Mr. Law’s transgression is far less egregious than the others on this list. His only sin is that he decided to create a new narrative to fit his point of view. That by itself would not be enough to warrant criticism, but it is enough to be included in this larger piece.
For several seasons now, we have been told that the Yankees have lost several of their historic advantages. One was that teams were going to lock up their young players and that teams could no longer add historic players via free agency. Both of those will be disproved during the next off-season.
Another long-running narrative is that the Yankees monetary advantage has been wiped out. Between revenue sharing, teams owning some if not all of their distribution networks and the game being flush with cash, small market teams can now afford to sign big stars the same as big market clubs.
Why then did Mr. Law write,
"The Yankees didn’t need Giancarlo Stanton, but they will get him for very little, just taking on the bulk of his contract, which is something they and very few other clubs have the financial wherewithal to do."
Dark Side of the Moon
Money seems to have had little to do with Stanton going to the Yankees. His chief suitors before Cashman got involved were the Giants and the Cardinals; are they two of those, “few”? Are those two considered big market clubs?
We could have really debunked this claim if Stanton did not control his destiny. My guess is that almost every team would have proposed a package and taken on the same financial commitment the Yanks just did, had they the opportunity.
Doesn’t it seem likely that at least the Brewers, Mariners, and Twins would have been involved? And if they are the few, who are the many?
Mr. Law, it seems, is harkening back to an earlier era to make it seem as if the Yankees outbid everyone. Or, he’s suggesting that other teams were scared off by the price tag. And none of that is true.
Again, this is not as egregious as the others, but it is a bit lazy.