MLB 2009 Playoffs Catch-All

FSeven wrote:

And I'm just curious how the the guys who built the Yankees into a $1.5 billion empire and won 4 championships in 5 years from 96-2000 suddenly became dumb.

This is what really gets me. I believe I am correct in saying you are a Yankee's fan, right? It is nice to see a Yankee's fan who really understands the problem with the Yankees. I am a bit of a Yankee hater, but it really has more to do with my love of baseball. I hated the Yankee teams of the mid-to-late '90's, but because they were so good, and just won games. Then they got greedy and decided that every team ini baseball was a part of their minor league system.

They forgot why they were winning. Those teams they had were full of good players who could play roles. Not just a roster full of superstars who put up stats. Just about every team who has won a championship in the past 10 years has had that one undersized scrappy player whose effort seems to elevate the team (see David Eckstein or Craig Counsell).

What kills me now is that they just outbid every team for every player, which just kills the smaller market teams. I know they have the money, and it is theirs to spend, but I still wish they could understand that more money doesn't equal better teams.

But this is all coming from a fan whose team has the lowest payroll...

Psych wrote:
FSeven wrote:

And I'm just curious how the the guys who built the Yankees into a $1.5 billion empire and won 4 championships in 5 years from 96-2000 suddenly became dumb.

This is what really gets me. I believe I am correct in saying you are a Yankee's fan, right? It is nice to see a Yankee's fan who really understands the problem with the Yankees. I am a bit of a Yankee hater, but it really has more to do with my love of baseball. I hated the Yankee teams of the mid-to-late '90's, but because they were so good, and just won games. Then they got greedy and decided that every team ini baseball was a part of their minor league system.

They forgot why they were winning. Those teams they had were full of good players who could play roles. Not just a roster full of superstars who put up stats. Just about every team who has won a championship in the past 10 years has had that one undersized scrappy player whose effort seems to elevate the team (see David Eckstein or Craig Counsell).

What kills me now is that they just outbid every team for every player, which just kills the smaller market teams. I know they have the money, and it is theirs to spend, but I still wish they could understand that more money doesn't equal better teams.

But this is all coming from a fan whose team has the lowest payroll...

They do understand that. The fans understand that. But the Yankees are in a predicament.

Due to the late 90's success, Yankees fans came to expect a World Series every year. After 2000, the players from the championship teams began to leave or retire (Paul O'Neill, David Cone, David Justice, Bernie Williams, Tino Martinez, etc.) and the Yankees needed to figure out a way to win NOW. Guys like Jeter and Rivera and Posada weren't superstars overnight. They took time to develop. So because Yankee fans got used to winning, they couldn't wait until tomorrow anymore so management sacrificed winning tomorrow by developing players in favor of the possibility of winning today by signing already established superstars. What resulted is a mess. Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, etc. Guys who are winners according to the back of their baseball cards but woefully underperformed after coming to the Yankees.

Since 2005 though, the Yankees have began rebuilding their farm system. Management is finally beginning to realize that signing superstars is not the solution. Granted they went and bought Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixeira this winter, but that was mainly because the team was pretty decent last year with the exception of a few major weaknesses. What were those weaknesses? Starting pitching and first base. They addressed their weaknesses but the guys they signed have underperformed so far. Burnett was the best pitcher on the staff until he gave Varitek a meatball down the middle of the plate. The Yankees do not have a MLB ready first baseman in their system which is why they signed Teixeira. Remember: the Yankees had the chance to get Johan Santana 2 years ago but decided to skip on Santana in favor of giving their top minor league prospects a chance (Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, etc.) but their performance showed they weren't quite ready for MLB yet. Which is why they went and signed Sabathia and Burnett.

The Yankees shaved 20 million off their payroll from last year. After this year, the contracts of Damon, Matsui, Nady, Pettite, Wang, and Molina expire. I think you'll see the Yankees reduce payroll even more next year with the promotion of some top minor league prospects including one of the best prospects in all of the minors, CF Austin Jackson. I also think you'll see Hughes and possibly Kennedy get promoted so that next year, the Yankees rotation will be Sabathia, Burnett, Wang, Hughes, Kennedy or Coke.

So who gets the blame?

Us fans for pressuring the team to win every year no matter the cost and using our wallets to influence? Well what fan doesn't want to win? What fan enjoys seeing their team in last place? What fan would spend money to go see a last place team? There's a reason why the Yankees virtually sell out every game and teams like the Nationals struggle to get 10,000 in the park. After all, baseball is a business, and any smart owner will do whatever makes him the most money. Steinbrenner bought the Yankees in 1973 for $10 million. The team is now worth $1.5 billion.

Does the team get the blame? For listening to the fans demands to win now? For spending money to try to achieve that goal instead of dealing with a few losing seasons while they try to develop farm system talent and risking people not buying tickets and merchandise? The Yankees already tried that during the 80's and early 90's. I tell you what, there weren't many other people in the stands when the Yankees were losing season after season and the only reason I was showing up was to see Mattingly, Guidry, Randolph, Henderson, and Winfield. The Yankees couldn't have been very profitable then. They just got lucky that everything came together in the late 90's when Jeter, Pettite, Rivera, Posada, all hit the big leagues at the same time. But what are the chances of that happening again?

