“1973, George Steinbrenner paid CBS $10 million for the Yankees. Adjusted for inflation that’s roughly 2.1 million dollars in 2008 funds.”

I’m getting $48 in 2008.  Still ludicrous.

Ahh, 10/2.1 = 4.8; 10*4.8 = 48.

I would like to see this Yankee tradition continued by signing Chapman today.

A rough CPI conversion from ‘77 puts the purchase at around $35MM USD today.

Any long term investment begins to look ridiculous compared to CPI eventually. Comparism against S&P index might be more appropriate.

I am sure the answer is still ridiculous though.

Ian not old enough to remember but was the price a inside job type deal or was that a fairish risk adjusted price at the time?

A quick bit of googling reveals that there were nine MLB franchise sales in the 1970s; average transaction price was $12.62M.  There were ten sales in the 1960s with an average price of $7.64M.  The ‘70s over ‘60s increase seems pretty consistent with the general inflation rate, but franchise values took off a bit relative to the CPI in the 1980s and a lot in the 1990s.

See table 3 in this article:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haupert.mlb

Also, according to the NYY Wikipedia page, CBS sold the Yankees at a loss.  They paid $11.2M for 80% in 1964.  They eventually bought the other 20%, but I can’t tell how much more it cost them.  That Wiki page also says that Steinbrenner paid only $8.7M for the club in 1973, although Steinbrenner’s Wiki page says $10M.

All in all, I’d say Steinbrenner and his partners paid a “fairish” price considering that CBS had more or less run the business into the ground.

Getting a sense of Yankees’ value.

From an April 2009 Forbes.com article:

No one is getting richer faster than the No. 1-ranked New York Yankees, whose value shot up 15% this year to $1.5 billion. The Bronx Bombers pulled in $80 million—by far the most in baseball—from their rights fee with the YES Network in 2008 and moved into the most lucrative stadium in baseball this season. (Full disclosure: Forbes has a show on the YES Network.) The new stadium also means the Yankees will have to hand over a lower percentage of their revenue to rivals.

Yes, the team’s stadium revenue—tickets, suites, advertising, concessions—is likely to go up by more than $100 million this season. But MLB permits teams to deduct stadium-operating and debt expenses from revenue before calculating the amount the league will take from them to subsidize other teams. Last season the Yankees had to hand over $95 million to the league so it could be distributed to teams like the Florida Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and Tampa Bay Rays. In the new stadium the Yankees’ deductible expenses will be around $100 million, enough to wipe out the windfall in revenue.

Has anyone here ever compared Ruth’s value as a pitcher + hitter versus his numbers as just a hitter. He pitched in over 30 games each year from 1915 to 1917 and had pretty good numbers (lead the league in ERA+ in 1916). Then I’m guessing it became clear that he was a monster at the plate and he was converted to a full time hitter over the course of 1918 and 1919.

Would those three years of being a very good pitcher and a very good hitter compare to his years as the best hitter in the game?

What I was wondering was why they didn’t make Ruth a pitcher 30 or so games a years and a hitter for the remaining 124 and so games. Wouldn’t that had maximised his value?

[8] [9] I asked SG to run a Ruth as a pitcher projection some time ago. (winter/spring 08)
He either forgot, blew it off or hates me.
I’m cool with all 3 scenarios.
Just being a lefty with a great curve and a good fastball(think 20 years of Wells) Babe was a lock for 275 wins, unless vd efs with the command.

I think ruth was the greatest sportsman who ever lived.

Rather than using him as a starter they could have used in in a more important role like closer or loogy.

[9]  Ruth wanted to stop pitching.  He didn’t think he could be his best at either pitching or hitting as long as he was trying to do both.  It was a major source of his clashes with Boston management that led (at least as much as Frazee’s debts) to his being sold to the Yankees.

Brian, George, Jets in full tease mode.

Rather than using him as a starter they could have used in in a more important role like closer or loogy.

Aren’t you forgetting the most important pitching role of all?

teh 8 ?

The last out of teh ate!

[16] No way GHR could have handled such a role. Too much pressure.

[17]  Concur.  It requires a bellyful of guts. All the Babe had was a bellyful of hot dogs.

