What will they say now...
About two hours after the Yankees closed out their 27th world championship, I logged in to twitter and was amazed on the trends and comments of non-yankee fans. Of course, everyone has a right to chose a team and hate who they please, but their is a unique pleasure in hating the yanks. As a yankee fan, I found most of them amusing. You've probably heard some. They range from "money bought this championship" to " at least the phills made it back to back year." Now, of course money was a big reason we won. Yes, we have the highest pay-roll in baseball, and yes without money we probably aren't champs. But money does not make CC talented or Tex, Jeter, A-rod etc...the talents is there and they are rewarded immensely. If a salary cap was in place, would that mean A-rod will now hit 20 homers and CC win 10 games, in my opinion that point is senseless.On another note, Phillies fans really expected to walk over the yankees. The favorite prediction was yanks in 5. Are you kidding me? I think they got used to walking over NY's baseball team, but these aint the mets. Philadelphia is no where near a dynasty yet, if the mets were completely healthy this year, I doubt philly wins the east that easily. Their biggest stars, Cliff Lee, Ryan Howard, Brad Lidge and the manager charlie manuel, simply stated "we lost to a better team." So what will they say now.?" It will probably range from steroids to Ny voodoo casting a curse on the phills. ( Yes i've heard that one.) Bottom line is then, you lost to a better team. But the excuses and alibi's to cover up a disappointment will continue. Continue to hate, curse and whine, I bet we can buy you too.
0 recs |
72 comments
| Add comment
Comments
First, (and I say this every year, regardless of the winning team...)
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m going to identify myself as a Mariners fan who respects Jeter, hates A-Rod, and would just as soon see a salary cap in the MLB. With that out of the way:
I wish people would say World Series Champions. Seems a bit presumptuous to assume that the team is the best in the world, bar none, without having a way to even remotely approach testing that theory. Consider the WBC—a hugely flawed system, yes, but notice which team has won—both times. Japan. I’d love to see what would happen in a series between the Japanese league champions and the MLB champions. (consider that while Ichiro, Daisuke Matsuzaka, and Hideki Matsui play in the US, most of the players on that WBC team don’t play over here)
On to your post:
Yes, we have the highest pay-roll in baseball, and yes without money we probably aren’t champs. But money does not make CC talented or Tex, Jeter, A-rod etc…the talents is there and they are rewarded immensely. If a salary cap was in place, would that mean A-rod will now hit 20 homers and CC win 10 games, in my opinion that point is senseless
Here’s the flaw with your argument, as I see it: no, money does not effect the talent level of a player. However, look at it this way: no other team in the league could have absorbed a $40M price tag for three starters, and still fielded a team with Tex and A-Rod. Not even close. Your payroll was 48% higher than the next highest-spender. With that said, big spending does not guarantee success—obviously. But the simple reality is that the spending levels of the Yankees allow them to absorb bad decisions/players that don’t pan out in a way unlike any other team.
Yes, the Yankees were hands-down the best team in the league, and as such, they deserved to win the title. However, I have a hard time seeing how you can make the case that winning is such a great accomplishment when the team had such an incredibly large financial advantage over the rest of the league.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 2:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, odd.
I’m certain I typed “World Series Champions” instead of “World Champions”
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your points about payroll are true
But if you want to talk about the financial advantages of certain teams, you need to include others besides the Yankees.
The Phillies paid Adam Eaton and Geoff Jenkins a total of $13 million NOT to play for them this season, and paid another $16 million for 87 2/3 innings from Brett Myers and JC Romero.
The big market-teams (not just New York, but Boston, Philadelphia, as well as others) have a greater ability to absorb injuries or bad decisions than teams like Tampa Bay or Milwaukee. At the end of the day, though, it’s the teams that use their resources the wisest who typically wind up winning.
Resource optimization is the goal. Too often we see a middle market team make a terrible signing (see Jeff Suppan, Brewers) and the attribute the poor results to something OTHER than stupidity.
by 3460kuri on Nov 5, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No argument.