You show me a non-Yankee fan whose team suddenly starts making $750 million a year in profits that wouldn't want their team to go out and get the best players available in free agency with all of that money, and I'll show you a liar.

Due to the late 90's success, Yankees fans came to expect a World Series every year.

Yankee fans are so cute.

FSeven wrote:

Many things...

I would kill to have my team's payroll up to even 70 million. The talent the Marlins have gotten rid of over they past 10 years sometimes kills me inside. But they have also done a great job getting excellent talent in return (see Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell).

I also agree that their success pressured them to continue winning, but I wish they hadn't done it at the expense of their farm system. They have built it back up over the past few years, but it was depleted on players that got them very little in return. Part of me thinks that ole' George just went a little crazy in the past few years, I wish someone in the organization would have made a stand and said that perhaps we should allow they talent we have and are growing guide us to a championship, instead of thinking we always have to look elsewhere.

But the players they did hang on too have done a decent job, like Cano and Cabrera.

Psych wrote:

I would kill to have my team's payroll up to even 70 million. The talent the Marlins have gotten rid of over they past 10 years sometimes kills me inside. But they have also done a great job getting excellent talent in return (see Hanley Ramirez and Anibal Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell).

No kiddin'. Beckett, Lowell, Burnett, Derek Lee, Cabrera. I still shudder when I think of the 03 Marlins pitchers of Beckett, Burnett, Looper, Pavano, Penny, Urbina, and D-Train. The Marlins' scouts are inhuman in their ability to identify true talent.

Psych wrote:

I also agree that their success pressured them to continue winning, but I wish they hadn't done it at the expense of their farm system. They have built it back up over the past few years, but it was depleted on players that got them very little in return. Part of me thinks that ole' George just went a little crazy in the past few years, I wish someone in the organization would have made a stand and said that perhaps we should allow they talent we have and are growing guide us to a championship, instead of thinking we always have to look elsewhere.

Tell me about it. The Yankees have traded away some big talent. Cristian Guzman, Lowell (they traded Lowell for Ed Yarnell...ED YARNELL!!!), Juan Rivera, Dioner Navarro, Jake Westbrook, and they gave up 3 decent pitchers and a HUGE prospect in Jose Tabata for Xavier Nady.

Things are weird in Yankeeland now. With George going through health problems, he is absent from the media and day to day operations. To go from the old George who was involved in everything to his two kids who you don't hear a peep from is weird.

I fully expect things to turn around for the Yankees this year, right around the time of ARods return, but if anything less than the ALCS is the result, expect Brian Cashman and Girardi's necks to be on the chopping block.

I think if I get bored sometime soon I might just go through and figure out what the Marlin's roster could be if they didn't have the financial crutch.

Also, one thing I forgot to say about trades. No matter how upset you might be at your Yanks, just be glad you aren't the Mets. I will never let my one Met fan friend forget the Scott Kazmir - David Price for Victor Zambrano trade. I hope that stings forever.

So Steinbrenner would have been succesful "investing in the team" in Kansas City or Montreal?

Nope.

He could have pulled that off in NY, maybe Boston, maybe LA or Chicago. And the small market teams would still have to suck it.

Nope, big money and no salary cap is a blight on baseball, period. And for now, and for the last few decades, Steinbrenner and his snotty kids have been the poster boys, the worst symptoms of a bad disease. Maybe someday it'll be John Henry or somebody else, but for now George and his kids hold the throne as baseball's biggest assholes.

SwampYankee wrote:

So Steinbrenner would have been succesful "investing in the team" in Kansas City or Montreal?

Nope.

He could have pulled that off in NY, maybe Boston, maybe LA or Chicago. And the small market teams would still have to suck it.

Nope, big money and no salary cap is a blight on baseball, period. And for now, and for the last few decades, Steinbrenner and his snotty kids have been the poster boys, the worst symptoms of a bad disease. Maybe someday it'll be John Henry or somebody else, but for now George and his kids hold the throne as baseball's biggest assholes.

And that's why it is fun watching them struggle. Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's. No, it's now considered the burden they have to bear. They just have "higher standards" than the rest of us fans of lesser franchises.

There is not a one thing I admire about the current Yankee franchise. I wanted to see a game at Yankee Stadium, but they don't even have that anymore. The one time I was in New York during baseball season my family opted for Mets tickets because the cardinals were in town. I wish I had not missed my opportunity to see a game in The House That Ruth Built. Now I hve zero reason to spend any money on that franchise.

Well, we did make it to Fenway Park on that trip, so it was not a total loss.

So yeah, the Yankees get my blood flowing. And for now, it's just fun to see them tank. We'll see how long that lasts.

