Nate from Connecticut has a question for all you number freaks out there: have the Yankees spent more in player payroll this millenium to not win a World Series than the Red Sox did in 86 years? The Yankees, as has been wildly reported, have spent around a billion dollars on player salaries since 2000. The Sox, according to Nate’s computations, spent around $875,000,000 to not win a Series between 1985 and 2003, leaving them approximately $125 million for the period in between 1918 and 1984. Baseball-reference.com only has a salary database going back to ‘85; anyone know where Nate can find the rest of the info he needs?
Recent Posts
Archives
- April 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Baseball
- Baseball Prospectus
- Bill Simmons
- Boston Red Sox
- Boston Sports Blog
- Boston Sports Media Watch
- Courant’s Baseball Page
- Deadspin
- Dirt Dogs
- Firebrand of the AL
- Globe’s Red Sox page
- Herald’s Red Sox page
- Keys to the Game
- Phoenix Sox Blog
- ProJo’s Red Sox page
- Red Sox Stats Guy
- SoSH
- The Soul of Baseball
- Touching All the Bases
- Yanks Fan vs. Sox Fan
- Yardbarker
I don’t have that info for Nate. But I’m a number freak, too, and I just want to point out something. We keep hearing about the $1 billion in payroll for zero championships, but if we’re looking at this from an economic viewpoint we also have to consider the amount of annual revenues brought in by the Yankees ($277 million in 2005)* and the market value of the team ($1.026 billion)*. Huge dollars out, yes, but also huge dollars in. It might be more meaningful to look at the Yankees’ total net losses for the six years as opposed to just their payroll expenses. Sorry, I’m an accountant.
*per April/06 Forbes magazine
If the numbers are adjusted for inflation, it seems hard to believe 6 years could exceed 86 years, but the one thing in the Sox “favor” here would be the effects of the reserve clause in keeping players salaries artifically low. Collusion in the 80s would also mask how much money the Red Sox would have spent in a competitive market. Albiet a market with effectively one buyer (i.e., a monopsony).
Be sure to keep us updated on Nate’s study!