January 3, 200521 yr There are no guarantees, especially with the post season being as short as it is. However, the Yanks and the Sox are guaranteed playoff spots because they fork over the money they do. Suddenly their chances of winning the WS are increased tremendously knowing that they will be in the playoffs no matter what. 646652[/snapback] Do you think they fork over that kind of money just to get into the playoffs? These teams who spend that much and don't win the WS, consider the whole season a real wash. Spending money isn't a guarantee of anything. Look at the Mets. 646660[/snapback] You do realize that if you make the playoffs you have a 1/8 chance of winning? Money doesn't guarantee anything, but is sure helps your odds. 646699[/snapback] God forbid a team try to help their odds in the post season.
January 3, 200521 yr There are no guarantees, especially with the post season being as short as it is. However, the Yanks and the Sox are guaranteed playoff spots because they fork over the money they do. Suddenly their chances of winning the WS are increased tremendously knowing that they will be in the playoffs no matter what. 646652[/snapback] Do you think they fork over that kind of money just to get into the playoffs? These teams who spend that much and don't win the WS, consider the whole season a real wash. Spending money isn't a guarantee of anything. Look at the Mets. 646660[/snapback] You do realize that if you make the playoffs you have a 1/8 chance of winning? Money doesn't guarantee anything, but is sure helps your odds. 646699[/snapback] God forbid a team try to help their odds in the post season. 646748[/snapback] :lol Exactly
January 3, 200521 yr There are no guarantees, especially with the post season being as short as it is. However, the Yanks and the Sox are guaranteed playoff spots because they fork over the money they do. Suddenly their chances of winning the WS are increased tremendously knowing that they will be in the playoffs no matter what. 646652[/snapback] Do you think they fork over that kind of money just to get into the playoffs? These teams who spend that much and don't win the WS, consider the whole season a real wash. Spending money isn't a guarantee of anything. Look at the Mets. 646660[/snapback] You do realize that if you make the playoffs you have a 1/8 chance of winning? Money doesn't guarantee anything, but is sure helps your odds. 646699[/snapback] God forbid a team try to help their odds in the post season. 646748[/snapback] :lol Exactly 646765[/snapback] Very righteous...by any means necessary huh? These teams are making for a very unbalanced playing field in baseball and exposing the the economic landscape of baseball for the worse. You can fool yourself into thinking that the issue is as simple as a team trying to better themselves inside some vaccum, but that's not how baseball operates. When the Yanks bully other teams into trades or take their top tier talent because they have unparalleled revenue that no team can ever dream to match...then yes something needs to be done. It's unfair, it's exploitation. God forbid we curb the maniac spending of a few teams in the interest of the majority of the teams in baseball...
January 3, 200521 yr So should companies like Microsoft give money to Apple because they can't keep up or make as much money? Should McDonalds fork over money to Moe's hot dog stand because it cant compete? Baseball is a buisness. Some teams are just better at it than others.
January 3, 200521 yr The only period of time in the history of baseball when there was more parity was the 1980s and the war years. What idealic period could the hapless Mets and the bargain freak show known as the Devil Rays compete? Is this the same period that allows a team that earns scant ballpark revenues to win over 250 games and a World Series in 3 years? As it stands now there are very few disparities in the capabilities of division rivals to outspend eachother, and in those cases they are the extreme (such as NYY-BOS-BAL and TOR-TB). The small market teams are in located in the central divisions, with the only team (the Cubs) capable of outspending their competitors often refusing to do so. Everyone else, save maybe the Marlins and former Montreal Expos which is being addressed by MLB, the Marlins and the Braves' new owners, must compete with teams with similar spending habits. There is competitive balance in 5 of the 6 division races. And the two wild card races which is open to all teams from all different divisions and payroll tier, gives more favor to teams in weaker divisions (i.e. the small market divisions) with the unbalanced schedule. In effect this is not a trend, it's anomaly. No matter how often Yankee-haters, Red Sox haters (hello) or small market/revenue fans complain.