The Yankees aren’t the only team that can afford to make mistakes. And yes, the small market teams frequently blame payroll for stupid mistakes…which is disingenuous.
Good decision-making is always important.
With that said, it’s still hard to argue with a 2:1 payroll advantage not making an absurd difference. (Throwing $100M out there as a comparison point, since it seems to be a decent marker for the payroll of teams consistently in postseason play.)
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a Yankee fan,
I agree with you that the Yankee payroll is a big reason why they are contenders year-after-year. When you have nearly 2X your World Series opponent’s payroll, it has to make a difference. No argument there.
That being said, the Yankee’s payroll advantage is due to having an organization that is committed to putting a winning team on the field year-after-year. Certainly, there are revenue advantages of living in the country’s largest market. But the Mets have the 2nd largest payroll, and they can’t get it together consistently. How about the Cubs, who have the 3rd largest? It has been one long drought for Cubs fans. And do you remember 2008? That was when Seattle became the first team with a $100M-plus payroll to lose 100 games.
As a fan of team owned by a video game company, I’m sure you can understand the value of committed ownership. Love them or hate them, the Steinbrenners have not just built a great baseball team, they have also built an organization that drives revenues to feed the ball club. The YES network is a case in point. 162 games/year adds up to 648 hours of programming a year — not the basis for a profitable cable channel on its own. Certainly, it helps to have the legacy of Ruth, Gehrig et al to build programming around, but the real story is the vision of the Steinbrenners (and believe me, I almost cringe writing that) in creating a dynamic cable channel that allows them to feed their desire to win every year.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
There’s a LOT more to it than just throwing money at problems, and Steinbrenner did a fantastic job of building a strong financial foundation for the team.
Let’s look at the example of the Mets, though—yes, they’re #2 in payroll, and yes, they’ve done a horrid job of putting together a good team. Even so, the Yankees had a whopping 60% more payroll to work with than the Mets. So, while I’m happy to give all the credit in the world to the Yankees for getting more for their money than the Mets, their payroll advantage was still larger than what the Yankees spent on their 1-2-3 starters combined. Same basic argument for the Cubs.
Do I remember 2008 in Seattle? Wish I could say no. It was the perfect example that money alone does not buy championships. It was the perfect storm of bad management, bad spending, and horrid talent evaluation.
In summary: money isn’t everything—but when you’ve got the payroll advantage that the Yankees have (and to a far lesser extent the other top 5 or so payrolls), it’s a lot less impressive when you win than when the winning team is put together by somebody on a budget.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ugh
Ignore the 60% and think 48. My bad. Multitasking and typed the wrong number.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, everybody loves a David and Goliath story
And I can understand how the outside world thinks rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for Microsoft. But the reality is, the NYY are like Apple, albeit with Microsoft’s market share — at an organizational level, they are innovative and deeply committed to excellence.
That the Yankees have and are willing to spend 48% more on talent than the other ballclub in New York can be summed up in three words: Steinbrenners versus Wilpons. I actually wasn’t making the argument that the Yankees get more for their money. They haven’t won a World SERIES Championship in 9 years. I was just making the argument that the Yankees consistently field great teams because of the quality of the organization.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, it is not because of the quality of their organization.
After luxury tax payments, the Yankees will have spent somewhere between $240M and $250M. That is basically double the Red Sox payroll. If the Red Sox, Mets and Cubs are considered big-market teams, then the Yankees are something different. You guys can get any free agent you want whenever you want, no one else can say that. You can retain all of your own players without a problem; most teams cannot say that.
