I just recently golfed with a former network TV sports executive and a retired investment banker and both were appalled at the amount of money spent on Sabathia and Burnett, especially given the economy today. Both were embarrassed to say they were Yankees fans. They have indicated they hoped these signings would backfire on them. I don’t know if they represent the masses or not.

I sure hope not. Cause that would mean the masses are a bunch of jackasses. Oh yeah...nevermind.

If these coupla phonys are embarrassed by their supposed Yankee fandom there's an easy solution: find another team to root for. What the Yankees and their fans should concern themselves with is whether the money has bought players that will help them win and not worry about what people think.

I like proven commodities like Pettitte and Jon Lieber, who showed they could pitch in front of hostile crowds on the big stage in New York. But, that’s just me. I’d rather pay for someone who’s done it, not for someone I hope will do it.

Pettitte, maybe. But Lieber? It's a wonder no one has hired Kaat and his wisdom for a front office job.

A.J. will be a bargain. Sabathia will do fine, but I'm predicting Burnett will outperform him. I wish the Mets had jumped in.

A.J.?

Lieber's out there if you want him.

I don’t know if they represent the masses or not.

By the way, Jim: retired MLB executives and retired investment bankers who golf with Jim Kaat don't represent "the masses".

There's legitimacy to the general point here - the Yankees are able to take contract risks that other teams simply can't. Their "dollars per wins" model is completely different from that of the Royals. It's been like this for years, but it seems that this offseason has been all about disparity.

The question is what to do about it, if anything. Kaat only addresses what the country club set is already saying about the situation. At least Mr. Sparkle in the other thread has solutions, cockamamie as they are.

surprised he couldn't work Scott Brosius into the discussion somehow

I'd be more emberassed to say I was a network exec or an investment banker than Yankee fan; NYY's haveput out a better product than the nets and a sounder business model than Wall St.

I'd be more emberassed to say I was a network exec or an investment banker than Yankee fan; NYY's haveput out a better product than the nets and a sounder business model than Wall St.

Unchallenged monopolies or oligopolies are generally pretty safe business models, yes. That's the key to big market success.

The idea of three or as many as five teams in NYC metro area is often bandied about. Proponents of this have to deal with reality. However unfair it is, people need to realize that the Yankees and Mets have the ability to block any other team from coming into the market. May not be fair, may not be capitalism, but it's reality. Second and more remote possibility is that third team comes in and Yankees and Mets are paid billions for their "market rights." Again, whatever you think is fair or capitalistic or what SHOULD happen, that is what WOULD happen. More than likely there will never be a third team. There almost certainly will never be a competing major league and true competition.

As far as the rest of the Yankee business model, if they're so smart, how come they're among the last to build a new revenue generating stadium?

There's a whiff of "they'd get these billions if a third team comes in, which ain't right" to your statement, Jay. I don't think you meant it, but it isn't fair.

If you're the Yankees and you have X amount of more or less guaranteed revenue, it's your job to spend it as wisely as possible in order to get the most wins on the field. If this means signing longer-term deals, that's what you do.

If another team comes into NY, it'll impact their revenue directly. All of a sudden, the later years of the CC contract, for example, go from onerous to impossible to pay.

All of a sudden, the later years of the CC contract, for example, go from onerous to impossible to pay.

I am reasonably certain that this is outlandish.

Well, I didn't mean to imply that the Yankees would go into default and be unable to meet payroll. Sorry about that. But CC's money (again, for example here) would be a significantly larger percentage of their total payroll, and they wouldn't be able to pursue their longer-term roster goals.

I agree with #4 -- I don't support a salary cap, and I understand that the Yankees haven't made the world series since 03, the Rays just made the series, etc., but I still find it kind of depressing that the Yankees just spent ~$40M a year on two starters. I'm not saying that baseball should do anything about it, but it's annoying as hell.

It's absolutely annoying, and I understand that.

However, I think it's worth mentioning that by my BOE calculations here, the Yankee payroll is actually lower at this moment than it was last year at this time. There's more to come, so it may not end up like that.

However, I think it's worth mentioning that by my BOE calculations here, the Yankee payroll is actually lower at this moment than it was last year at this time. There's more to come, so it may not end up like that.

Plus, they've taken on a couple of pretty hefty long-term commitments. To pitchers. I think that's what I find so remarkable. It's not what it says about the Yankee's 2009 payroll, because as you point out right now it's actually less than their 2008 payroll. It's their ability to (a) simultaneously take on multiple, massive long-term commitments (with possibly more to come) at a time when the economy is making most teams in baseball very wary of doing exactly that because they are nervous about their future revenue streams, and (b) do so for the riskiest commodity in the game, starting pitchers. That is what defines, or at least demonstrates, the difference between the Yankees' financial muscle and that of almost every other team in the game. It is clearly a very different playing field.

As with Yeaarrgghhh, I'm not of a mind to do anything about it. Well, except loathe the Yankees. But hell, I've never needed any special reason to hate the Yankees, right?

Well, the Sabathia contract is one thing, but it isn't like the Braves weren't relatively close on Burnett. Did the Yankees outspend the Braves for him? Yes, but only (of course) marginally.

Of course, no other team would do this for two starting pitchers at the same time, as Sam M said.

Personally, I'm curious what the people at the Applebee's saladbar think of it.

Maybe Kaat can get together with David Brooks and tell us.

If another team comes into NY, it'll impact their revenue directly.

I have a hard time seeing a lot of Yankees and Mets fans jumping ship to an expansion team.

Did the Devils really impact the Rangers and Islanders revenue?

I think a third team in NY would be a huge failure, unless it was the Dodgers or Giants (not gonna happen). The retro-chic would be a huge draw.

It might take a generation to get the loyal fanbase that every team needs to survive, but the simple fact of major-league baseball in a non-sold-out stadium in the city metro limits would probably put them in the middle of the gate revenue for the league. Radio and TV rights in the #1 media market in the US, even if they're a distant third-place loyalty, would be substantial as well.

I think an MLB team in North Jersey would immediately be in the Pirates/Royals range for total revenue, and their upside is pretty high after that.

I don't think a third, a fourth, a fifth or sixth team would impact the Yankees revenues substantially. If anything, all the local matchups would be a boost for them.

You don't see Real Madrid running scared from Getafe, or Juventus frightened of Torino.

A big market with lot of teams will simply have big dogs and underdogs, and the big dogs will not be hurt in the least by the underdogs presence. It is good for outcast high school kids however, as they can root for a team nobody else likes.

If anything, all the local matchups would be a boost for them.

I don't see that. It seems to me that a sellout is a sellout, and I don't think rights agreements would be effected. Top-revenue teams wouldn't see the benefits from a blood rivalry the way that middle-revenue teams would, IMO.

I don't think a third, a fourth, a fifth or sixth team would impact the Yankees revenues substantially.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I would think that particularly a fifth or sixth NY metro area team would definitely have some sort of effect.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I would think that particularly a fifth or sixth NY metro area team would definitely have some sort of effect.

For the fifth and the sixth team, yes, they would starve to death in all probability. But not for the Yankees and Mets.