January 4, 200521 yr So should companies like Microsoft give money to Apple because they can't keep up or make as much money? Should McDonalds fork over money to Moe's hot dog stand because it cant compete? Baseball is a buisness. Some teams are just better at it than others. 646978[/snapback] What? In the real world there are laws that prevent this type of exploitation from laws governing monopolies, governing price discrimination, undercutting small fringe businesses... These laws exist to allow small businesses to compete, there needs to be some sort of equivalent in baseball. The whole 'baseball is a business...some teams are better than others' doesn't hold any water. Do you think that the markets for teams are the same? Do you think that the NY market is the same as that of San Diego or Toronto? How about history, how does a team with little history market itself like the Sox and Yanks do in that capacity? You think the Sox or Yanks front office would generate that much revenue in Miami? It has little to do with being shrewd business people.
January 4, 200521 yr Instead of flattering yourself by thinking you can explain a situation by formulating your theories with little other than a gut-instinct, just look at the facts they'll save you energy. The Cubs are anything but small market/revenue, they spent 90 million last year and will spend close to 100 million this year. They can and do spend. The Cards were at 83 million. How about the Reds? Pirates? Brewers? The Stros are mid-range at 75 million. In the NL West, the Dbacks, Rockies, and Padres all had payrolls less than 70 million. Giants and Dodgers both over 80 million In the AL West, the Rangers, the A's, had payrolls less than 60 million. Mariners and Angels over 80 million. In the NL East, Fish and Spos had payrolls (onfield) less than 45 million, the Phillies, Braves and Mets all had payrolls over 90 million. 6 of the 8 teams that made the playoffs were in the top 9 in payroll. The Stros had a 75 million payroll and the Twins benefactors of the weakest division in baseball got into the playoffs with a 54 million payroll. The Cubs and Giants, both in the top 10 in payroll were in the WC hunt until the very end. I've already looked into this and if you want I'd be more than happy to send you some of data I've gathered, if you divide the teams into quartiles you will notice that there has been a trend toward small market teams struggling. The Marlins were a fluke, they aren't positive evidence for anything. They couldn't sustain a championship caliber team because of the existing conditions in baseball. They won because many of their players were undervalued because of their age...Cabrera, Willis, Beckett were a huge boost for the team down the stretch for how much? It was a fluke that there best young players and prospects developed at the same time as they did. Only two teams have been a consistent force despite the payroll restrictions, the Twins and the A's. The Twins are in the worst division in baseball which is almost (and unsurprisingly) the 'poorest' division in baseball. They were the best of the worst so to speak. Your theory that the concentration of small market teams in this division gives them a good chance at winning the WC is a good theory but it's wrong. When was the last time two teams from the Central made it to the playoffs? NEVER, since the 6 divisions were created. The fact that they haven't should lead one to take an intelligent step forward and deduce that either one of two conditions prevail: 1) The AL East AL West isn't nearly as competitive as one would think (financially speaking) In the East, for example The Orioles and the Jays both had payrolls of 50 million last year and the D-Rays had one of 30 million. That's 60 percent of the division. Just because the O's spent alot the previous offseason doesn't put them in the same category, there are players outside those acquired that offseason that put on the Baltimore uniform and they don't compare with those on the Sox and Yanks. 2) Even if the AL East were as competitive as you'd make it out to be, then the fact that there hasn't been a WC winner from the Central means that the playing in the Central just isn't enough. That is how bad the situation may very well be. Don't try arguing against facts, use them to generate your theories. As far as the A's, they lucked out. The Big 3 is finally dismantled, because of financial inflexibility. Everyone wants to praise Beane for the great job in drafting them but what happened to the offense? The only meaningful hitter that has been brought up through the organization in years was Crosby and that was just last year. Beane lucked out with the Big 3 that they hit their peaks together and they panned out especially when Hudson was a 6th rounder or so. What have the A's done to stay afloat the last few seasons? Just hold on to the Big 3, their offense has gotten steadily worse for the last 5 seasons because Beane hasn't been able to reload. It isn't because he is any bit less shrewd, he just hasn't gotten as lucky. What will happen to the A's next season? Same as this year, no playoffs.