SwampYankee wrote:

So Steinbrenner would have been succesful "investing in the team" in Kansas City or Montreal?

Nope.

He could have pulled that off in NY, maybe Boston, maybe LA or Chicago. And the small market teams would still have to suck it.

Nope, big money and no salary cap is a blight on baseball, period. And for now, and for the last few decades, Steinbrenner and his snotty kids have been the poster boys, the worst symptoms of a bad disease. Maybe someday it'll be John Henry or somebody else, but for now George and his kids hold the throne as baseball's biggest assholes.

I find it hard to believe that if KC strung together 4 championships in 5 years, that they wouldn't be making money hand over fist and be expected to use some of that profit to increase payroll and land some superstars. Well, maybe George would. Most current baseball owners treat their teams like hobbies and tax shelters.

I also don't understand how you can place the blame on the Steinbrenners when they are playing within the rules set by MLB. Blame Ueberroth, Giamatti, Vincent, and Selig. Vilifying the Steinbrenners for doing what any other team is allowed to do is silliness. Also, the players association will never allow a salary cap. The only solution is for other owners to start treating their teams like bonafide businesses. Henry started doing it after 2000 and look what's happened; 2 championships. Before 2004 you couldn't find a Red Sox fan outside of Fenway park. Now, they're everywhere. Red Sox Nation. Winning created marketing opportunities that allowed the Red Sox, as a business, to be more profitable now than ever before. But you have to spend money to make money. They went out and bought Schilling and Foulke. They traded for Cabrera. And a year or three before they bought Manny and Ortiz. The Sox BOUGHT the core of their championship teams. And as I said before, the Sox hold the dubious distinction of being #1 and #2 in total salary for a world championship team. So when vilifying the Yankees, why not add the Sox into that mix? After all, the poster children for the justification of spending money to win championships is the Red Sox. You blame the Yankees for spending money wrongly but give the Sox a pass for spending money more wisely and getting results. Again: the Sox hold the dubious distinction of being #1 and #2 in total salary for a world championship team.

Jayhawker wrote:

Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's.

Ahhh I see only the fans of struggling teams have REAL fans, right? Once a team tastes success their fans become ungrateful blockheads. *rolleyes*

So apparently last night it was Star Trek night at AT&T Park and Barry Bonds happened to show up for the game, too. Must have been nice for him not to have the biggest forehead there last night.

Citi Field gets a big thumbs up from me. I found reports of its non-Mets-ness to be overblown. And the standing areas with big open views to the field all around field level are a revelation for someone who grew up going to Shea. I could buy an upper deck (excuse me... "Promenade") ticket and spend all day down there on the concourse, checking out the game from different angles with whole wheat pizza and imported beer in hand.

FSeven wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's.

Ahhh I see only the fans of struggling teams have REAL fans, right? Once a team tastes success their fans become ungrateful blockheads. *rolleyes*

Seriously? You misunderstood my statement that much?

Due to the late 90's success, Yankees fans came to expect a World Series every year.

The problem is that you don't see just how arrogant and classless a statement like this really is. The Yankees fans are just faced with the burden of wanting to win more than other teams. Here's what I pictured when I read those words:

IMAGE(http://nyystadiuminsider.com/uploaded_images/yankee_fan-739206.jpg)

Slumberland wrote:

Citi Field gets a big thumbs up from me. I found reports of its non-Mets-ness to be overblown. And the standing areas with big open views to the field all around field level are a revelation for someone who grew up going to Shea. I could buy an upper deck (excuse me... "Promenade") ticket and spend all day down there on the concourse, checking out the game from different angles with whole wheat pizza and imported beer in hand.

That's good to hear Slumber. I've been curious to hear about Shea from an unbiased fan instead of the dolts who call in to whoever is on WFAN complaining about views all around Citi.

Also, just to bust chops, did you know "Shea" means "fairy castle" in Gaelic?

Jayhawker wrote:
FSeven wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's.

Ahhh I see only the fans of struggling teams have REAL fans, right? Once a team tastes success their fans become ungrateful blockheads. *rolleyes*

Seriously? You misunderstood my statement that much?

How else should "Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's." be taken? It's a mass generalization and completely false. Sure the bandwagoners might fit your analysis but true fans that suffered through the 80's do not fit your description at all.

Jayhawker wrote:
Due to the late 90's success, Yankees fans came to expect a World Series every year.

The problem is that you don't see just how arrogant and classless a statement like this really is. The Yankees fans are just faced with the burden of wanting to win more than other teams.

Why is that arrogant and classless? Is it classless when Tiger Woods fans expect him to win? Was it classless when fans of the 07-08 undefeated Patriots expected to win the Super Bowl? Was it classless when fans of the early 90's Chicago Bulls wanted a threepeat?

Of course not. None of those fans were arrogant or classless. You can't debase someone who is a fan of a team or player that consistently wins for expecting more of those winning ways.

Sorry, I don't see merit in any of your arguments. You're just coming off as someone who has an irrationally extreme hatred of the Yankees and their fans, the majority of which I might add you know nothing about, who is typing his feelings through clenched teeth and bulging veins.