Hot dogs are good. So are hot dog costumes. Just sayin’ Wiener man.

I hope you never forget about that.  Every time you mention it, I laugh out loud.  And my houseplants laugh with me.

Thurm, what do you think is more delightfully surprising/unlikelyy - A-Rod as Mr. Clutch or the Jets actually getting some GOOD luck?

I’ll just wait for April 19 which (for me) is “Yankee Unhappy Day!”

April 19, 1973…Steinbrenner’s last backstabbing twist into Michael Burke.

[22] There has to be some sort of statute of limitations on that, right? Or, if you will excuse the (bad) pun, perhaps a statute of repose…

So what exactly happened on April 19, 1973?  The Baseball America Executive Database says that Burke was fired on April 30.

OK, I found it.  Gabe Paul was hired (and given Burke’s title) on April 19.  I have to wonder how much of a surprise this was to Burke, given that it was Paul who hooked him up with Steinbrenner when he (Burke) was trying to figure out how to finance buying the team from CBS.

I will say this on Burke’s behalf: when I was a kid wandering aimlessly around OYS, he was always approachable and willing to sign autographs from his seat next to the dugout.

On a semi-related note, I looks like Alomar, Blyleven, and Dawson have a good shot while Larkin and Raines will miss the cut.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/

Putting Larkin aside to stay away from the first ballot discussion, what is the argument against Raines?

what is the argument against Raines?

Whose?  The BBWAA?  I think it’s pretty much that he didn’t hit .300 and he didn’t get to 3,000 hits.  And they don’t understand that a guy with 400 more hits and 600 fewer walks would have been a worse player (ie—Lou Brock).

test

[29] Am I wrong to be a little upset that Andruw Jones went to the White Sox for peanuts? Maybe it’s better that he’s not an option. Fat and lazy is no one to play LF, son.

one = way. Oops.

[30]  Yes, it is wrong.

what is the argument against Raines

You can make an argument that he stopped being a full-time player relatively (to other HOFers) early in his career.  Depending on how you view other players around him in value, if you are consistent and generally a “small hall” person, I think that is a defensible argument.  But that’s the only one I can see, and though I think Raines isn’t an “inner circle” HOF player, I think he definitely belongs in.

I’m sure some of you read other teams’ blogs.  I rarely do, but over the holidays I did out of boredom.  Man, it is a hell of a thing to be a Pirates or Royals fan.  Then again, maybe they have more fun.

[27, 28} I think his cocaine use is also an issue for some of the older writers—they can remember being down on him, and voting for him now, merely because he was an incredible ball player would imply that in some way, at some time, they may have been wrong about something.

I’ve read a few posts by a talented Royals blogger but it was a bit soul-crushing.

Apropos the poor teams, I saw somewhere that the stadium costs should mean that the Yankees won’t pay into the luxury-tax fund if I understood correctly.  Does that sound right to the business-side savvy here?

You can make an argument that he stopped being a full-time player relatively (to other HOFers) early in his career.

Sure, you can make that argument… if you ignore collusion and a work stoppage.  Raines was a full-time player until he came to the Yankees.  He had 14 consecutive “full-time” seasons (ages 22-35).  I think that stacks up pretty well with most HOFers.

[35] Aside from conflating luxury tax with revenue sharing, that’s pretty much correct.  Teams with new ballparks get to write off stadium financing costs before their revenue sharing bill is figured.  So the Yankees (and Mets) will be paying much less into the revenue sharing pool even though their revenue will be much higher.

[37] - I know baseball’s books are closed but does anyone know how much this impacts their bottom line?  What was their stadium agreement before hand?  How much were they paying in rent/taxes?  How much did that change in 2009 factoring paying off the debt service on the bonds?  Does the increase in revenue off-set that? 

I can’t imagine it does.  Like everything else the family does I’d bet they are taking a hit on their net income now and gaining it back on the increased value of the franchise.

[27] Speaking of which, I already miss the days when we had Coke in our ‘pen, mostly for the jokes.

“conflating luxury tax with revenue sharing”

Ah - “all teams pay in 31 percent of their local revenues and that pot is split evenly among all 30 teams” says the web.