January 4, 200521 yr You credit all these things to luck, when in fact, why couldnt they have been the plan of the team? Why does it matter how they won, they did win, and that is what should matter. The Marlins have 2 rings in 11 years, that has to be the best percentage other than the Yankees in that span. So they are in more than a fluke in my book when a team with a high payroll is 1 for the last 86 in the championship hunt. The Twins, Blue Jays, and Reds all have rings in the past 14 years in addition to the Marlins. The only large market or high payroll teams to win in that span are the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, and Diamondbacks. Pretty even. So obviously, payroll doesnt guarantee world series rings. You dont mention the other low budget teams that were in the hunt this year. The Brewers, Rangers, and Padres were all in the hunt at one point in the year. I think it is almost criminal what the owners of the Reds, Brewers, and A's are doing. All three have rich history and some great fans. The Reds for example have some of the most faithful fans around. They have had some of the best teams in baseball history, yet their owner now pays back the fans with a god awful baseball stadium (generic, no character, nothing special to it) and a pitiful payroll. So who's fault is this? Are the Yankees or Red Sox holding the owners hands down so they wont spend? Is it their faul the stingy owners who are basically crooks? The bigger markets choking out the smaller markets is a load of bulls***. Miami is a huge market. Dallas is a huge market. Tampa is a huge market. Yet these teams have low payrolls. Anaheim isnt. But yet, they have a huge payroll. So that point is moot. You bring up the argument that the players that they signed are not as good as those on the Red Sox or Yankees. Miguel Tejada is the top shortstop in the AL Carlos Delgado, the top 1B, so again, that is a dumb argument. David Ortiz makes alot less then most players who put up lesser numbers than he did last season. Now whose fault is that? You obviously favor a structured cap much like the NFL. So in essence you would like a very water down league where in any given year, a team has the chance to make the playoffs. The NFL was pitiful this year with the majority of the playoff teams very average and in previous years would not be above .500. When .500 teams make the playoffs, there is obviously something very wrong with parity. It is ugly to watch. Parity and a cap takes away the chance for a player to play on his team for his career or to build up a team and have it successful for many years. Teams in the NFL get 3 years tops to be dominant, and then they must rebuild. The NFL is slowly becoming very average. The Yankees and Red Sox play within the rules. They give back to their fans year in and year out with quality on the field and more wins than losses. Dont condem an owner who wants to win.
January 4, 200521 yr ESPN's Buster Olney (sp?) on SC said that the Yankees FO is split on whether to spend any more significant amounts of money. They owe 174M to 4 players over 2 years. He said that sources of his say they MAY have reached there limit for spending any more money. HE also said they would only jump into the Beltran sweepstakes if the Mets have a significant chance of signing him, because Satan has a hate for the Mets winning. Take it for what it's worth. I'm still not convinced. Has the Empire reached their spending limit? We shall see.
January 4, 200521 yr Giambi was a f***ing waste. All he has done basically is had the big homers in last year's ALCS. Randy is an injury away from it being over. And no beltran or Beltran for the Mets, they still will suck.
January 4, 200521 yr Excuse me for not using actual payroll figures to estimate the potential amount these teams can spend. They are about as dependable of a source as the Braves' financial report to MLB's revenue sharing office. I'll trust my roughly projections based on the age of the ballpark and size and wealth of their market over what Peter Angelos or two-dozen others are willing to spend. The NL West should be very competitive with the smaller cities having new *free* ballparks and the larger towns substantial debt payments. The same in the AL Central where every team is either a small market or small revenue club. There's no reason the Texas Rangers should not be able produce the same amount of revenue than the Angels. Dallas-Fort Worth is a huge market with enough disposable income and a ballpark 30 years newer than the Angels. Now leaving just two divisions where more than one team is put at a disadvantage (and Oakland and the Marlins haven't done too badly for themselves now). NL Central, yep, the Cubs and Astros and Cardinals do spend money. For a long time the Cubs spent very little compared to their annual revenues. Much like the Reds and Pirates. With the Tribune Company having no reason to sell the team and the Cardinals taking on 60% of the costs of their new stadium their, the playing field should level itself out. And I don't know if you've noticed, but the NL Central has been the most competitive division from top to bottom in recent years. We're stuck with the big three of the AL East shutting out the chances of Toronto and a team whose front office hires former superstars and hometown heroes well past their prime and social misfits. Big deal.