Classless is judging an entire fanbase on one picture.

FSeven wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
FSeven wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's.

Ahhh I see only the fans of struggling teams have REAL fans, right? Once a team tastes success their fans become ungrateful blockheads. *rolleyes*

Seriously? You misunderstood my statement that much?

How else should "Apparently they don't even have the kind of quality fans that appreciate just what an amazing run the Yankees had in the late 90's." be taken? It's a mass generalization and completely false. Sure the bandwagoners might fit your analysis but true fans that suffered through the 80's do not fit your description at all.

Becasue your statement implies that the Yankees and their fans are burdened by their past success. That is a pathetic way to look at what shold be a rich history.

Jayhawker wrote:
Due to the late 90's success, Yankees fans came to expect a World Series every year.

The problem is that you don't see just how arrogant and classless a statement like this really is. The Yankees fans are just faced with the burden of wanting to win more than other teams.

Why is that arrogant and classless? Is it classless when Tiger Woods fans expect him to win? Was it classless when fans of the 07-08 undefeated Patriots expected to win the Super Bowl? Was it classless when fans of the early 90's Chicago Bulls wanted a threepeat?

Of course not. None of those fans were arrogant or classless. You can't debase someone who is a fan of a team or player that consistently wins for expecting more of those winning ways.

Sorry, I don't see merit in any of your arguments. You're just coming off as someone who has an irrationally extreme hatred of the Yankees and their fans, the majority of which I might add you know nothing about, who is typing his feelings through clenched teeth and bulging veins.

Classless is judging an entire fanbase on one picture. ;)

The reason it is classless and arrogant is because there is a supposition that other fans don't want their teams to win as much as Yankee fans do. If it makes you feel better that I'm just jealous (as though a Cardinal fan would ever trade their history), great. But that just misses the point. There is a reason Red Sox fans don't catch as much grief despite their large salaries. Maybe it is their long drought that gave them a sense of humility when success finally came.

But unrealistic expectations, like KC making money hand over fist if they just started winning will get you mocked in plenty of circles. When KC was a great team in the 80's, it was due to a wealthy owner that didn't mind losing money to produce a quality team. But by today's standards, I doubt even he could have endured the losses it would take for KC to be competitive.

The current model is what it is, and the Yankees play within that scheme and dominate. But it is a terrible system that desperately needs to change. It's a sytem that creates a climate where no one else respects the Yankees success, and relishes their demise. I don't see how you can think it is good for baseball at all.

Poor FSeven. It is hard to be a fan of a team that big. And the Yankees have all that money because world-wide they ARE the face of baseball. They've won more championships than any team in any sport. And before the 90s I seem to remember a few years where they kinda sucked for awhile. We just happen to be in the era where they are winning a lot of games.

And as much as I like to blame the Yanks for their 200+ million dollar payroll, the real problem is with the Player's Union for not wanting Salary Caps. Look what it has done for football. Allowing every team to be competitive every year can only help the sport. Sadly, the people who want to spend all the money to stay on top, and the head of the Player's Union with the 'best interest' for the players won't allow a salary cap to be put in place. It isn't the Yankees fault they exist within a broken system.

I totally support a salary cap.

But until one gets implemented, and while the rules say "spend as much as you want", I'm going to want my team to spend as much as they can to field the best team possible. Sure, it hasn't worked yet, but they have to try. I mean, what are the chances that another Jeter-Posada-Rivera-Pettite are going to come up from the minors at the same time? That's a luxury the Yankees had in the late 90's and a luxury the Red Sox are currently enjoying with Youkilis, Pedrioa, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Lester, and Masterson. It's a phenomenon that comes around once every few generations and is not likely to be duplicated in my lifetime.

So yeah, spend that money. I'll keep buying hats and t-shirts. Unlike the government, at least the Yankees show me where my money is going.

FSeven wrote:

I totally support a salary cap.

But until one gets implemented, and while the rules say "spend as much as you want", I'm going to want my team to spend as much as they can to field the best team possible. Sure, it hasn't worked yet, but they have to try. I mean, what are the chances that another Jeter-Posada-Rivera-Pettite are going to come up from the minors at the same time? That's a luxury the Yankees had in the late 90's and a luxury the Red Sox are currently enjoying with Youkilis, Pedrioa, Ellsbury, Papelbon, Lester, and Masterson. It's a phenomenon that comes around once every few generations and is not likely to be duplicated in my lifetime.

So yeah, spend that money. I'll keep buying hats and t-shirts. Unlike the government, at least the Yankees show me where my money is going. ;)

A lot of teams have that going on. It doesn't always mean instant success, nor does all the money in the world. Baseball is a wonderfully unpredictable sport.

