Note to Yu Hsing Chen –

Your attempt to re-register for this site using the handle ‘yuhsing’ isn’t going to work. Just as your account under the name ‘RollingWave’ has been blocked from this site, your new attempt is blocked as well.

After you copied pictures me and my family off this blog in order to post them elsewhere to make fun of my appearance, attire, and family, you will never be allowed to register for this site.

Sorry for the disruption, all. Please go back to the discussion of this topic and ignore this other junk.

Obviously my bad on when the luxury tax came into being. Mea culpa.

The fact remains that every team that is marginally over the limits (or right up against them) is constrained in how it operates. They’ve stated as much – we won’t go over the threshold and start paying the luxury tax – or you see their “best” offers to top free agents being easily exceeded.

As for the Yankee “decline” – perhaps the reality is that the Yankees have instead reached a “natural” limit to their payroll given their revenues. I’ll be much more impressed that the Yankees give a rat’s ass about paying the luxury tax if their payroll doesn’t start rising again with the huge revenues generated by the new stadium.

OnceIWasAYankeeFan wrote:

Evan3457 wrote:

The Yankees built up the modern dynasty. While they dominated, agitation grew for a salary cap. The MLBPA wouldn’t agree to that, but they did agree to a luxury tax that basically hampers one team: the Yankees.

What?

Agitation grew for a salary cap up to 1994, when the players struck and the World Series was canceled. This would be before the most recent Yankee dynasty and prior to any “domination”. No salary cap was ever seriously contemplated while the Yankees were on their run of championships.

And that luxury tax hampers many teams: All of the ones whose total payroll is right up against its limit. They do not add salary because of the marginal cost of the luxury tax on top of the salary being contemplated for what might be an important addition.

On the other hand, the luxury tax has not hampered the Yankees at all, as they continue to lead the majors in payroll and in 2007 the luxury tax did not exactly stop them from adding Clemens for 18 million dollars.

What what?

The current luxury tax, or competitive balance tax, was put into place in 2002 collective bargaining agreement. The tax came about amid discussions among fans and sportswriters that there was a growing inequality problem. Sanderson and Siegfried (2003) attribute its creation more directly to “the reemergence of the New York Yankees as a dynasty in the post-strike period of the last decade.” The Yankees won four World Series between 1996 and 2000 and then played in the World Series again in 2001 and 2003. Some people attribute their continued success to the fact their payroll exceeded most of the league.

(Sanderson and Sigfried 2003 refers to: Sanderson, Allen and John Siegfried. (2003) “Thinking About Competitive Balance.” Journal of Sports Economics, 4(4): 255–279)

The above quote is from a research paper entitled “The Impact of the Luxury Tax on Competitive Balance in Major League Baseball” written by Olugbenga Ajilore and Joshua Hendrickson who are statisical researchers into the economics of sports, in the economics department at the University of Toledo, Ohio (I have no idea if they’re students, graduate students, or professors) They use a fairly sophisticated statistical model, and the money quote in the conclusion of the paper is as follows:

“The results show that there has been the intended effect on these teams’ spending though the results were being driven by the New York Yankees.

================================
Finally, the fact that the Yankees continue to lead in payroll doesn’t mean the luxury tax hasn’t hampered. You are ignoring the reports that first the Boss and now, the sons Steinbrenner are tired of paying luxury tax to help their competition beat them, and, in fact, the growth in payroll of the Yankees was basically stopped in 2005, and the very real “hampering” can be seen in the deterioration of the Yankees’ bench and bullpen. They’re still paying a ton for their front line talent (lineup and rotation), but the last 11 players on this year’s roster consume only $14 million in payroll.

1998: $63 million
1999: $88 million
2000: $93 million
2001: $112 million
2002: $126 million
2003: $153 million
2004: $184 million
2005: $208 million
2006: $195 million
2007: $190 million
2008: $209 million
2009: $201 million (so far)

That’s a growth rate of 19% per year from 1998 to 2005, and a decrease of slightly less than 1% per year from 2005 to 2009.