January 4, 200521 yr You credit all these things to luck, when in fact, why couldnt they have been the plan of the team? Why does it matter how they won, they did win, and that is what should matter. The Marlins have 2 rings in 11 years, that has to be the best percentage other than the Yankees in that span. So they are in more than a fluke in my book when a team with a high payroll is 1 for the last 86 in the championship hunt. The Twins, Blue Jays, and Reds all have rings in the past 14 years in addition to the Marlins. The only large market or high payroll teams to win in that span are the Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, and Diamondbacks. Pretty even. So obviously, payroll doesnt guarantee world series rings. You dont mention the other low budget teams that were in the hunt this year. The Brewers, Rangers, and Padres were all in the hunt at one point in the year. I think it is almost criminal what the owners of the Reds, Brewers, and A's are doing. All three have rich history and some great fans. The Reds for example have some of the most faithful fans around. They have had some of the best teams in baseball history, yet their owner now pays back the fans with a god awful baseball stadium (generic, no character, nothing special to it) and a pitiful payroll. So who's fault is this? Are the Yankees or Red Sox holding the owners hands down so they wont spend? Is it their faul the stingy owners who are basically crooks? The bigger markets choking out the smaller markets is a load of bulls***. Miami is a huge market. Dallas is a huge market. Tampa is a huge market. Yet these teams have low payrolls. Anaheim isnt. But yet, they have a huge payroll. So that point is moot. You bring up the argument that the players that they signed are not as good as those on the Red Sox or Yankees. Miguel Tejada is the top shortstop in the AL Carlos Delgado, the top 1B, so again, that is a dumb argument. David Ortiz makes alot less then most players who put up lesser numbers than he did last season. Now whose fault is that? You obviously favor a structured cap much like the NFL. So in essence you would like a very water down league where in any given year, a team has the chance to make the playoffs. The NFL was pitiful this year with the majority of the playoff teams very average and in previous years would not be above .500. When .500 teams make the playoffs, there is obviously something very wrong with parity. It is ugly to watch. Parity and a cap takes away the chance for a player to play on his team for his career or to build up a team and have it successful for many years. Teams in the NFL get 3 years tops to be dominant, and then they must rebuild. The NFL is slowly becoming very average. The Yankees and Red Sox play within the rules. They give back to their fans year in and year out with quality on the field and more wins than losses. Dont condem an owner who wants to win. 647112[/snapback] 1) How did the Marlins do outside their WS rings? The 1997 Championship was less of a fluke because entering the season we were one of the better teams, our talent was guaranteed and we had realistic expectations of going places in the postseason. The 2003 Championship is completely different, we benefitted alot because of undervalued contracts to alot of our young players. Cabrera, Willis, and Beckett seemingly all tapped their potential just when we needed them to. No one, not any expert, not the team itself could have realistically seen this team as one of the elites before the season started 2) About the cap, first I never mentioned a model like the NFL. I think there needs to be something done about free agent spending, I don't care if the Sox want to ridiculously overpay for Tek or the Yanks for Jeter, the effects on the competitive market are more subtle and well not all that important. What is most important is just the exploitation of other teams because these teams come from big markets (in the general sense of money-making...the Yanks market isn't just in NY for instance). Secondly, I wouldn't be too opposed to a cap. However, it shouldn't be so high as to dissuade competition. You honestly think that a cap at 95 million for last season would have really diluted the competition? Only 4 teams exceeded that amount. Sure there would still be some imbalance, but I agree that some teams just aren't putting in enough and shouldn't be rewarded for their actions. But the Yanks and Sox have gotten