Some other teams with strong young cores off the top of my head: Cincinnati Reds (Bruce, Phillips, Votto, Cueto, Volquez), Marlins (Ramirez, Johnson, Volstad, Sanchez, Uggla, Nolasco), Rockies (Tulowitzki, Hawpe, Atkins, Fowler, Jiminez, Morales). Hell, how bout them World Champs? Howard, Utley, Rollins, Myers, Hamels - all home-grown. If you don't like those examples, look to the Indians in the mid-90s, the Braves throughout the 90s, the Marlins in '03, Angels in '02.. Rays now?

My point is, these things happen all the time, even if they don't result in WS wins. I don't think the only measuring stick of success in baseball should be the world championship. I know that's supposedly not very sporting, but one team of thirty wins a year. There are way more successful franchises than that.

FSeven wrote:

I totally support a salary cap.

The salary cap is a useless proposition until there is league wide sharing of all television funds. That is how the salary cap and the parity it produces works in the NFL. It's kind of pointless to have a salary cap when the available revenue that can be generated is so diverse.

Hand MLB the television rights of every team and let them negotiate deals in every market. Then spread that money evenly among the markets. At that point, you will have a situation where teams are now competing on an even playing field, and a salary cap will actually be utilized for something besides lining the pockets of the large market team owners with cash that they can't spend on salaries.

Let me know when you support that.

Since the inception of the Super Bowl (1971) there have been 15 unique champions. In the same time frame, there have been 19 unique World Series Champs, even with one less WS played (1994, strike). Sure, the Yankees have won 6 times, but so have the Steelers! The second most dominant team in baseball was the A's, with four wins. Football? 49ers with 5, then Cowboys with 4. I don't feel like tallying up all the NBA winners since '71, but with three teams winning 21 of the 38 titles, I doubt it'll disprove my theory that...

Salary caps do not provide parity. I don't want to say baseball has the highest parity, but it isn't the game of davids and goliaths that sportscasters want you to believe it is sometimes.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Since the inception of the Super Bowl (1971) there have been 15 unique champions. In the same time frame, there have been 19 unique World Series Champs, even with one less WS played (1994, strike). Sure, the Yankees have won 6 times, but so have the Steelers! The second most dominant team in baseball was the A's, with four wins. Football? 49ers with 5, then Cowboys with 4. I don't feel like tallying up all the NBA winners since '71, but with three teams winning 21 of the 38 titles, I doubt it'll disprove my theory that...

Salary caps do not provide parity. I don't want to say baseball has the highest parity, but it isn't the game of davids and goliaths that sportscasters want you to believe it is sometimes.

You might want to check your stats, especially since the cap how only been in football since 1994. Regardless, I don't think singling out the the ultimate winner the best way to measure parity. Since 1994, the Yankees have been in the playoffs in 13 of the 14 seasons (including all 12 of the seasons Joe Torre managed the team!).

I don't have time to completely debunk your premise, but I have read enough articles and seen enough data to know that there is far more parity in football than baseball. It's not really even close.

Since the inception of the Super Bowl (1971) there have been 15 unique champions.
You might want to check your stats, especially since the cap how only been in football since 1994.

This, what are the stats AFTER the cap was set in place? MUCH different I'm sure.

Jayhawker wrote:

Regardless, I don't think singling out the the ultimate winner the best way to measure parity.

EXACTLY!

It isn't the winner, but the teams that are ALWAYS finishing on the top of their division. The Braves of the 90's for example. They won one championship, but won the division EVERY YEAR. The Yankees might not be winning the WS every year, but they are making it to the playoffs at a high rate.

If you look at divisions in football you see a better spread of winners, which means different teams making it to the playoffs. That's what keeps people interested. As a fan with a team in the NL East, for about 12 years there was no change. You came to expect a Braves division title, and ultimate collapse in the playoffs.

Then look at the NFL. Who would have predicted the Dolphins winning that division after the season they had previous? Baseball doesn't have that quick turn around. The smaller market teams need years to develop their young talent, then they only get a few years before they have to start over. It is hard for fans to be patient during 162 game seasons of rebuilding, especially if it is three years in a row. Keeping teams competitive, keeping fans interested; that should be a priority.

Jayhawker wrote:

You might want to check your stats, especially since the cap how only been in football since 1994. Regardless, I don't think singling out the the ultimate winner the best way to measure parity. Since 1994, the Yankees have been in the playoffs in 13 of the 14 seasons (including all 12 of the seasons Joe Torre managed the team!).

I don't have time to completely debunk your premise, but I have read enough articles and seen enough data to know that there is far more parity in football than baseball. It's not really even close.

Fair enough, but I'm changing it to '95 due to the strike.

Basically, all but one NFL team in the last 15 years has made the playoffs. All but four MLB teams have made the playoffs. It should be noted there are two more playoff spots per year in the NFL, so over 14 years that results in 28 more chances.

While tallying that, I noticed something interesting regarding the seasons from 01-08. In the NFL, there were three teams over those 8 seasons that hadn't appeared in the playoffs in the prior 6 seasons. 6 for baseball, comparatively.

