Evaluating Finance

Link sourced from bronxbanter: Murray Chass wrote an article half-heartedly describing the state of the Yankee finances. The article’s focus is on the impact of team salary on luxury tax, with a brief foray into the new CBA’s impact on said same. He includes references to Boston’s and Anaheim’s luxury tax bills, as if that constitutes research into fiscal viability. If one chooses to believe Chass, the only metric by which the status of the team’s fiscal situation can be described is by the interval since the last world championship. There is no discussion of profitability nor of revenue projections. By extension of his logic, every team in the league outside of St. Louis is a failure.

I don’t claim that New York is spending their money wisely, but there is nothing in this article that offers evidence to anything other than championships being the standard of running a business. Sure, every Yankee fan wants them to bring home a ring. I’m a fan of victories, but one must divorce themselves from that concept when considering the viability of the business. You can not win every year, but you can make money and sustain the institution. There’s a balancing act to be performed with high-profile teams. We are talking about different types of success, and I would think Chass should know better.

15 comments… add one
  • Chass’ columns seem to have slipped into a special circle of journalistic hell. The crusade against the Sox’ “tampering” of J.D. Drew (in which Dodgers officials told the LA Times they hadn’t even considered the charge until they read Chass’ column) is the most egregious, but I can’t think of the last column of his that I’ve read that I’ve actually thought was well-researched, well-written or well-argued. By contrast, I can actually think of a Shaughnessy column that fits that bill (the light-hearted “tips for Boston living” column for Daisuke Matsuzaka). When you’re below Shaughnessy on the integr-o-meter, that’s pretty sad.

    Paul SF December 24, 2006, 9:58 pm
  • paul, chass is wrong and lacking integrity simply because he’s questioning boston’s motives?…are you interested only in puff pieces, that suck up to the sox?…how about now that it seems they’re trying to screw drew?…

    dc December 26, 2006, 4:38 pm
  • dc, Read the column, then read the Globe’s story refuting the column, then read the LA Times’ story refuting the column, then re-read what I said, then come back and apologize for picking fights when there are none to be had here.

    Paul SF December 26, 2006, 4:51 pm
  • no apology necessary, so none forthcoming…i’ve read the tampering stuff, and you have to admit, while there’s no smoking gun, there is smoke…the question remains whether the dodgers have the stuff to make the charge formally, or if perhaps they won’t because they have something to hide re. manny…the rumor about drew was apparently circulating at the meetings, and not necessarily by chass…he’s just the reporter…

    dc December 26, 2006, 5:01 pm
  • The Dodgers have already decided not to. So, no smoke. Especially when Dodgers officials told the LA Times they had not even thought of the possibility of tampering in the case until they read Chass’ article, which means he apparently lied when he blind sourced execs who said Nd Coletti was so steamed about it that he wasn’t taking Epstein’s calls, a claim flatly denied by the Dodgers on the record and ludicrous on its face considering the fact that the Dodgers were one of the main teams in the Manny talks.
    Chass reported exactly what he decided he wanted to report — not what was actually happening. Why you make this into some kind of blind pro-Sox thing is beyond me, dc. Unless you’re just hoping to provoke reactions like this one. In whih case, I’ll apologize for falling into your trap yet again. I’ll make sure to avoid it in the future.

    Paul SF December 26, 2006, 5:06 pm
  • paul, relax…with these kinds of stories, it’s hard to tell who’s not telling the truth…i didn’t set a trap for you…i’m not that clever…the timing of the lack of progress [communication] on the manny talks is interesting though…

    dc December 26, 2006, 5:24 pm
  • There’s no smoke, end of story. Chass botched this one. No charges, no allegation of funny business, and a complete denial of possible tampering by the supposed accusing team is what has transpired.
    Chass perpetrated a hatchet job on behalf of an unnamed source, who, if it wasn’t a hatchet job, should be outed. Why would a reporter continue to offer anonymity to someone who lied to them unless they were complicit? Chass continues to protect someone who deserves no such protection.

    SF December 26, 2006, 6:35 pm
  • Speaking of Drew, what is going on with him and the Sox? There’s obviously problems with the wording and clauses in the contract, if there’s even going to be a contract.
    Sox management, now that they’ve signed DMat, probably won’t pick up the phone if their caller ID indicates it’s Boras calling.