Your minor league system has produced very few quality players in the last decade. In 2008, when Cashman decided to rely on home-grown pitchers, the team missed the playoffs. So he went out and spent an absurd amount on two top pitchers and a 1B. That is why you won the World Series this year.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would disagree with you about the minor league system
Methinks you’re a Phillies’ fan who hasn’t taken a deep dive on the Yankee’s farm system. What is going to be scary is when Joba Chamberlain, Chin Ming Wang, Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Phil Coke, Mark Melancon, David Robertson and Alfredo Aceves all start clicking on the mound. The talent is all there. Yes, CC is a monster and AJ was definitely a good pick-up. But the rest of the pitching staff is largely homegrown, including Mariano and Pettitte.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you win a World Series on the strength of those pitchers, then it would be a homegrown pitching staff. But you did not, you won on the strength of free agent pitching and the four biggest contracts in baseball.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not the point
You wrote:
Your minor league system has produced very few quality players in the last decade.
That is wrong.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are saying that is wrong because of the guys you listed? Those players were fairly peripheral to this championship. Not to mention the unreliabilty of bullpen arms in general. Produce a starting pitcher or another position player and then we will talk.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 5:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Hughes isn't what he is this year...
the team doesn’t go anywhere.
Robertson, Aceves even Coke in the beginning of the year..more than a few times these guys have been as big a part of the Yanks winning as any.
Yea..more than a few of these guys may have different roles or be on their way in a few years or maybe next year…
yet to say they were just peripheral when more than a few times they came in and shut the door (Robertson…bases loaded no outs..no runs)..not true.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All of those guys together produced a WAR right around 6. Not insignificant (especially Highes, who was good this year with a WAR of 2.2), but altogether they produced the equivalent of what CC produced by himself. So those guys played a part, but theoretically you could have won the division with replacement level guys in place of all of them.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude,
I also forgot Marte — he came via a trade for Karsten, another home-grown.
Whatever. You’re a blinkered Red Sox fan. Are you going to tell me that your wins in 2004 and 2007, with the second biggest payrolls in baseball didn’t have a whole lot to do with Josh Beckett, Curt Schilling, Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. C’mon. How much did you spend just to get the signing rights to Dice-K? Puh-leez. You ought to go find another thread. This ain’t your best game.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox have economic advantages over many, many teams in the league. But, as I said before, these advantages are small in magnitude compared to the Yankees.
Also, everyone talks about the ridiculous posting fee we paid for Dice-K, but I think we did that because we realized we had little chance of signing top free agent pitchers on the open FA market. So we were willing to pay a premium for exclusive negotiating rights, not to mention, by bidding that high, we were also keeping him away from you guys.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 12:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the Sox market
is all of NE (population: 14 million). they have NESN (New England SN). they have no competition at all above them, for hundreds of miles west (until Toronto), and about 200 miles to the south (NYC).
the Yankees have probably 55-60% of the NYC area (population: 19 mil x .6 = 11 mil). they have a competitor 6 miles to the east, 200 to the north, and 100 to the south (Phils).
the Red Sox’s market is actually larger. whether they tap into that is another matter.
by Travis G on Nov 6, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I understand that. And the new ownership group has done a great job of bringing in more money. But Fenway is small with few luxury suites. Also, the advertisement revenue in many parts of NE is pennies compared to NYC and the tri-state area. Maine/NH/VT are not wealthy states.
If there are more revenue streams, Lucchino and co. will find them. But the fact is that the Sox (and the Yanks) lose money many years.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the entire Bullpen..
aside from Marte coming alive in the playoffs..is home grown.
Also…aside from CC (who you knew they were getting anyway…) the other big name guys really didn’t help all that much.
Tex didn’t do anything Casey Kotchman couldn’t do.
And…if one of their homegrown pitchers, CM Wang, was healthy…I think he could have matched or bettered what AJ did.
The thing that really gets me is that you Red Sox fans just point out how the Yanks double your payroll. Like the Red Sox weren’t fully prepared to offer Tex a gigantic contract. Like the Red Sox suddenly are the Rays.
Like before this year, the Red Sox weren’t the team with the highest payroll to ever win a WS
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not going to touch the Red Sox vs Yanks part of this...
