40s, under the new CBA revenue sharing is 31% of local revenues.

This change to the 2002 CBA is a big reason why the Cardinals built new Busch.

The Yankees will have about 40-50 Million in debt payments a year to deduct from their local revenues. At a 31% tax rate, that is about 12 - 16 million dollars.

I don't have last years revenue sharing numbers, but in 2006 I believe the Yankees paid like 68 million in revenue sharing.

According to this article, the Yankees grew stadium revenues like 20% in 2007, continuing its explosive growth of late. So its safe to assume they are gonna be paying at least 70 million in revenue in 2008 (likely more), even under the reduced revenue sharing tax rate (31%) put in place under the new CBA.

So assuming the Yankees don't make any new revenue form their same park, they would be looking at about a 12-16 million dollar write off next season and revenue sharing payments of 55ish+ million.

But we all know that New Yankee stadium is a massive spaceship filled with money gobbling luxury boxes that is going to explode the Yankees' revenue.

So does Yankee stadium increase the Yankees' local revenues more than 40-50 million in debt payments the Yankees will be able to write off? If so, I think the likely answer is yes, the Yankees will be paying more in revenue sharing in 2009 than they do in 2008.

In one way, its makes sense because they have to invest (build a stadium) to make revenue grow, and MLB is saying we will still tax the new revenue, but will give you a write-off for the building expenses you incurred so as to not create a disincentive to building a new stadium and growing revenues.

That's good information, thanks.

[Frobby]

And as unfair as it is, people will point to the Rays as saying that money doesn't make a difference once the games are played. While Yankee implosions are a joy to watch, their failed efforts won't convince anyone that they spend too much.

Why is it unfair? The excuse we heard for years when the A's or Twins would make the playoffs on a small budget was, "yeah, but they don't play in the AL East." Well, the Rays do, and they appear to be very well positioned to compete in the AL East for at least the next five years.

I think the Yankees are going to have big problems if the poor years by Hughes, Kennedy, Cano and Cabrera turn out to be a trend and not a fluke. Sure they have a lot of money, but they also have contractual commitments to a lot of aging players, and a lot of holes to fill. It won't be that easy for them to spend their way out of this.

[Mad Mark]

Why is it unfair? The excuse we heard for years when the A's or Twins would make the playoffs on a small budget was, "yeah, but they don't play in the AL East." Well, the Rays do, and they appear to be very well positioned to compete in the AL East for at least the next five years.

The $64MM question, though, is what happens in the five years after that? Will the Rays be able to sustain competitiveness, despite their revenue handicaps, or will they have to "advance and recede" like the Marlins?

[NewMarketSean]

From what I have heard and read, the Yankees are trying to get back to their mid 90's way of winning, ie, building from within. Now they have the money and the image, and spending is in their blood, but I don't think they are going to come out guns blazing this offseason. I see them in the hunt for most of the FA talent, but only signing a guy like Sheets or Sabbathia.

If they do internalize and build their teams like they did in the 90's, they are going to be deadly again.

[Boston Dave]

I am convinced part of the long term answer to the "NY problem" is the inclusion of a 3rd team in the NY media market- what I call the "New Jersey Bosses" or the "Staten Island Ferries" in my mock scenarios. While calls for greater revenue sharing, hard and soft caps come and go, simply splitting the NY pie a third way will go a long way, over time, to bringing some sanity back into the equation.

Of course, at that point nearly 1:4 big league clubs would be in NY, Chicago, or LA, but that's life.