way out of control. The average payroll was about 70 million, I think MLB should encourage owners to spend money so I wouldn't support a cap that restricted that too much. 3) As far as Miami being a big market. Miami as a city isn't big, secondly who the hell cares? Do you honestly think that the Sox make most of their money because of Fenway? You do realize they have a TV deal with NESN, they have a very marketable history and a huge international fanbase that they have been cultivating for 10 times longer than the Fish have been around? MLB team markest aren't restricted to the fans that show up at their game, that isn't even the chief source of revenue for teams like the Sox and the Yanks... 4) As far as Miguel Tejada, READ BEFORE YOU POST. I said that even though it appeared that the O's were a free-spending team, fact is that their payroll was only 50 million last year and I said that you have to look at all the players not just those that are signed and the rest of those players aren't for the most part up to par with those on the Sox and Yanks. Tejada was a free agent acquisition. Read before post. As far as Delgado, so what? How about at SS? 3B? DH? SP? Closer? CF? RF? LF? 2B? C?.... he's an exception to the rule not the norm. 5) One of the worst arguments anyone can make is that small-market teams have won a WS in recent years...so what? There are alot more lower-revenue teams than higher ones so obviously there are going to be some that win on occassion, but can you tell me which one is favored to win it all any year? Sucess is defined in terms of consistency, no small market team has been consistently successful apart from the Twins and the A's and you can reread my previous post as to why that's so and if they can hope to continue that. 6) As far as stingy owners this and that, don't be an idiot. No one is arguing for a cap around 70 or 75 million so no one is arguing that we defend those owners. No one is encouraging that some owners continue hoarding their dough. We need a compromise is all. 2 or 3 teams are exploiting the current situation. Are you going to tell me that the rest of those teams have owners all of which are crooks? It's not the Sox or the Yanks fault. It's baseball's fault, they are just exploiting a weakness in the system. You speak as if you are on a moral crusade but you are defending notably 2 teams exploiting a market of 30 teams and you try to lump the rest of the league as thrifty. There are alot of owners (more than 2) that aren't crooks that just can't keep up with the ludicrous spending of some teams. 7) You think I want to condemn owners that want to win, as I said earlier that isn't true. You just need a compromise. A limit on free agent spending, a not so restrictive salary cap...as it stands right now things are far from balanced. 8) As far as payroll not equaling rings, that's true...there is no guarantee. But just think for a slight moment, their chances of getting into the playoffs are greatly enhanced and once you are there you have a 1/8 chance of winning, sure beats 1/30 and for the Sox and Yanks their payrolls have made it such that they are guaranteed to make it to the playoffs.
January 4, 200521 yr pwned 647125[/snapback] Then there are those that have the mental age of a 12 year old...
January 4, 200521 yr 5) One of the worst arguments anyone can make is that small-market teams have won a WS in recent years...so what? There are alot more lower-revenue teams than higher ones so obviously there are going to be some that win on occassion, but can you tell me which one is favored to win it all any year? 647385[/snapback] This is a very legit argument. If one or two teams win it, then it's a fluke. But "favorites" are good if you're a fantasy league team and means nothing in the real world. Arizona, Anaheim & Florida have won the WS 3 of the last 5 years and in the years where they didn't win, there were still small market clubs in contention in the playoffs. This proves that you can be small market and still win. Bottom line, you're jealous of the Yankees/Sox/Orioles/Angels spending, wish your team could do the same, and so take it out by saying it's un-fair. Yet you don't complain when the Marlins payroll went up this off-season. It's just jealousy.
January 4, 200521 yr pwned 647125[/snapback] Then there are those that have the mental age of a 12 year old... 647388[/snapback] That's what I get for saying my first ever "pwned" You're a tool.