Raines should have been a first-balloter, no doubt.  The cocaine thing, I don’t think affects him so much (see: Paul Molitor)...I think because he:

1) frontloaded his dominance so heavily while playing in Canada
2) was a peer of Henderson
3) had too high a BB/H ratio for his outstanding getting on-base skills

I really, really hope he gets in, because he is hugely deserving.

[40]  That’s just the “base plan.”  The CBA adds quite a bit of arcane (and seemingly needless) complexity.  But to try and keep it simple, it’s 31% of “Net Local Renvenue” which is defined as gross receipts less stadium expenses.  Expenses are obviously higher with the financing of DNYS, but there’s also a kicker in the CBA about something called am “Adjustment Factor,” and that’s apparently where the windfall for “New Stadium Clubs” comes in.

Red Sox and Beltre? Not sure how I feel about this.

You should that any RS fan that whines about the Yankees’ payroll is a hypocritical knave.

[43] Not game-changing.  Watch his numbers inflate at Fenway and the Masshole media slobber over him and the Yankees win the division by 5 games.

He had a really low HR/FB but for the ISO to fall down to near .110 has got to be alarming.

What I was more intrigued about is what they would do with him defensively, as he’s kept the same solid glove at 3B for a while now.

Martinez C, Beltre 3B, Lowell 1B, Youkilis LF, Cameron in CF? Youkilis’ numbers in LF are pretty atrocious in not so limited duty. Do they platoon Lowell and Ortiz at DH? That’s a lot of ‘what ifs’ for an opening day roster if you ask me.

I’m laughing at an ESPN rumour about NYA getting Pujols next year.

You should that any RS fan that whines about the Yankees’ payroll is a hypocritical knave.

Is there a macro that prints this comment every time the Sox swing a deal?

I am reserving judgment. I appreciate the statistical analysis (~3 wins added?) but it depends on the $/yrs, of course. Fangraphs did some analysis last week:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/does-beltre-make-sense-to-boston-at-10m

[48] SSF - Do you have a graps on the 2010 RS payroll? They’ve got to be pushing $170M sans Beltre, no?

46: everyone assumes Lowell gets sent to whoever will accept delivery, while Youkilis stays at first, where his defense probably means more. He was a good 3b at age 25, but that was then.

J, they were just barely under the luxury tax threshold, so unless Boras is still drunk from the new year, a Beltre signing would send the Sox north of that total.

[51] And that’s with lots of arbitration raise assumptions for Papelbon, etc, yes?

[48] A macro wouldn’t omit a verb…

It’s a consequence of too many years of hearing RS bleat on Yankee boards about their payroll.

I’ve got to say, having rational Red Sox fans visit us is yet another great aspect of this site.

[54] Yes, it’s unique.

pgammo
 
Beltre 1 yr. Deal for $9m with player option for $5m. Physical coming

54: You can’t mean me. My wife has never described me in such terms.

55: just saw that. Holy crap, that’s an offer they couldn’t refuse. Beltre wants to fluff his stats for a year in Fenway, then troll for a better offer next winter? Fine by me.

[56] So give us the opening day line up, platoon situations included.

... adding: I just looked at his hit charts over the years. He’s not exactly a pronounced pull hitter, at least in the air. So a slight uptick in slugging from 2008 isn’t unreasonable, and I would be more than pleased with a slick-fielding 3B pushing 30 hrs. [Lowell hasn’t topped 21 in Boston.] But the talk of Fenway being “perfect” for Beltre seems a tad misplaced. More likely, “not Safeco” is perfect for Beltre.

Er…
The defense would probably be V-Mart, Youk, Pedroia, Beltre, Scutaro, Cameron, Ellsbury, Drew. I don’t think they’ll move Ellsbury to left. Lineup…

Ellsbury
Pedroia
Ortiz
V-Mart
Youk
Drew
Scutaro
Beltre
Cameron

I could be wildly off here, of course. They might move Ells down to take the pressure off, though his speed is probably too valuable in the 7-8-9 holes.