But saying that “aside from CC, the other big name guys didn’t help that much” is pushing it a bit…
Think about the ALDS—A-Rod bailed you out a couple times, didn’t he? And if you start looking at the guys who cost “only” $13M, say, Damon or Matsui, you still weren’t exactly being economical. Everybody has their high-priced guys. The thing with the Yankees is the shear number of them.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and down a little bit...
the idea that the Yanks can keep all these guys…really isn’t that the Yanks CAN spend this much…its that the other owners DON’T.
After all…not only did the Yanks TRIM PAYROLL in 2009…the Steinbrenners aren’t even the richest owners.
Everyone can talk about the Yanks payroll all they want…the ones you should be talking to are your own owners (Doesn’t Nintendo own the M’s????)
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that you're missing the point of my post.
I never complained that it wasn’t fair, or that my team didn’t win—I only took issue with getting excited about seeing the Yankees win with the advantages they have.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Seeing Yankees take advantage of the advantages that they have … that’s where the quality of the organization is key.
When CBS owned the team all of those potential advantages were there … and the team sucked.
by d_c_guy on Nov 5, 2009 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Call, Bradshaw --
See the Glass family. They own the Royals.
by Solomon96 on Nov 5, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sour Grapes
Arod’s been a Yankee for awhile and it’s his job to help the team win. He’s supposed to “bail us out”, I would think…
Why is this an issue? You wouldn’t even be here if any of these guys were on your side, regardless of how much they made. They are Yankees, get over it and move on for real. The argument is old and tired and you haven’t made whatever point you’re trying to make.
There are a lot of players on our team that are barely making 1 million. In my world, $500,000 is a hell of a lot of money.
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's your point?
Of course he’s supposed to bail you out. I was simply pointing out that it’s not accurate to say that the Yankees made it through the playoffs without their big-name/big-pay guys.
No idea what your point is about your feelings on $500k, or that several Yanks making $1M…Your team still spent over $100M on seven players NOT including A-Rod.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clueless
Okay, he’s supposed to do that. The team is supposed to hit balls and pitch well. Like seriously…duh! I don’t know how else to put it, but THAT’S WHAT THEY GET PAID TO DO ON ANY TEAM! You don’t win unless people are producing.
Who cares if our team spent alot? At the end of the day, we won, not because the championship was “bought” but because our guys were the best. Let us enjoy our moment. It hasn’t happened in almost a decade.
We take enough crap from people like throughout the course of a season.
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No argument
That is what they’re supposed to do. The only purpose of my post in this subthread was to refute the idea that the Yankees didn’t need their stars to get to the Series.
Yes, you won because your team was the best. I never disputed that.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox certainly have a distinct economic advantage over many, many teams in this league. However, it pales in comparison to your advantages. We would have paid Teixeira almost what you guys did, that is true. But it is the Yankee’s ability to spend those extra few million on every contract that gives them the advantage. That is how you signed Teixeira and that is how you traded for A-Rod when the Sox could not (I’m pretty happy about that one, btw).
The Yanks actually have had some very highly rated pitching prospects in the last few years. And Wang was very productive for a year or two. Of course, I will give credit where it is due; your bullpen was not purchased.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Red Sox Could Be There
But they choose not to spend the same way. NESN is a cash cow for the Henry family – I have a lot of friends who are Red Sox fans who are irate that the cashflow is being used to cover the owner’s underperforming portfolio rather than the team.
And even laying that aside, saying we basically double the Red Sox payments ignores the cool $50 million+ the Sox paid to TALK to Dice-K.
According to cashflow metrics, the most “profitable” teams in baseball include some of the perennial also-rans, including the Nationals (an example I’m most familiar with, living in DC). I argue that a willingness to put all moneys right back into the product IS a hallmark of the quality of the organization, and an awareness that winning creates its own revenue momentum.
by d_c_guy on Nov 5, 2009 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure Henry is not pocketing very much money.
According to the Forbes valuations, the Yankees indeed do routinely lose money. The Red Sox seem to lose money every other year. Steinbrenner is a very, very generous owner. However, he was also just handed free money from the city to build a stadium that has increased the value of his team to $1.5billion.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At some level, that's true.
But the level of quality needed to win with a $200M payroll isn’t that high.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Money Doesn't Buy Championships
Instead of typing out a large essay that no one is going to read on the subject, I will just say this: money doesn’t buy champsionships. It might buy those who can help get a championship but it doesn’t guarantee one, even if you are delusional enough to believe that it does. Blame it on the “salary cap” issue, but Tampa Bay was able to get to the World Series, past both the Yankees and Red Sox last year. Why? It surely wasn’t about the money. It was because they had the talent to do it (even if I believe it was a fluke).
So please, stop wasting your time with that age old cliche. If money bought championships, we’d have more than just 27. ;)
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Never said that money alone bought championships.
It doesn’t. But it provides an absurd advantage. And let’s face it, the only reason that the Rays had what it took to get to the World Series was because of all the talent (they won’t be able to afford to keep) from all the drafts following last-place finishes.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You didn't have to.
Your entire post implied it. I guess the Yankees aren’t a talented team. Let’s forget about the fact that half of their roster comes from THEIR OWN SYSTEM. Let’s ignore the fact that THEIR OPPOSING TEAMS WERE GIVEN PLENTY OF CHANCES TO WIN. No, we only want to focus on one thing when it comes to the Yankees: money. We can’t just accept the fact that the BETTER TEAM won, can we? That would be asking too much and that’s a shame to the men who earned their championship the way any other team does. Sorry, but this wasn’t about money. This team won because they had the talent to win and their opponents failed at the wrong time of the year.
Blame it on money all you want. I will say it again, money doesn’t buy championships.
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you trying to pick a fight?
I’m not saying your team isn’t talented, or that they didn’t deserve to win. Of course they were the better team.
All I’m saying is that they money spent gave a distinct advantage in the level of talent and depth available on their roster vs anybody else in baseball. If you’d care to debate that point, I’m all ears. Again, I’m not saying you didn’t deserve your win, or that you weren’t the best team. Your own insinuations based on what I didn’t say are your own business.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just calling you out on your posts
I can’t help it if you’re not making sense. One minute we “shouldn’t enjoy our team winning” and the next, we “were the better team”. The money spent has very few advantages.
Look at what we’ve been able to accomplish between 2001-2008…nothing.
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're "calling me out" on.
I never said you shouldn’t enjoy your team’s success. I’ve said multiple times now that you had the best team. Of course the money spent had massive advantages—take away the money and you don’t have your world-class shortstop, 3B, ace pitcher, etc etc etc. I assume you don’t mean to imply that you would have won without them.
Finally, your commentary on 2001-2008 reveals a key difference in our opinions: just because you didn’t win the Series doesn’t mean that you didn’t field good teams, which were substantially aided by the money spent to bolster them.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Listen, Rach,
you’re being passive aggressive. Highly cordial, but still picking a fight. You can dress up your “you bought this championship” point however many ways you want to, but you’re still saying the same thing. We disagree.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aaaargh
I was going to go be productive now! So much for that. Oh well. This is too much fun.
If you feel I’m being passive-agressive, then I apologize…but nowhere have I said “you bought the championship” or that you didn’t deserve it, etc. I think the extra payroll gave you a leg up, but I don’t begrudge you the results, nor the pleasure you take from them. Take that for what you will.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
…you totally proved the point of this entire thread (ie. excuses). I won’t even say anything else on the matter because somehow money will eventually come up once again.
You never know what would happen if we had other people. Our team isn’t the only team with a “world class shortstop, 3B or an ace pitcher”, but in your world, clearly we are. I’m glad you think of us as world class, but please, the Yankees are no different than any other team, bar the 27 championships.
by jigglytuffy on Nov 5, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One more time.
You guys fielded the best, world class team, full stop. If you honestly believe that your higher payroll was inconsequential, then cool! We disagree. That’s fine. I feel like I’ve made a reasonable case for why I think it did matter.