January 4, 200521 yr 5) One of the worst arguments anyone can make is that small-market teams have won a WS in recent years...so what? There are alot more lower-revenue teams than higher ones so obviously there are going to be some that win on occassion, but can you tell me which one is favored to win it all any year? 647385[/snapback] This is a very legit argument. If one or two teams win it, then it's a fluke. But "favorites" are good if you're a fantasy league team and means nothing in the real world. Arizona, Anaheim & Florida have won the WS 3 of the last 5 years and in the years where they didn't win, there were still small market clubs in contention in the playoffs. This proves that you can be small market and still win. Bottom line, you're jealous of the Yankees/Sox/Orioles/Angels spending, wish your team could do the same, and so take it out by saying it's un-fair. Yet you don't complain when the Marlins payroll went up this off-season. It's just jealousy. 647396[/snapback] Think just for a split second...think this out just a little.... If you want to contend that Arizona, Anaheim and Florida winning the WS is proof that small market teams can win...then why didn't any of them repeat? What happened with the Angels? What happened with the Fish? Where's Arizona right now? When you have a total of 30 teams, and a small fraction of higher revenue teams (perhaps 3 or so), how can small market teams as a conglomerate not win on ocassion? You're making a stupid argument. For any given small market team they have less of a shot than the Sox or Yanks because of their payroll limitations. When you have a playoff structure that allows for 'anything' to happen because of the nature of the short series then yes small-market teams can win in the postseason. Perhaps the Pirates, the D-Rays, the Marlins, the A's, the Indians as a whole have as good a chance as the Yankees and this is actually what you are arguing whether or not you know that...but that isn't fair. You're telling me the Pirates can win next year because the Marlins won it in 2003? Look at it on a team by team basis...the Yanks have a better shot at making the playoffs and at winning the WS, than any small market team, HOWEVER all of them combined might stand a chance but who the hell is rooting for a conglomerate of 70 million or less payroll teams? Lastly who the hell is jealous of the Orioles? It's not jealousy, I'm a baseball fan and this is bad for baseball
January 4, 200521 yr pwned 647125[/snapback] Then there are those that have the mental age of a 12 year old... 647388[/snapback] That's what I get for saying my first ever "pwned" You're a tool. 647405[/snapback] Oh you were just experimenting with looking like a 12 year old... That changes everything, get lost. If you want to argue something then argue it, present facts or even some coherent opinion if not I'm sure you could start some moronic rambling in the outfield forum...
January 4, 200521 yr pwned 647125[/snapback] Then there are those that have the mental age of a 12 year old... 647388[/snapback] That's what I get for saying my first ever "pwned" You're a tool. 647405[/snapback] Oh you were just experimenting with looking like a 12 year old... That changes everything, get lost. If you want to argue something then argue it, present facts or even some coherent opinion if not I'm sure you could start some moronic rambling in the outfield forum... 647504[/snapback] How is it bad for baseball? If the Yankees sucked, it would hurt MLB as a whole if they were not in contention. It also helps MLB to have their largest market a top team. Where is A-Rod better marketed? Dallas or NY? And stop acting like you are a mental god to everyone and we are simply inferior to you because we dont have the same view point. This place is a message board with a whole range of users. Im sorry that there isnt a MIT forum, but that doesnt mean you have to trash people because they enjoy themselves on here. If DW22 left this board, alot of people would care. If you left, it would be "thank god that scrooge is out of here". Clown.
January 5, 200521 yr pwned 647125[/snapback] Then there are those that have the mental age of a 12 year old... 647388[/snapback] That's what I get for saying my first ever "pwned" You're a tool. 647405[/snapback] Oh you were just experimenting with looking like a 12 year old... That changes everything, get lost. If you want to argue something then argue it, present facts or even some coherent opinion if not I'm sure you could start some moronic rambling in the outfield forum... 647504[/snapback] How is it bad for baseball? If the Yankees sucked, it would hurt MLB as a whole if they were not in contention. It also helps MLB to have their largest market a top team. Where is A-Rod better marketed? Dallas or NY? And stop acting like you are a mental god to everyone and we are simply inferior to you because we dont have the same view point. This place is a message board with a whole range of users. Im sorry that there isnt a MIT forum, but that doesnt mean you have to trash people because they enjoy themselves on here. If DW22 left this board, alot of people would care. If you left, it would be "thank god that scrooge is out of here". Clown. 647553[/snapback] So now you have to defend DW22? I'm not acting like a mental god idiot, and if you realized never in any of the rebuttals I aimed at you did I even insult you but you must hold yourself to lower standards...probably deservingly so I'll meet you there. Anyhow, I'll be an ass all the same to someone that tells me I got 'pwned' without inserting so much as a word, a stat, or an opinion on the subject matter. As far as the Yankee sucking what BS is that? I never said they had to suck, they would have to observe some business ethics is all if baseball had the balls enough to push them forth. If the Yanks would suck year in and year out because their payroll could no longer be nearly twice as much as the third highest payroll team, I don't think that warrants any sympathy.