    Whatever December 26, 2006, 7:03 pm
  • buyer’s remorse

    dc December 27, 2006, 6:18 pm
  • I read that article that Paul mentioned he liked by Dan Shaughnessy at the top of the comments on this thread and after doing so, was slightly nauseous. Talk about a piece of syrupy fluff.
    The last two lines killed me.
    “Let the experience of pitching for the Red Sox at Fenway Park wash over you like a soft summer rain.” A soft summer rain?! Huh? Are you kidding me? I don’t care if DMat is getting bombed or pitching a no hitter, it’s not going to be like “a soft summer rain.” More like a tornadic thunderstorm with lots of thunder and lightning.
    “You’re going to love it here.” Well, that’s hard to say. If DMat does well, he might love it here. Although not necessarily. If he doesn’t mind being a prisoner in his own home with overzealous Sox fans hiding out in the bushes hoping for a glimpse of him. Manny has done extremely well here, probably better than DMat will ever do, and he wants out of town.
    And if Daisuke doesn’t do so well, after all the hype? Ugh! It’ll be ugly. He will be longing for the friendly confines of the Invoice Seibu Dome.
    Anyway, Paul, if you think this saccharine laced piece of sappy sushi raises Shaughnessy’s level of integrity as a journalist, I would beg to differ.

    Whatever December 27, 2006, 7:45 pm
  • you might want to duck, whatever…your post seems to be driving home the point i mentioned earlier in this thread…sf’s only seem to react positively to ultra-sugary, upbeat, puff pieces, and any writer/communicator/poster suggesting otherwise lacks integrity and gets both barrels, even if the negativism is for the sake of a little humor…example: see dirt dogs…

    dc December 27, 2006, 9:38 pm
  • dc,
    I hear ya man. I’ll hunker down and try to withstand the verbal barrage soon to be directed at my sorry, foolish ass.

    Whatever December 27, 2006, 10:20 pm
  • Yeah, us SF’s sure do preach at the altar of Theo. Anyone who criticizes Boston deserves to burn in the eternal pits of hell, and journalists are meant to be an extension of the Boston FO. Duh.
    I don’t really get the criticism here…Paul’s comment was 2 days old for cryin’ out loud, and he was basically agreeing with ag. Why pick a fight over Murray Chass? And that was what you were doing, dc…Chass didn’t question Boston’s motives, he accused them of breaking the rules and none of his accusations (with regard to Drew, at least) seem to have any credibility. Further, the Drew thing that you say was circulating at the meetings was circulating everywhere (by which I mean the Internet)…it was a pretty easy leap to make if one wanted to make it, no inside info required.
    And I may be wrong, but I don’t think Paul was trying to say that Dan’s article was well-researched or argued; but it was pretty well-written. I mean yeah it was a fluff piece, and I don’t think anyone here would say otherwise…but it was a funny one. Maybe Dan should stick with satire, because he’s apparently better at it then the whole journalism thing. Plus as fluffy as it was…much of what he said was actually sort of biting and sarcastic. (The ‘summer rain’ quote comes to mind…come on WE, do you really think he was being serious? I read ‘warm rain’ and thought of urine.) Hell, if we wanted to, we could probably view most of that article as another example of anti-Sox/anti-Sox-fans negativism…except it was a joke.
    I guess it has been a slow couple days since the D-Mat thing resolved itself…anyway, Happy New Year everyone. I haven’t been around much lately, and I won’t be near a computer at all for another two weeks, as I’m going to Edinburgh to visit a buddy for New Years’. Heh, Hogmanay, one of the biggest New Year’s festivals in the world. Be safe all…and hopefully I don’t wind up dead in a gutter or dragged into a barfight by my drunken friends. :)

    desturbd1 December 27, 2006, 11:47 pm
  • d-1, i wasn’t picking a fight…and 2 days isn’t all that long to wait before commenting…i don’t think any of us can sit by the pc all day waiting to pounce on a comment…
    my humble opinion, which you have every right to disagree with, is that some sf’s have a disproportionate amount of venom for writers that don’t see things the sox way…when you’ve been on this site for awhile, you’ll see what i mean…you know, some of these debates are just not worth having, because of their all too predictable outcome: you guys get pissed off, and i’m a [insert insult] villian…
    by the way, happy holidays to you too…thanks…

    dc December 28, 2006, 8:26 am
  • dc, You’re just too funny. I forget that you always know exactly what I’m thinking, even if it’s the exact opposite of what I’ve said countless times on this site.

    Paul SF December 28, 2006, 12:06 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Next post:

Previous post: