The Yankees 2009 payroll was $201,449,189, exceeding the next largest (the Mets) by more than $50,000,000. The median major league payroll was about $80,000,000 and the lowest $36,834,000. With 103 wins in regular season, each victory cost the Yankees $1,955,810. The other teams that made it to the playoffs incurred considerably smaller but greatly varying costs per win: Boston Red Sox, $1,285,300; Philadelphia Phillies, $1,215,097; Los Angeles Angels $1,172,325; Los Angeles Dodgers, $1,056,995; St. Louis Cardinals, $852,803; Colorado Rockies $817,402; Minnesota Twins, $816,165. Should we be surprised that the Yankees could beat the Phils? Given the numbers, it would have been shocking if they couldn't.
Cheers to the Cardinals, Rockies, and Twins.
Cost per victory is a measure of management efficiency. By far the most effective 2009 team, dollar for dollar, was the frugal Florida Marlins, who won 87 games at a cost of just $423,379 per win. On the other end of the scale, the woeful New York Mets, with just 70 successes, were the only team to pay more per win than the Yankees. It cost the Mets $2,133,910 each time that they walked off the field in triumph.
As long as the Yankees are allowed to pay salaries one-third larger than their nearest competitors and two and a half times more than the median, it must be expected that they will win regularly -- which is why I'm for rigorous, enforced parity. Let's level that playing field.
And with all that money, how to account for the fact that the Yankees sported such an entirely run-of-the-mill outfield. Melky Cabrera? Nick Swisher? Gosh, there must be better players than those to entice to the brand new ballpark.
Which brings us to the next spending spree. free-agent outfielders wanted. Must be able to hit the short porch. Bring joy to the eyes of George S.
Amen.
Posted by: Otis Jefferson Brown | November 06, 2009 at 09:00 AM