On Money and Teixeira

When the news came down this afternoon that the Yankees had stolen Mark Teixeira away from those poor old Red Sox (who, really, just can't seem to catch a break, poor kids) my first thought was, "How am I going to deal with the onslaught of bile coming out of the mouths of my Yankee-hating friends and colleagues?"

In truth, picking up Tex for $180 million does, on the surface, appear to solidify the Yankees' status as an embarrassment of riches. I can understand the frustration that fans of other teams are feeling. Cashman and Co. have gone on a spending spree that surprises even most Bomber fans, let alone Bomber bashers; however, in thinking about it this evening I've decided to adopt a harsh, yet sincere mantra: If you don't like it, too bad. Deal with it.

Now, believe me, I do not say this to sound obnoxious (even though it does). Nor do I say it to be antagonistic, or generally arrogant. I say it because I am tired of every fan blaming the Yankees for their team's shortcomings. I am tired of having to defend a team who, more than any other organization in sport, puts its profits back into its product. Consider that for a moment. Can you think of any business (and, yes, folks, it's a business, as entertaining and heart-wrenching as it is) that actually gets ridiculed for catering to its client and working on his behalf? Let me answer: No. No, you do not.

As ridiculous as it may sound, the Yankees are actually victimized by their desire to create a profitable and competitive product. They are victimized by the fact that they represent the "visible evil"; the team that spends an immense amount of money, calls the boring press conferences, and shows up in every sport tabloid no matter what the rumor. Their spending is tangible and apparent.

On the flipside of that coin are all of the teams whose ownership winces and whines over every dollar that they are forced to shell out to their talent. Please spare me the sob story of the "small market team" that can't afford to compete. An owner, whether he is in Kansas City or New York, is going to be a multi-millionaire with his hand in a multitude of industries, all of which have made him rich beyond compare (richer, even, than the Steinbrenners). Where is the outcry when these "small market" owners quietly refuse to do their due diligence and spend money for the benefit of their organization and their fans? Where is the complaint when these same owners pocket their cut of revenue sharing instead of investing it in the team, which was the intent of revenue sharing in the first place? Answer: You don't see it, because the actions on the part of these owners is not tangible; not apparent. Theirs is the "invisible evil," and no one gets upset about what they cannot see.

So, really, who is doing more damage to baseball? If nothing else, the Yankees are a model for how to turn a game into a legacy (of performance and profit). Dare I say it? Maybe others should be taking pointers, instead of pointing fingers.

I'll close with an analogy, and see if it makes sense (I'm not sure it does, but here goes): You have a child, and that child is fortunate enough to build a small fortune through his/her work; more money than anyone in your neighborhood. When your child, then, decides to build a giant house for himself in the middle of the neighborhood, are you going to tell the child, "You can't build that house. Nobody else in the neighborhood has a house that big, so you shouldn't either. Even though your work has enabled you to afford the house, it just wouldn't be fair to everybody else if you built it. Why don't you just buy a small house and keep that fortune hidden away."

Something tells me that wouldn't be your angle.

The Yankees have built their house. They've (literally) earned that right. Deal with it.
_