Overall though, I’ve already stated that the money spent isn’t the whole picture—and yes, your team came together as a team exceptionally well, and I commend them for it.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your argument is disingenuous
Let’s say for argument’s sake that the Yankees couldn’t come up with the money to keep jeter, or bring Arod, CC, Tex, etc to the team. You’re implying that they would have gone to other teams that would pay them the most money. Thus, you would likely be complaining about those teams too. Or are you suggesting that there should be a salary cap? What makes you think that Jeter would not want to stay b/c of the Yankees “winning tradtion”, or the others would not want to join?
by icevasser on Nov 5, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the thing about this
Yes, the Yankees were hands-down the best team in the league, and as such, they deserved to win the title. However, I have a hard time seeing how you can make the case that winning is such a great accomplishment when the team had such an incredibly large financial advantage over the rest of the league.
..
is that, yea, they were the only ones able to absorb all these players and also retain all their guys from years past, yet…does it really mean that as a whole they’re better than everyone else?
I look at teams like the Cardinals, the Dodgers, the Phillies, Boston, the Angels, Detroit…as a whole, these teams have damn near as many good players as the Yankees, no matter who they are and how much they are paid.
The fact you say you can’t make a case for this WS Win being a big accomplishment has really, really, really pissed me off, yet since you are respectfull I’ll remain the same, just to let you know that talk like that is really infuriating and just flat out wrong/BS.
OF course its a great ccomplishment. The only thing the Yankees spending does is make them contenders. As soon as they make the WS..everything gets thrown out the window.
YOU CAN"T TELL ME…that watchin the Yankees vs. Twins series was such a lopsided 3-0 sweep…because the Yankees were that much more talented cuz of their payroll. That is utter horeshit and I suggest you go and get those games on tape and rewatch them. Aside from teh first game where they were gassed actually trying to get into the playoffs…they had every chance to win those games except for the fact that supposedly one of the better closers in the game, Joe Nathan, failed miserably at closing the game…something that was a theme for every team except the Champs.
So yea..the Yanks have the finacial advantage…and that makes them contenders every year. But the idea that THIS YEAR they won the WS after 9 years (of which was the only time they really tried to outspend anyone…1996-2000 they really didn’t, mostly trades brought that team together).
Of course this is an accomplishment.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First off, I appreciate that you're willing to keep the tone of this discussion friendly :)
Really, it makes talking baseball (with people who root for other teams) much more fun!
1996-2000: I’m not disagreeing with you. They did it right there, and if you look at their rosters, it’s no shocker that they won: they brought up guys like Jeter and Rivera—and heck, they deserve a lot of credit for this! So no, I don’t take anything away from those wins.
I’m afraid that I have to disagree with you beyond this point, though:
You’re absolutely right that the other teams you listed have some fantastic players. With that said, the advantage of a $200M payroll doesn’t stop when you reach the postseason. It still buys you a level of talent and depth that is incredibly hard to match.
Let’s examine your example of the Twins: Their payroll was $65M. How many Yankees does it take to eat up $65M? I believe you can do it with…three. Put another way, the average salary of a Yankees player was 3.5x that of the average Twin. I don’t understand how you can discount these statistics so easily when evaluating that the Yankees were not more talented because of their payroll. Heck, I’d go so far to say that the fact that there was any competition at all in that series is a credit to the Twins!
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
well here...
is the idea that the Yanks have such a big payroll cuz of the FA splurging and taking other team’s players or re-signing their players?
Jeter, MO, Pettite (he left for a little while….went to a WS..and came back) and Posada. Those are all Yankees right there. They overpayed them, yea, but they’re Yanks, they didn’t take them away from anyone else.
No one likes to add A-Rod to this…but the Yanks didn’t pay A-Rod..Texas did. They traded Soriano for him…(after the Red Sox failed trade..but taht would have been OK if they had him….right?—-not directed at you)
The big name FA, right now, are AJ, CC and Tex. If you want to add who’s still there (tho they both may be on their way…), Damon and Matsui.
