Steinbrenner's finances.

Timely article in the New York Times. Undoubtedly, a response to my blog:

"If you do a profit and loss, I don't think there's a plus at the bottom," he said. "But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for Steinbrenner."


Hey, didn't Felz just say that Steinbrenner's expense ceiling is equal to his revenues? Who is this Zimbalist guy disagreeing with me? But before you think the Felz is completely misguided:

"Zimbalist and other sports business experts said that beyond Steinbrenner's craving for more World Series titles, his goal is to build the value of the team and the YES Network, in which the Yankees and the former owners of the Nets are majority owners. That goal prevails, even if it means operating at a short-term loss. Last May, the Goldman Sachs Group arranged lending worth $225 million to the Yankees to help finance losses, provide working capital and consolidate debt.

The experts saw the acquisitions of Johnson, Alex Rodriguez and other marquee names as a strategy to keep nearly four million fans jamming Yankee Stadium annually, to keep the team winning and to keep YES ratings high."

In other words, an investment.

The Yankees are a $billion corporation and one of most recognizable brands in the world. They have other payroll expenses besides the players, but the players are the engine that drives the whole thing.

Would the CEO of any other $billion corporation skimp on his most important employees?

The year after setting attendance records, would any other owner pull in the reins?

I'm not saying it's "fair" or fosters a competitive balance in baseball. But everybody should stop acting so shocked. It would only be shocking if George stopped feeding the Monster.

I even heard Buster Olney on TV the other day claiming that if the Yankees don't win the WS this year, Steinbrenner will get fed up, make drastic cuts in payroll, and stop going after high-prized free agents. Just because Olney is shortsighted, doesn't mean Steinbrenner is.