[cferneyh]

So then why don't the NEW YORK METS experience the same success and operate on the same budget as the Yankees do? The fact is that Steinbrenner's agressive spending never left Yankee fans feeling slighted, which in turn padded revenues, which he reinvests religiously back into the team. In other words, he built a great product with a great business plan, and has been reaping the rewards ever since. That's called free enterprise, and that is what America is all about - economic freedom on the open market. Am I supposed to hate Steinbrenner and his fine product and cry 'foul' because he is a savvy entrepreneur? Do I need to remind you that the US is a capitalist society, not a socialist one?

I never said the Yankees are on a level playing field, but the lowly Marlins didn't seem to find things slanted against them in 2003, did they? Sometimes, a team refuses to be psyched out by the Yankee might, and just won't allow them to be their 'Daddy'. Just wait till the World Series - you'll see.

Sigh. Love how you pull out ONE example. Yeah, the Mets are badly mismanaged. Duh. But let's look at the top twelve in payroll as of opening day:

1 New York Yankees $184,193,950
2 Boston Red Sox $127,298,500
3 Anaheim Angels $100,534,667
4 New York Mets $96,660,970
5 Philadelphia Phillies $93,219,167
6 Los Angeles Dodgers $92,902,001
7 Chicago Cubs $90,560,000
8 Atlanta Braves $90,182,500
9 St. Louis Cardinals $83,228,333
10 San Francisco Giants $82,019,166
11 Seattle Mariners $81,515,834
12 Houston Astros $75,397,000

So what's the common theme here? Well, other than the Mets and Mariners, every team on that list either made the playoffs or was fighting to make the playoffs until the last couple of weeks of the regular season. That's 10/12. That's 83%. Sure, every once in awhile you'll find an exception to the rule (the Marlins, the Twins), but it is pretty freaking clear that in THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, higher payroll = more chance for success.

By the way, Steinbrenner is hardly a "savvy entrepreneur" as you like to call him. He was born into money (his dad was a Great Lakes shipping tycoon). In my books, someone who spends daddy's money on pro sports teams hardly qualifies as an entrepreneur. And it isn't all that long ago that Yankee fans wanted him to sell the team because of the perceived damage he was doing in the 80s and early 90s. He's lucky, and he's had a good run. He's not some self made genius that bought the Yankees and took 'em from the basement to the penthouse. I can't help but notice that in the 80s, when the difference between highest payroll and lowest payroll was nowhere near as outrageous as it is today, he wasn't able to do anything right with the Yankees - his decisions to sign guys like Danny Tartabull to outrageous sums of money backfired badly. But over the past nine years, when the difference between the poor teams and the rich teams has widened considerably, he's been successful. Gee, I wonder why that is.

Lastly, let's not forget that Steinbrenner is both a criminal (he was found guilty for making illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon) and a thug (he admitted to a $40,000 payment to gambler Howie Spira for damaging information about Dave Winfield). Yeah, what a hero! How can I not like a guy with a track record like that?