All 3 of the guys this year got offers from everyone else, and for the most part, the offers were fairly equal save for maybe $5mill (no owner in baseball would sneeze at this BTW…more on that later.). Damon no one wanted cuz of his arm and injury concerns..and they were largely right before this season (that’s why…SEE YA JOHNNY!). Matsui would have went to your Mariners…but he hates Ichiro….
So..each one of these guys, and even in the case of Bernie Williams, teams have damn near snatched these guys away.
I know the rebuttal is…well, the Yanks are the only ones that can afford all these guys. Well…THAT is cuz our owner stops at nothing to put the best team on the field. That sounds more like something people should be angry at their owner for…..cuz the Steinbrenners aren;‘t the richest owners in baseball, I don’t even think they ARE IN THE TOP 5!
All sounds like folks should be looking at who plays in their OWN STADIUM…vs. the one in the Bronx.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't really matter WHY the Yankees have such a big payroll.
The point is that they do. As you said, the Yankees are the only ones who can afford “all those guys.”
Doesn’t really matter to me why you’re paying them what you are; the combination of being able to hold on to whoever you want AND still get the biggest free agents every year is what matters. Nobody else has that kind of spending power. You dropped over $50M on the three guys you listed. And that’s in addition to keeping guys like Rivera, Jeter, Posada, and Damon. All least any of those four earn is 13M/year. So you’ve already hit well over 100M per year with only the seven guys listed so far, without even touching A-Rod! Nobody else in baseball builds a roster like that.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Whoa
Rach, you’re losing me:
It doesn’t really matter WHY the Yankees have such a big payroll.
That’s all that matters. If other teams have the cash and aren’t willing to spend it, or can’t get their organization together to generate the cash, then sorry, I don’t feel sorry for them.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me clarify--
It doesn’t matter whether or not the money comes from resigning talent or shopping the free-agent market.
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the reason WHY the Yankees have so much money...
is cuz they won. They were what they were in 1996 to 2000. That’s how they got all that money.
They didn’t start spending it till 2002…and what did that bring?
NOTHING. Till now.
Spending money is one thing. Again..it just makes you a contender. You want to say that, fine. I personally have no problem with that…
But Winning the WS is NOT cuz you outspend anyone. They’ve proven that 8/9 times this decade. They spend similar money on 2 pitchers and a 1B (Mussina, Kevin Brown, and Giambi). What did that do?
Winning 1/9 when you outspend everyone is to be met with…“eh…that’s what money buys”?
No. Money doesn’t buy championships. Being the the team with the highest payroll doesn’t make it any less of an accomplishment either.
You can buy the groceries…you can buy the best groceries. Yet, even if you buy the best groceries..it can still turn to shit cuz it don’t mix.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 5, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good interactions...
I’m glad I brought up the subject of finances in baseball. Bottom line, the steinbreners have done a fantastic job in building a winning franchise. Not sure what I would have done with all that money.