I'm sure with all the 9-7 playoff teams in the NFL, the actual season records trend toward more parity. However, I think at some point you need to be more results-oriented than that. My point could be decimated by such an analysis, but I think it stands firm that peoples' perception of parity in the big sports is skewed incorrectly. Sure, the Yanks made the playoffs 13 of 14 years. The Colts are at 11/14, though. Steelers and Pats are 9/14, with 5 of the last 8 Super Bowl wins between them. Not that long ago, the Texas Rangers made the playoffs every year. Now look at them. Same for the Mariners, Padres, and A's. Hell, the lowly Orioles were a hell of a team in the mid-late 90s.

Anyway, thesis: Better managed teams win more than those with exorbitant salaries. My ability to defend the point is limited by my lack of football knowledge in comparison to baseball, but I can't help what kind of fan I am.

karmajay wrote:
Since the inception of the Super Bowl (1971) there have been 15 unique champions.
You might want to check your stats, especially since the cap how only been in football since 1994.

This, what are the stats AFTER the cap was set in place? MUCH different I'm sure.

Just for the sake of completion:

Braves, Yankees, Marlins, D-backs, Angels, Red Sox, White Sox (hurray!), Cardinals, Phillies, since 95. 9 teams, 13 WS

Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, Broncos, Rams, Ravens, Patriots, Buccaneers, Steelers, Colts, Giants. 11 teams, 14 SB

MUCH different? Iunno. And just sayin', the Expos were widely favorites to win the WS if it had happened in '94.

Blind_Evil wrote:

A lot of teams have that going on. It doesn't always mean instant success, nor does all the money in the world. Baseball is a wonderfully unpredictable sport.

Some other teams with strong young cores off the top of my head: Cincinnati Reds (Bruce, Phillips, Votto, Cueto, Volquez), Marlins (Ramirez, Johnson, Volstad, Sanchez, Uggla, Nolasco), Rockies (Tulowitzki, Hawpe, Atkins, Fowler, Jiminez, Morales). Hell, how bout them World Champs? Howard, Utley, Rollins, Myers, Hamels - all home-grown. If you don't like those examples, look to the Indians in the mid-90s, the Braves throughout the 90s, the Marlins in '03, Angels in '02.. Rays now?

My point is, these things happen all the time, even if they don't result in WS wins. I don't think the only measuring stick of success in baseball should be the world championship. I know that's supposedly not very sporting, but one team of thirty wins a year. There are way more successful franchises than that.

I should have clarified. I meant how many times does a large core group of talented minor leaguers come up for the same team. Sure a few teams have that luxury and it does sometimes translate into championships (96-2000 Yankes, 03 Marlins, 08 Phils, Rockies world series run), but how often does that happen for the same team? When a group like any of those comes up, chances are it won't happen again for a decade or three. So yeah, the Yankees could wait 20 years for the planets to align and the next Jeter-Posada-Pettite-Rivera to be poised to reach the majors at the same time, or they could spend all of that money now and, on paper at least, have the chance to win a championship in the interim.

Jayhawker wrote:

The salary cap is a useless proposition until there is league wide sharing of all television funds.

Why should the Yankees share the funds that their channel generates (YES network)? What's stopping any other team in the majors from creating their own channel? The Red Sox did it with the help of the Bruins. What's stopping the Royals from getting together with the Chiefs to start a channel? Heck, a cable company OWNS the Blue Jays. The idea of forcing the Yankees to share the revenue generated from the channel they created is so anti-capitalism and anti-everything this country is based on.

Jayhawker wrote:

Hand MLB the television rights of every team and let them negotiate deals in every market. Then spread that money evenly among the markets. At that point, you will have a situation where teams are now competing on an even playing field, and a salary cap will actually be utilized for something besides lining the pockets of the large market team owners with cash that they can't spend on salaries.

Teams are already playing on an even playing field. Again, the problem is that many team owners don't take their teams as serious as the Steinbrenners take the Yankees.

Read some of these excerpts from Baseball and Billions. It's quite telling. It shows that the value of the Yankees only skyrocketed after their championship run. It also explores how baseball team values have exploded due to how they are used as tax shelters.

To quote an excerpt:

Many had feared that the coming of free agency in 1976 would undermine team profitability and upset competitive balance on the playing field. But profits have been healthy, franchise values have gone through the roof, and, judging by the outcome, there has been more competitive balance on the field than ever before in history. In the first fifteen years of free agency, only three teams failed to win their divisional title, sixteen different teams won the pennant in their respective leagues, and twelve different teams won the World Series.

Since 2000 when the Yankees payroll started pulling away from the pack, they've failed to win the World Series every year. There really is no better argument against the suggestion that money means everything than what's happened in baseball the past 9 years. The Rays, the Marlins, the Phillies, the Rockies, White Sox, Cardinals, Astros, Diamondbacks, Giants. In football, defense wins championships. In baseball, it's chemistry. And that can't be bought.