It could get interesting if Ortiz starts cold. Would you move Scutaro up to third and have three table setters? You could drop Ortiz to 8th to keep the L-R-L-R thing going through the power portion of the lineup. I doubt Tito would do this, though I think Ortiz’ stature in the lineup is not what it was.

Oh, and you asked for platoons. With Beltre I don’t know that there are any. Hermida would get a lot of looks in LF or RF, but Kotchman is a benchwarmer except when Youkilis needs a rest. Youk and Beltre are both RHH, so I don’t see any reason to be swapping guys around. You’re more likely to see Lowry at 3B, I would think, than Youkilis moving to third on just rare occasions.

I think you’d have Ortiz too high. Youkilis and his OBP are too valuable to be giving those extra PA’s to Ortiz and those missed RBI’s for Martinez.  Lots of potential in that line up but also a lot of what ifs.

The Sox’s starting line up will now be composed of 3 internally developed players (2 from the Henry era), 1 player they traded for, and 5 free agents (including DH).

They are a player development juggernaut.

The JP Morgan yankees on the other hand currently only have 5 internally developed players in the starting 9 (including DH).  They have 3 starters acquired through trades.  And of course they’ve signed a 1 whole starter as a free agent.

62: He certainly doesn’t belong in the 3-spot, but Tito is a loyal manager, so maybe he gets a chance there to start? Who knows, of course. Agree with the potential-swing, from mediocre to solid.

Falstaff, what’s the point? The Sox’ pitching is largely internally developed, and player development helped them trade for Martinez, an all-star at a position of desperate need. Anyway, these ethics arguments are tiresome; there are factual records of which team developed more guys or signed more FAs, and if somewhere in the ether those records are battling each other for some moral supremacy, fine by me. All I know is, the Sox committed to player development in order to give themselves options, not to say “we only use players we drafted.”

Sometimes I think people throw stuff at me to argue with the typical Sox fan—who, if you listen to talk radio, sounds like an idiot. I’d rather not have to defend the stereotypes just because SG put a microscopic pair of sox next to my name.

I don’t think you can count Nick Johnson on that list [63].  Once a player is gone, he’s gone, even if he comes back.  Except maybe for a case like Pettitte.

Similarly, everything is skewed with Jeter and Posada being in the lineup (in the hardest to replace positions) for over a decade. 

And I’m guessing you are considering free agents as “worse” than trades, from a JP Morgan type standpoint.  BUT, Swisher, Granderson, and Arod were all salary dumps.  And the free agent was a juggernaut of a contract.

Signing Teixeira is NOT the same as signing Cameron.

[63] A bit unfair to ignore the RS’ internal pitchers, no?  Also players traded for using internally-developed players ought I think to count, for e.g. Beckett iirc.

i may be a peanut, but i’ll wear those red socks this one time w/ you SSF.

“Sometimes I think people throw stuff at me”

Probably usually not intended as such on this blog, though I can see why it might feel that way.

Full disclosure: the real problem with the Sox in October was a complete inability to do anything about good pitching. Of the incoming players, only Scutaro helps in that regard, while Beltre is a bit worse than Lowell (fewer walks) and Cameron vs. Bay is a toss-up (Bay vs. a guy with a good curveball was U-G-L-Y). So, the Sox haven’t solved their problem, though they’ve done a good job of changing the conversation. This is a lineup that can win 95 games, but come October they’d better pitch lights out or (shudder)...

67: woot!

68: generally not a problem here, though I do sense frustration here (and throughout Yankeedom) with the stoopid media memes about the never-say-die Sox vs the overpaid Yankees. They’re windmills, stop tilting at them! But, again, the reason I frequent this place is the general avoidance of nonsense. And MC’s wit.

And of course they’ve signed a 1 whole starter as a free agent.

Sabathia and Burnett.. 1+1=?

[64]  I was making my comment in general and in no way expected you to have to have to respond, so apologies if it came off like that (and nor do I in anyway think of you as a stereotypical fan of either the sox or baseball as a whole - your comments are always interesting).

Beltre’s signing was the big news of the day.  And in general, the Sox off season this year reminds me of what they did in the off season after 2006.  I think that’s fine.  No problem with it in any way.