@b$
by abs2sweet on Nov 5, 2009 4:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
im so happy the yankees won just hope matsui dosent leave us
by andrew29910 on Nov 5, 2009 5:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One could make
the argument that the money the Yanks spend to procure the talent they have (intermixed with homegrown talent and shrewd trades) should ALWAYS guarantee a playoff spot. With the talent we has this year only injuries could’ve derailed us from making the playoffs and we really had no significant ones during the season other than Wang. But winning the WS the way baseball is set up know IS an accomplishment no matter how much you spend. In the playoffs you can’t afford a bad stretch of games and even if talent underforms for about 1 week or so periodically over the season , the length of the season makes it nearly impossible for standout talent to not shine often. But the playoffs require consistently excellent fundamentals (starting with pitching) not undermining talent over a span of about a month. You know what, the Twins and Angels were fundamentally awful against us and that undermined them us much as any talent gap. Bad baserunning, bad fielding, at times bordering on amateurish. You know what, we didn’t do any of those things for the most part. Every pitcher got into the 6th except for Burnett in Game 5 of the WS and our fielding was great. The baserunning was good and so was the fielding. We did not beat ourselves. That takes concentration and focus. We deserved to win because we executed better than any of the teams we played against and we did not put ourselves into a position where unsound fundamentals could determine our fate. As far as our money advantage goes, we don’t have to apologize for the fact that we’ve got resources that allow us to get the best talent on the market. The one thing I found somewhat nausaeting was the new stadium. It’s a shrine to excess and makes our front office seem like elitists. In that sense Levine, Trost and to a lesser extent Cashman have taken away that touch of class we had when Torre was here. I think it’s even easier to hate us now if your other teams’ fans. As a Yanks fan I found the players to be the team’s saving grace. We’ve got too many guys who are good people and genuinely care about their teamates. Rivera, Jeter, Posada, Pettite, Sabathia and many others. Rivera is a player who has transcended his position. His only point of reference is himself. Him and Jeter are the best things that have happened to this franchise in the last twenty years. They make me care, not just about how the Yanks do in satifìsfying me as a fan, but about them as players and human beings. They were not bought and what they bring to a team can’t be measured in dollars and cents. Let the Yankee haters choke on that.
by chambliss76 on Nov 5, 2009 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
One more post, then I'm off to make dinner (on East Coast time, as I'm sure most of you are)
Just to clarify once more—I’m not “hating” on your team, I’m not saying you weren’t the best, that you didn’t deserve to win…I sincerely hope you are enjoying the victory. We clearly have some differences of opinion (how boring would it be if we didn’t!), but one way or the other, it’s been fun discussing this stuff with you…and I appreciate not being automatically labeled “troll” etc. :)
Cheers
-R
by Rachmaninoff on Nov 5, 2009 5:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It's obvious you
were simply pointing out the fact that we’ve got an economic advantage and exploit it. You’re not a troll.
by chambliss76 on Nov 5, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, you are clever
Brilliant and persistent trolls are welcome anytime, Makes the conversation interesting. It is the nitwitted and persistent trolls that are boring.
I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque
by LateInningRelief on Nov 5, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
‘Rach’, you are clearly trying to pick a fight. even if you dress it up as ‘intelligent discourse’, you’re still being antagonistic.
the fact of the matter is the Mets and Red Sox have no reason to complain. the Mets play in the same exact market as the Yanks. the Red Sox have arguably a larger market – they have the entirety of New England (14 million). the Yanks have about half of the NYC area (19 million/2 = 9.5).
the Yankees make a lot and spend a lot. they take advantage of their economic situation, as well they should. an owner that doesn’t try his hardest to win isn’t a good owner. the Yankees can’t be faulted for that and for MLB starting expansion teams in markets that can’t support them.
by Travis G on Nov 5, 2009 11:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure its been said over and over...
the Steinbrenners aren’t the richest owners.
Are the Yanks the most popular team? Well, yea.
But again, sounds like a fan issue. Go support your team, go tell your owner shell out a few bucks.
Spend it.,……and they will come.
DO WHAT JERRY HAIRSTON DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by FreeBradshaw on Nov 6, 2009 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Sox currently have the longest consecutive sellout streak in the history of baseball. They are coming.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right.
The Yankees are not doing anything “wrong.” They are playing by the rules and doing a good job. It is the system that is broken (and yes, I realize the Sox also benefit from this system). The sport needs to do something so that fans of 2/3 of teams do not feel like they are being cheated out of their best players.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like a salary cap
that might bankrupt half the teams? or a luxury tax that gets pocketed by the ‘poor’ owners like Jeff Loria?
by Travis G on Nov 6, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno.
I don’t think a straight salary cap would work. But more revenue sharing with payroll guidelines might make sense.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 9:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

