According to a Forbes article:

Team owners are getting rich like never before. During 2007, revenue for MLB's 30 teams went up 7.7%, to $5.5 billion. The average team is now worth $472 million, 9.5% higher than last year and 143% more than when Forbes first calculated team values in 1998.

Speculation is free but the truth is pricless. Teams are making more money than ever before. The playing field is a lot more level than you think. Again, it's owners being tight-fisted and refusing to spend money on their teams. Instead they pocket profits, use the teams as a tax shelter, and their fans buy the sob stories about how poor their teams are. Yankee fans aren't that naive. We know how much money our team generates. And we demand it be spent on the team.

Here's a great Bloomberg article talking about just how much profit winning reaps.

The Phillies’ win over the Tampa Bay Rays in the World Series has boosted season-ticket sales for this season by 17 percent, while sponsorship revenue should increase about 3-4 percent, Montgomery said.

In strong economic times, baseball teams generally capitalize on the financial benefits of a World Series title for about five years, according to Vince Gennaro, author of “Diamond Dollars: The Economics of Winning in Baseball.” Smaller-market teams see gains of about $35 million and large- market franchises earn at least $60 million, he said.

The White Sox’s 2005 title, their first since 1917, helped the team double its number of season-ticket packages the following year, while sponsorship revenue increased more than 25 percent, Boyer said in a telephone interview.

So if a World Series reaps financial benefits for a team for 5 years, imagine what 4 championships in 5 years will do. Actually, don't imagine...just look at the Yankees and you'll see.

Using USAToday's records, let's look at the top 5 baseball team salaries by year since 1990. ***** denotes World Champion for that year.

1990
Kansas City Royals $ 23,873,745
New York Mets $ 22,418,834
Los Angeles Angels $ 21,870,000
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 21,618,704
New York Yankees $ 20,991,318

1991
Oakland Athletics $ 33,632,500
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 33,216,664
Boston Red Sox $ 32,767,500
New York Mets $ 32,590,002
Los Angeles Angels $ 31,782,501

1992
New York Mets $ 44,352,002
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 43,788,166
Toronto Blue Jays $ 43,663,666 *****
Boston Red Sox $ 42,203,584
Oakland Athletics $ 39,957,834

1993
Toronto Blue Jays $ 45,747,666 *****
Cincinnati Reds $ 42,851,167
New York Yankees $ 41,305,000
Kansas City Royals $ 40,102,666
New York Mets $ 38,350,167

1994 - No World Series - Strike
New York Yankees $ 44,785,334
Toronto Blue Jays $ 41,937,668
Atlanta Braves $ 40,502,167
Kansas City Royals $ 40,481,334
San Francisco Giants $ 40,054,300

1995
Toronto Blue Jays $ 49,791,500
New York Yankees $ 46,657,016
Atlanta Braves $ 45,199,000 *****
Baltimore Orioles $ 40,835,519
Chicago White Sox $ 39,632,834

1996
New York Yankees $ 52,189,370 *****
Baltimore Orioles $ 48,726,832
Atlanta Braves $ 47,930,000
Cleveland Indians $ 45,317,914
Chicago White Sox $ 41,940,000

1997
New York Yankees $ 59,148,877
Baltimore Orioles $ 54,871,399
Chicago White Sox $ 54,377,500
Cleveland Indians $ 54,130,232
Atlanta Braves $ 50,488,500

1998
Baltimore Orioles $ 70,408,134
New York Yankees $ 63,159,898 *****
Atlanta Braves $ 59,536,000
Cleveland Indians $ 59,033,499
Texas Rangers $ 54,704,595

1999
New York Yankees $ 88,130,709 *****
Texas Rangers $ 81,301,598
Atlanta Braves $ 75,065,000
Cleveland Indians $ 73,857,962
Boston Red Sox $ 71,720,000

2000
New York Yankees $ 92,938,260 *****
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 90,375,953
Baltimore Orioles $ 83,141,198
Atlanta Braves $ 82,732,500
Boston Red Sox $ 81,210,333

2001
New York Yankees $ 112,287,143
Boston Red Sox $ 109,675,833
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 109,105,953
New York Mets $ 93,674,428
Cleveland Indians $ 92,660,001

2002
New York Yankees $ 125,928,583
Boston Red Sox $ 108,366,060
Texas Rangers $ 105,726,122
Arizona Diamondbacks $ 102,819,999
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 94,850,953

2003
New York Yankees $ 152,749,814
New York Mets $ 117,176,429
Atlanta Braves $ 106,243,667
Los Angeles Dodgers $ 105,872,620
Texas Rangers $ 103,491,667

2004
New York Yankees $ 184,193,950
Boston Red Sox $ 127,298,500 *****
Los Angeles Angels $ 100,534,667
New York Mets $ 96,660,970
Philadelphia Phillies $ 93,219,167

2005
New York Yankees $ 208,306,817
Boston Red Sox $ 123,505,125
New York Mets $ 101,305,821
Los Angeles Angels $ 97,725,322
Philadelphia Phillies $ 95,522,000