It took about 3 years for the Yankees organization to change its strategic outlook with regards to payroll, but don’t kid yourself, the luxury tax has hampered the Yankees, and to the extent that it has increased competitive balance, the Yankees are driving force behind that increase in balance.

As for the question of what a core of home-grown players looks like, it looks like this:

Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie, Ellsbury in the every-day lineup.

Lester, Papelbon, Delcarmen and Bard on the pitching staff.

That’s a home grown core.

Evan3457 wrote:

The Yankees built up the modern dynasty. While they dominated, agitation grew for a salary cap. The MLBPA wouldn’t agree to that, but they did agree to a luxury tax that basically hampers one team: the Yankees.

What?

Agitation grew for a salary cap up to 1994, when the players struck and the World Series was canceled. This would be before the most recent Yankee dynasty and prior to any “domination”. No salary cap was ever seriously contemplated while the Yankees were on their run of championships.

And that luxury tax hampers many teams: All of the ones whose total payroll is right up against its limit. They do not add salary because of the marginal cost of the luxury tax on top of the salary being contemplated for what might be an important addition.

On the other hand, the luxury tax has not hampered the Yankees at all, as they continue to lead the majors in payroll and in 2007 the luxury tax did not exactly stop them from adding Clemens for 18 million dollars.

Note to Andrew – Your attempt to re-register for this site using your Northeastern College of Computer Science email address isn’t going to work.

Sorry for the disruption, all. Please go back to the discussion of this topic and ignore this other junk.

Raf wrote:

Given the Angels’ record, it shows even more how the postseason is a crapshoot.

Exactly, Raf. They’re 1-4 in playoff series since they won the title in 2002. The one win? Well, we all know what that one was, right?

In the last 5 years, non-Cashman, Yanks vs the other top 4 teams:

1993: 13-12, .550
1994: 16-12, .571
1995: 23-27, .460
1996: 22-13, .629
1997: 23-24, .489
Total: 97-88, .524

What does that tells us? It tells us that when the Yanks had the best record, their record was superior against other good teams. And when they weren’t, it wasn’t. (Also, the result of the 1996 is probably a random fluctuation; they were 22-13 against the top teams, but only 28-32 against the other .500+ teams in the league. Matchups, anyone?)

1998: 28-18: .609 (This team us the 1998 team was the best of all, in every category. But we already knew that anyway.)

1999: 23-19: .548
2000: 19-22: .463
2001: 11-16 .407

And at this point, it’s appropriate to stop, because that was the last year of the old dynasty, the last year of Paul, Tino and Brosius, the last year of Mystique and Aura. The last year that the team put together by Joe, Buck, Watson, and Stick was really all together. The success of this team from 1993-2001 is not usually credited to Cashman, especially here. Nor should it be, I suppose.

Total: 150-145 .508

Throw out 1993 and 1994, because they didn’t make the playoffs, and it’s 121-121, dead .500 over the 7 remaining years, years in which the Yanks made the playoffs 7 straight times, won 5 pennants, and 4 World Series.

.500 over the 7 years against the top 4 teams. I fudged a little in 2001, because in 2001 there wasn’t really a 4th top team. The 5th best team was the Twins, a mediocre .525. If I had included them, the numbers would be worse, because the Yanks went 2-4 against the Twins that season. In 1996, I left out the White Sox and Red Sox, who were tied for 5th best at .525; the Yanks went 13-12 against them. If I had included these three teams, the Yanks would’ve been UNDER .500 from 1995-2001 against the top teams)

So, there it is, the dynasty Yankees were essentially a .500 club against the other top teams in the league:

1993-2001: 150-145 .508
1995-2001: 121-121 .500

This last is “self-selecting sample”, if they’re the best team, the record against the other top teams is going to be better than when they’re just one of the good teams:

1996-2000 (the very cream of the dynasty) 103-93: .525, essentially 21-19, on average, each of the 5 seasons.

2006-2008: 58-55, essentially, on average 19-18.
================================
Steve’s study shows their record is lousy against the Sox and Angels this year, because they’ve lost a lot of games to the Sox and Angels this year.

Corey – I’m not going into details on this – it’s not important and takes away from this forum.