Despite that it’s taken as axiomatic that one franchise develops their players while the other one buys theirs.  Even this off season over and over this notion is espoused over and over.  So my comment was more on that cognitive dissonance than anything.

[65]  I guess I see Johnson as an in between case but I can see how he could go either way.

The yankee’s trades were salary dumps but salary dumps are a spectrum - the yanks gave up real prospects and/ or talent for Alex and Granderson.  And on the whole, many trades in baseball are motivated by financial issues e.g. Halladay and Cliff Lee just this off season.

Abraham says the second year is either a $5MM player option or a $1MM buyout.

If it’s a player option, why would there be a buyout?  Doesn’t that really mean that it’s a 1 year/$10M contract with a $4M player option for 2011?  Or does Beltre have to buy out the Red Sox if he decides that he wants to be a FA again next year?

And I guess this means that the Red Sox think Lowell’s career is over.  Too bad.

72: thanks dude. I agree, the cognitive dissonance exists. It’s not completely baseless, the Sox can rarely top the Yankees in head-to-head FA competition, though even there it’s hard to know the whole story.

“But, again, the reason I frequent this place is the general avoidance of nonsense. And MC’s wit.”

Isn’t that v.v.?

[73] Hey, if we’re really looking to increase our homegrown factor and the path the guy took doesn’t matter, slide over and make some room for Mike Lowell.

Swisher, Granderson, and Arod were all salary dumps.

Have to disagree on two of the three.  The MSM might think that the Swisher and Granderson trades were salary dumps, but the White Sox and Tigers didn’t.  Swisher was a player dump—Williams realized that he didn’t fit the team or the manager.  And Dombrowski traded Granderson and Jackson to try to improve his team, not to save a few bucks to deal with a one year payroll problem.

And MC’s wit.

Why thank you, kind sir!

[72] Is this our first apology thread of 2010?

Isn’t that v.v.?

Surely you’re not suggesting that there is a general avoidance of wit on the site?

[71]  I was referring to position players, not pitchers.

But taking a look at the probable 2010 staff 6-7 of the pitchers will likely be internally developed on the opening day roster.  That would be one of the higher proportions of any team in the game in the game.

On the whole the Yankees will have acquired 3-4 key players (depending on how one views Johnson) via free agency - now all of those contracts were massive (other than Johnson’s) but 3-4 free agents isn’t that many.

[74]  Just read through the thread more carefully.  Apologies again - I can see how my comment at [63] could be easily construed as directed to you, which was not my intention.

Why are we talking about the Yankees unfair treatment in the media in regards to payroll?  Did they sign a $60M/year free agent I missed?

This is going to take a little imagining, but come with me:

I remember seeing Tony Siragusa during a brief stint as a sidelines commentator.  At some point late in a game (I forget who), he chimes in with (gravelly, unpolished voice) “They should have called a timeout there.”  One of the booth guys (nasal, professional announcer voice), “But Goose, they only need a field goal to tie.  If you get in range, you’re gonna need that time out to get the kicking team out there!”  Long pause.  Siragusa (little-boy voice): “I’m sorry.”

Anyway, that’s what I think of when apologies start flying.

In keeping with the recent RS theme:

I just heard that Red Sox have talked to the Mets about a Mike Lowell-for-Luis Castillo trade. Not sure how serious it is.

jcrasnick

Looks like Shelley Slam Duncan has officially moved on.

In keeping with the recent RS theme:

Also,

Tm     F     W     L     GB
NYY   F   103   59   —
BOS   F   95   67   8.0
TBR   F   84   78   19.0
TOR   F   75   87   28.0
BAL   F   64   98   39.0

fgas now has an official goose fetish. Blame Canada.

Hey kronic, nice work backing up SSF. He’s a fine lad and a bit more rational than most of us. I’ll cover his ass at the first annual SOSH vs RLYWL bonfire in Fenway this coming season.

Anyway, that’s what I think of when apologies start flying.

Sometimes when Sterling makes a mistake he takes a long pause and contemplates his foolishness. although I guess I am just imagining that second part.

