In the wake of the free agency splurge conducted by the New York Yankees, there seems to be a new wave of uproar among baseball fans, writers, and even a team owner regarding the spending habits of the Steinbrenner clan.

Collectively, the Yankees will be dishing out $423.5MM for the services of Mark Teixeria, C.C. Sabathia, and A.J. Burnett, which would be excessive even if the global economy wasn’t going through the worst downslide in history.

But guys, I think we need to take a deep breath here and be rational.

Firstly, the idea that you can “buy a championship” has been disproven. We shouldn’t be having this conversation right now since a) the Rays and Red Sox still have a good shot at leaving the Yankees home in October once more, b) the Yanks haven’t won a World Series since 2000 despite the fact that they’ve had the highest payroll in baseball every single year since 1999, and c) we’ve been talking about this same topic for way too long and we’ve gotten nowhere.

Salary caps are not the answer and I don’t understand why we want to make the owners any wealthier than they already are. If they can’t spend the money they make, they’re going to keep it. And no, this won’t mean that ticket prices will go down because the market’s already been set. People are willing to shell out X amount of dollars for a seat so that’s the price. It’s unrealistic, and quite frankly, anti-capitalistic to expect anything else. Plus, if there’s even a whiff of a pending cap, the MLBPA will shut down baseball for god knows how long. And who does that benefit?It doesn’t help the owners, the players, and certainly doesn’t help the fans.

A steeper luxury tax is a possibility, but really, it’s Yankee-proof. Why? Because unlike many other owners, the Steinbrenners actually spend the money they earn to make it worthwhile for the fans. Say what you will about the family but they are not exactly cheapskates. According to Forbes Magazine’s annual list of the 400 richest people in America, George Steinbrenner’s net worth ($1.3B) trails those of Carl Pohlad (Twins – $3.6B), Ted Lerner (Nationals – $3.5B), Mike Ilitch (Tigers – $1.6B), Drayton McLane (Astros – $1.6B) and Tom Hicks (Rangers – $1.4B).  And this doesn’t even include the major conglomerates like The Tribune Company (Cubs), Liberty Media (Braves), Rogers Communications (Blue Jays) and Nintendo (Mariners).

And in 2007, the Yankees spent roughly $190MM on payroll – and reported an operating deficit of $47.3MM, by far the worst return in all of baseball. So what did they do in response? RAISED their payroll to $210MM in 2008. Of course, the Yankees do not want harsher luxury taxes. But their past behavior indicates that they will not compromise their on-field talent as a result of it. On the flipside, 27 of the 30 teams profited in 2007. The Nationals, Marlins, Mets, and the White Sox all made over $30MM a piece.  So all that will end up happening in a luxury tax scenario  is a redistribution of wealth among the owners – from ones willing to spend to the ones that don’t. This doesn’t sound like it’s in the best interests of baseball.

So let’s consider what the fans are demanding here.

Parity – the idea here being that if payrolls were more evenly spread, teams such as the Pirates, Royals, Nationals and Orioles will be competitive. This is wrong.  All of these teams have internal personnel issues that prevent it from succeeding. They’ve made bad decisions, plain and simple. The Orioles have gotten better and restocked their minor league system that should bear fruit over the next few years. But the others are still hopeless and have no one to blame but themselves. The A’s, Rays, Twins, Indians, Marlins, Rockies, and Brewers are just some of the small market teams that have competed over the last couple of years primarily through their farm systems.

Affordability – to an extent, this one may end up fixing itself, at least temporarily. Baseball owners know how to make money. And no matter how high atop a mountain their residences may be, they know that those below haven’t been raking in the dough. They’ll do what’s best for the organization and either stabilize or even lower the cost of attending games. Whereas the Mets and Yankees will be raising them due to their new stadiums’ abilities to generate additional revenue. This is capitalism (by the way, it’s kind of funny how people who were so afraid of socialism embrace the idea if it benefits them).

I know that this makes me sound like a blue-blooded jackass. Trust me, I’m no blue-blood (but I cannot prove that I am not a jackass) and only have a very rudimentary knowledge of economics. But the alternatives just don’t make sense to me. Why shouldn’t the most popular teams be able to reward their fans’ loyalties with a winning product? Why do we attack the Steinbrenners for spending their income to do so? Shouldn’t the Nationals fans (all four of you) be angry that their team had a 2007 payroll of $37MM when the organization made $43.7MM? To me, that’s far more offensive than what the Steinbrenners are doing.

Who knows how the 2009 Yankees will perform. They may end up winning the World Series, they may end up out in the cold, or somewhere in between. But if someone bet you $100 that the Yankees will win their 27th championship next year, wouldn’t you be pretty confident? I mean, that’s 29 other teams that could net you $100. Baseball’s a funny game. The best teams don’t win as often as we think. No matter how much money exchanges hands.

Last week, the New York Yankees dodged the perception that they wanted to fire their long-time manager Joe Torre by giving him a low-ball offer that they most likely knew would be rejected.

The organization’s rationale for the one-year offer went something like this: For the New York Yankees, anything short of a World Series victory is a failure. Joe Torre had failed to reach that goal for the past seven years straight. This is unacceptable. From the NY Times following Torre’s departure became official:

”The point is, the objective of the Yankees since the ’20s has been to win a championship every year, just like the objective of Lombardi with the Packers or Belichick with the Patriots,” Hank Steinbrenner said.

”Our goal is to win it every single year, even though we know, obviously, you can’t win it every single year. But nothing less than a championship is considered really acceptable.”

Fine. If you want to be elitist, be elitist. We expect nothing less from the Yankees. But if that was truly your rationale as to why Torre deserved a big paycut, at least be consistent.

Here’s what Hank Steinbrenner said a couple days ago while speaking to reporters:

“I think the most important thing is, whoever we hire (as the next manager), give ‘em a chance because he’s not getting the ‘96 Yankees. He’s getting an even younger team and, for the most part, a team in transition. Give him a little while.”

“We want to win the World Series every year,” Hank said. “We’re not stupid enough to think we can do it.”

Huh? Since when do the Yankees have teams “in transition”?  Also note the slight dig on Torre. Hank’s alluding that Torre was given a championship team on a platter when he took over in 1996, but that this won’t be the case for his successor in 2008, which is of course ridiculous. The Yankees will have a championship calibre team in 2008. I’m not sure how Hank can try to make it seem like this is not the case.

Look, I understand why Torre was basically let go. But I do not understand how ownership can backtrack so quickly. If Torre failed by not bringing home a championship in 2007, why should the new manager be held to a different standard? Is it the salary? Or is it that Hank will personally have a hand in hiring the new guy and doesn’t want to be criticized if it does’t pay immiedate dividends?