January 5, 200521 yr Think just for a split second...think this out just a little.... If you want to contend that Arizona, Anaheim and Florida winning the WS is proof that small market teams can win...then why didn't any of them repeat? What happened with the Angels? What happened with the Fish? Where's Arizona right now? When you have a total of 30 teams, and a small fraction of higher revenue teams (perhaps 3 or so), how can small market teams as a conglomerate not win on ocassion? You're making a stupid argument. For any given small market team they have less of a shot than the Sox or Yanks because of their payroll limitations. When you have a playoff structure that allows for 'anything' to happen because of the nature of the short series then yes small-market teams can win in the postseason. Perhaps the Pirates, the D-Rays, the Marlins, the A's, the Indians as a whole have as good a chance as the Yankees and this is actually what you are arguing whether or not you know that...but that isn't fair. You're telling me the Pirates can win next year because the Marlins won it in 2003? Look at it on a team by team basis...the Yanks have a better shot at making the playoffs and at winning the WS, than any small market team, HOWEVER all of them combined might stand a chance but who the hell is rooting for a conglomerate of 70 million or less payroll teams? Lastly who the hell is jealous of the Orioles? It's not jealousy, I'm a baseball fan and this is bad for baseball 647502[/snapback] Why dont these teams repeat? Because of injury & free agency. Arizona sold off their team after 2001, Angels had some key injuries (Glaus, Percival, et al), Florida lost Pudge and suffered injuries (dont need to explain that to you). Arizona had a chance to repeat if they didn't sell off the team. If you continue to stay competitive, you have a good chance of winning. Pittsburgh is a terrible example because they trade away their best players every season, such as Aramis Ramirez & Kris Benson. Teams like Minnesota or Oakland are always in the playoff hunt because they make savvy moves to keep their team afloat. Barring injury, the past few WS victors could have repeated.
January 5, 200521 yr As much as I hate to let the facts get in the way of a really good rant, here's the skinny: According to The Sporting News guide, in 1977 the New York Yankees had a payroll of $3,474,325 out of a total league payroll of $23,854,375. This was 14.56% of the total league payroll. According to the Associated Press, in 2003 the New York Yankees had a payroll of $149,710,995 out of a total league payroll of $952,938,250. This was 15.71% of the total league payroll. In both years, the Yankees were in the World Series and in the middle of a dynasty. It seems as if the Yankees aren?t spending more for players on a percentage basis of league payroll now then they were in 1977. During the past 27 years, Major league Baseball has changed a great deal. Teams have been added, historic records have been broken, and there have been bitter labor stoppages. During this time, there has been one constant. No matter how good or bad they maybe, the New York Yankees will have a high payroll that is substantially above the league average. If it wasn?t ruinous for baseball in 1977, there is no reason to believe that it will be ruinous for baseball in 2004 and beyond. While having a large bankroll is nice to have, it is no guarantee of success on the field. Source Point is, the Yankees aren't the only ones spending more money. Their rising payroll is indicative of massive salary inflation across the board thanks to guys like Scott Boras. IMHO, the Yankees built their dynasty through developing their own talent [bernie, Jeter, Mo, Posada, Pettitte, et all], keeping them, and making smart trades [Tino, Paulie, Girardi...]. The "hired gun" philosophy is a throw-back to the Yanks of the 80's [balboni, Barfield, Winfield, and on and on] who never won squat. You Yankee-haters should all be happy that the Yanks are spending so much, it is only destroying our farm system, chemistry, and organization.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.