SSF, I’m not entirely sure that, when it happens, it’s because of the microscopic (it really does seem to have shrunk, doesn’t it?) red socks next to your moniker.  It’s altogether possible that it may be due to something else… such as… oh, I don’t know… perhaps the words “SOX FAN” in your name?
Nah.

pete crackin’ me up…....again

Maybe this was dealt with in a previous thread, but maybe someone who understands the tax laws better than I do can elaborate on this (or tell me I’m wrong). But, if I am correct, thanks to Dubya, 2010 is the one and only year that there is no inheritance tax on the books (Obama repealed the elimination of the tax that Bush put in effect). So doesn’t that mean that if George keels over in the next 12 months, then Hank and Hal (and whatever other family is in line to get a piece) get to inherit the Yankees tax-free? Of course, If Steinbrenner croaks in 2011, then they pay 40-50% of their inheritance back in taxes.

Am I wrong?

[90] There is no estate tax this year as of now. It is expected, according to reports, that there will be new legislation addressing the issue within the next few months, but as of now, Obama hasn’t repealed anything. The new legislation could be retroactive.

Huh. Apparently there may be more options than Johnny Damon out there somewhere.

I think the Red Sox front four is a lock to be:

Ellsbury
Pedroia
Youk
V-Mart

Then it gets interesting…

I can see any configuration between Drew/Ortiz/Beltre for #5-7, then Cameron #8 and Scutaro #9 as the proverbial “second lead-off hitter.”

[90] The estate tax cut that was in force was cynically designed in the usual don’t-look-at-the-man-behind-the-curtain manner to expire in order to keep long-term deficit forecasts from blowing up.  Really something ought to have been done last year to smooth the transition but we don’t have a functional Senate for more important matters…

[93 etc.] Wouldn’t they want a better OBP to lead off?  Hmm, looking at Fangraphs I see Ellsbury is better than I expected at getting on base.  Anyway, lineup construction isn’t important.

Pete, yes, they do seem to have shrunk. I’ve chosen to turn the other cheek.

Anyway, lineup construction isn’t important.

I’m pretty sure that isn’t true.  I believe the current thinking is that it isn’t *as* important as the MSM makes out, but that there is *some* effect there.  For example, last year when it was reported Girardi was considering flipping Damon and Jeter in the lineup, I think SG did some analysis and concluded that would have an effect of increasing the Yankees runs by about 2-3 runs.  I think I also read something on THT a few years ago where - with some made-up lineup - the difference betweent he “best” and “worst” configuration was like 80-90 runs over the course of the year.

IOW, there is an effect.  But unless the manager makes particularly bad choices, the effect will be small.

I asked SG to run a Ruth as a pitcher projection some time ago. (winter/spring 08)
He either forgot, blew it off or hates me.

Actually, I started messing around with it but never got around to finishing it.  I’ll see if I can find it and complete it.

Last season the Yankees had to hand over $95 million to the league so it could be distributed to teams like the Florida Marlins, Pittsburgh Pirates, Kansas City Royals and Tampa Bay Rays.

It really bothers me that NY had to pay to help a “struggling” franchise who just happened to go to the world series.

It really bothers me that NY had to pay to help a “struggling” franchise who just happened to go to the world series.

It bothers me *more* that the Yankees handed over money to the other three on that list.  Tampa Bay spent the money - some of it anyway - on acquiring players, and maybe keep players who were getting expensive a year or two longer than they would have anyway.  They used the money they got to become successful, and hopefully that will translate into greater revenues that they can reinvest in the team to become successful.  The other teams - specifically Florida - seem to pocket the money, and/or divert towards other expenses that don’t involve improving the team.  KC honestly does spend money on players, the problem is they don’t have a clue how to spend it wisely.

I don’t have much problem if an entity is provided a temporary cash-flow, and uses that to fix problems and improve themselves to become self-sustaining.  I *do* have a problem with an entity that gets the cash-flow, doesn’t use it to address their real problems, and then just asks for more when they use the original up.

If Steinbrenner croaks in 2011, then they pay 40-50% of their inheritance back in taxes.

Am I wrong?

I think you’re wrong.  First, you’re assuming that no new inheritance tax legislation will be passed by the end of 2011.  Second, you’re assuming that George has done nothing to shelter his estate from inheritance taxes.