View Full Version : NY Yankees compared to the Giants, Jets, Knicks, Rangers and Islanders

10-25-2001, 09:09 PM
With the Yanks headed towards their 4th consecutive World Series, I keep hearing the same old claims that nobody can compete with the Yanks because they are a super rich ball club in a large market. It can't just be Steinbrenner's personal cash because I'm under the impression that the team turns a profit.

In response to the claims that it is impossible for a small market team to compete, I was wondering why all of the New York teams don't dominate the way the Yanks do. Why do the Mets suck?

Is there something different about football, basketball and hockey that prevents the New York teams from getting all the dough and sucking in the best talent?

Is this a case of good management or is the system set up to favor large market teams? Is this a different system in baseball than in other sports?

10-25-2001, 09:58 PM
Well, importantly, baseball doesn't have a salary cap, and the revenue sharing, IIRC, is pretty pathetic. Thus, if you have a large market team that draws well, you can make an awful lot of money (especially with lucrative TV/radio deals), and you can pay your players as much as you want. Contrast that to football or basketball, for instance, where the salary cap tends to hamstring your ability to do this.

10-25-2001, 10:25 PM
In baseball, almost all a team's revenue is generated locally. The New York Yankees, for example, get a huge amount of money from local TV, while the Montreal Expos don't have a TV contract at all.

In the NFL and the NBA, on the other hand, most television revenues come from networks, not local stations, and these monies are divided evenly among all teams in the league.

Thus, while the Yankees have a LOT more money to spend than the Royals or Brewers, the Jets don't have significantly more money to spend than the Chiefs or the Packers.

10-25-2001, 10:47 PM
Thanks for the responses.

I don't suppose anyone wants to try and explain the Mets?

They have access to exactly the same market as the Yanks, but they can't seem to get their act together.

10-25-2001, 10:54 PM
Another way in which the system favors large market teams is that it is much easier to stay good in a major market, and much easier to stay crappy in a small market.

Sure, a major market team may suck at the moment (I'm looking at you, Red Sox). But if they get lucky and pick up some good players, they can keep them around and keep together a quality team. Which leads to more winning and a dynasty, and a perception of the team as "good". Example: Yankees. A team from a smaller city wouldn't be able to afford the good players, after they proved they were good, and would have to trade them or let them go to free agency. So they would have to start from scratch at the sucky level. So they would have the perception of "sucky". Example: Expos.

Also, the Mets have been in play-off contention almost every year lately, and got to the World Series in 2000. There are plenty of teams that wish they "could get their act together" like that.

10-26-2001, 01:00 AM
The Yankees don't thrive on Steinbrenner's personal wealth, they thrive because they have the best local cable contract and the biggest market to sell to. The Dodgers can never make as much money and they OWN their cable outlet.

And in baseball, the teams keep all of their local TV and radio money and it's unlikely that the Yankees take from that will ever go down appreciably in comparison to its rivals.