2006
New York Yankees $ 194,663,079
Boston Red Sox $ 120,099,824
Los Angeles Angels $ 103,472,000
Chicago White Sox $ 102,750,667
New York Mets $ 101,084,963

2007
New York Yankees $ 189,639,045
Boston Red Sox $ 143,026,214 *****
New York Mets $ 115,231,663
Los Angeles Angels $ 109,251,333
Chicago White Sox $ 108,671,833

2008
New York Yankees $ 209,081,577
New York Mets $ 137,793,376
Detroit Tigers $ 137,685,196
Boston Red Sox $ 133,390,035
Chicago White Sox $ 121,189,332

2009
New York Yankees $ 201,449,189
New York Mets $ 149,373,987
Chicago Cubs $ 134,809,000
Boston Red Sox $ 121,745,999
Detroit Tigers $ 115,085,145

What's telling about this?

All the top teams in payroll have been within about 3-5 million of each other over the years and 5-15 million over the past decade. No big disparity of payroll there. It only changed in 2003 when the Yankees payroll jumped beyond the yearly increments that had been customary on a year to year basis. But did that result in championships? Nope.

Every year, team payrolls seem to increase about 9-15 million. The Yankees maintained that from 2001-2002 but Sox's payroll dropped a little bit.

In addition, look at the '04 championship Sox with a payroll of $127 million. Their payroll in 2003 was $99 million. That's a 28% jump in payroll.

The Yankees payroll has increased consistently from 2001 on.

2001-2002: 13 million increase.
2002-2003: 27 million increase.
2003-2004: 32 million increase.
2004-2005: 24 million increase.
2005-2006: 14 million decrease.
2006-2007: 5 million decrease.
2007-2008: 20 million increase.
2008-2009: 8 million decrease

That's, on average, a consistent 11 million dollar payroll increase each year over those 8 years. Not much different than many other teams. The Yankees payroll jumped in 2001 and on when it was time to renew the contracts of the core stars that brought them 4 championships. Jeter signed his 10 year $189 million contract in 2001. Mariano signed his 4 year $40 million contract in 2001. Posada signed his 5 year $51 million contract in 2002. Pettite signed his 3 year $25.5 million contract in 2000.

Tell you what, I have a lot of respect for the Yankees for rewarding those players by resigning them and keeping them around. Far cry from the Sox who won in 2004 and then had a yard sale the following three years, dumping Pedro, Manny, Lowe, Cabrera, Bellhorn, Nixon, Millar, Mueller, Garciaparra, Mientxhbfjwyz, Damon, Kapler, and Roberts. It's especially disgusting how they treated Pedro and Manny and Garciaparra. Those guys were the face of the franchise for years, the only things bringing in revenue before 2004, and then the Sox dumped them to the curb and talked crap about them after they left. It reminds of that episode of Seinfeld with the "bad breaker upper".

Poor Tommy Lasorda. Geez, they must have needed David Robinson and the cast of The Unit just to move him around.

FSeven, that is some clearly deluded rationale. You have quite an assortment of kool-aid to drink from there. I wonder how many homes a KC cable channel would be able to command.

Yeah, if teams just worked as hard as the Yankees. Did you post that tribute to Steinbrenner just to invoke a gag reflex. That was rich.

Tell you what, I appreciate your effort here. I don't think I could have painted as complete a picture of the delusional Yankee fan. You pretty much just laid it out there for all to soak in. I could respect it if there was some acknowledgment that the Yankees are taking advantage of a flawed system that gives them an enormous advantage over the other teams they compete with year in and year out.

Don't just call it all deluded Jay. Talk specifics.

FSeven wrote:

Don't just call it all deluded Jay. Talk specifics.

Like you specifically told me how many homes a KC cable network could reach?

There is too large of a gulf in where we stand. You spout a ton of statistics that are irrelevant. You don't compare playoff teams and salaries. You make no note that despite the Royals being one of the top five salaries in '94 they lost money hand over fist, and it has set their organization back to a point where they have no real shot of ever returning to dominance. The dominance they once exhibited was due to a wealthy owner that was willing to lose money on his hobby.

I don't begrudge the Yankees for spending what they do. I'd just like to see a more socialist environment among the teams so that each teams success hinges more on evaluation of talent (including coaches) than the location their team happens to reside. If a league was being built from the ground up today, there is noway teams would accept the system MLB has in place.

What some Yankee fans want is to talk about the brilliance of signing players that every team in baseball would have signed if they had an opportunity to generate revenue like the Yankees do. That is a farce.

The Yankees 96-2000 was based on the evaluation of talent.
The 1997 Marlins won because of evaluation of talent.
The 2001 Diamondbacks won because of evaluation of talent.
The 2003 Marlins won because of evaluation of talent.
The 2007 Red Sox won partly because of evaluation of talent and faced a Colorado Rockies team that got to the series due to evaluation of talent.
The 2008 Phillies won because of evaluation of talent.

How many playoff appearances have each of those teams had during this period?