1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf I felt like it, I could watch the Yankees for nothing extra (they are on standard cable here). Instead I chose to get MLB Extra Innings for $180 a year so I can watch Reds' game. I didn't watch an inning of the Yankee postseason run in 2009 and turned the game on for a few innings last night because my nephew and his girlfriend (both Yankee fans) were visiting.
That's what you say publicly, but you know that deep down inside you're still a Yankee fan.
I still wish the old timers well: Jeter, Posada and Rivera. As for the rest and the team itself, I do not care.
Originally posted by no1marauderI bet you're liking Granderson. That trade didn't look quite as good for us this year.
If I felt like it, I could watch the Yankees for nothing everything (they are on standard cable here). Instead I chose to get MLB Extra Innings for $180 a year so I can watch Reds' game. I didn't watch an inning of the Yankee postseason run in 2009 and turned the game on for a few innings last night because my nephew and his girlfriend (both Yankee fans) ...[text shortened]... old timers well: Jeter, Posada and Rivera. As for the rest and the team itself, I do not care.
Originally posted by rwingettWe'd have a host of teams doing what the Pittsburgh Pirates do: pocketing their share of revenue sharing so that the team runs a profit for its owners and shareholders but sucks for its fans.
All the revenue from all the teams should be put into a common pool, which is then divided up equally. If the Yankees still manage to win more than any other team, then you could say it was because they were such a gosh darn terrific franchise. Until then, though, the taint of money will cloud their every success. If people like quackquack think the ...[text shortened]... yalty too much and want the system to remain working in the Yankees' advantage in perpetuity.
The present system produces more competitive balance than the more "balanced" revenue sharing systems of the NFL and NBA. It is true that it is SOME advantage to pay your players well (what a shock!) but the history of low payroll teams successfully competing and high payroll teams stinking is sufficiently large enough to say that it money spent on payroll is not an overwhelming factor.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not so sure about that. I think there is much more parity in the NFL than in baseball. If you look at the Superbowl winners, you don't have a franchise that dominates as much as the Yankees do. Pittsburgh has won six, but Dallas and San Francisco are right behind with five each.
We'd have a host of teams doing what the Pittsburgh Pirates do: pocketing their share of revenue sharing so that the team runs a profit for its owners and shareholders but sucks for its fans.
The present system produces more competitive balance than the more "balanced" revenue sharing systems of the NFL and NBA. It is true that it is SOME a ...[text shortened]... ufficiently large enough to say that it money spent on payroll is not an overwhelming factor.
I think the statistics show quite the opposite from what you're saying. As I pointed out earlier, 12 of the last 13 World Series have been won by teams with a top 15 payroll. Only one has been won with bottom 15 payroll team (Florida, 2003). Since 2005, 35 of the 48 teams to make the postseason have been among the top 15 payroll teams. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "overwhelming" is.
Originally posted by rwingettIt's absurd to look at the total number of titles through the entire history of baseball to complain about the present system. The vast majority of Yankee titles were won when there were far fewer teams and a totally different system with the reserve clause and no free agency. The Yankees went 12 years in a row without even making the playoffs from 1982-1993 under the present economic system.
I'm not so sure about that. I think there is much more parity in the NFL than in baseball. If you look at the Superbowl winners, you don't have a franchise that dominates as much as the Yankees do. Pittsburgh has won six, but Dallas and San Francisco are right behind with five each.
I think the statistics show quite the opposite from what you're saying. ...[text shortened]... top 15 payroll teams. I guess it all depends on what your definition of "overwhelming" is.
Repeat champions have been exceedingly common in the NBA and fairly routine in the NFL. By contrast, there's been only been two in baseball since 1978. By any standard measure, baseball is more competitive than either of the other major sports.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree. Baseball has the longest season and the platform for a level competition of
It's absurd to look at the total number of titles through the entire history of baseball to complain about the present system. The vast majority of Yankee titles were won when there were far fewer teams and a totally different system with the reserve clause and no free agency. The Yankees went 12 years in a row without even making the playoffs from 1982- ...[text shortened]... . By any standard measure, baseball is more competitive than either of the other major sports.
any sport.
You are also correct that early on when there were half the teams there are now
(actually 16 teams, but close enough) there was no draft, no free agency, and there
were three of the best teams all in NY (Yankees, Dodgers and Giants).
Since free agency, there has not been any team who has consistently won it all.
You can argue playoff appearances, but rings are all that count.
There have been several small market teams win the crown in that time span.
Expansion teams have won early in many cases.
Hell the 1969 Mets won it all 7 years after they were formed and beat a heavily
favored and much more talented Baltimore team in the WS.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not looking at the entire history of baseball. The statistics I presented only go back to 1995, when our current playoff format was implemented. The Yankees have been in the postseason 15 out of the last 16 years, have gone to the World Series in 7 of the last 16 years, and have won it 5 of the last 16 years. It's just foolish to suppose that their revenue, which dwarfs every other team, has nothing to do with that. It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for a team like the Royals to win the Series, but the Yankees can expect to do it with regularity.
It's absurd to look at the total number of titles through the entire history of baseball to complain about the present system. The vast majority of Yankee titles were won when there were far fewer teams and a totally different system with the reserve clause and no free agency. The Yankees went 12 years in a row without even making the playoffs from 1982- ...[text shortened]... . By any standard measure, baseball is more competitive than either of the other major sports.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThat's just picking an arbitrary point to bolster a rather lame argument. 4 of those World Series wins happened from 1996-2000; in the 15 years before and the fifteen years after the Yankees have won the World Series once. The 1996-2000 teams were extraordinary.
I'm not looking at the entire history of baseball. The statistics I presented only go back to 1995, when our current playoff format was implemented. The Yankees have been in the postseason 15 out of the last 16 years, have gone to the World Series in 7 of the last 16 years, and have won it 5 of the last 16 years. It's just foolish to suppose that their reve ...[text shortened]... a team like the Royals to win the Series, but the Yankees can expect to do it with regularity.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not that arbitrary. The 1994 strike year and the subsequent implementation of the wildcard system makes for a convenient before-and-after point.
That's just picking an arbitrary point to bolster a rather lame argument. 4 of those World Series wins happened from 1996-2000; in the 15 years before and the fifteen years after the Yankees have won the World Series once. The 1996-2000 teams were extraordinary.
Part of the reason it's been harder for small market teams to compete in recent years has been the rising cost of top free agents. They can't afford to retain their own top talent and are seldom able to sign the top free agents on the market. The 1993 Blue Jays had a top salary of $5.5 million (Joe Carter). Their opponent in that Series, the Phillies, had a top salary of $3.5 million (Mitch Williams)*. Last years championship Giants had 7 players with a salary greater than Cater's and 11 greater than Williams'. The Phillies entire payroll ($28.7 M) was less than what the Yankees are paying Rodriguez alone.
*Guess who got the better deal.
http://www.baseballchronology.com/Baseball/Years/1993/Payroll.asp
If you look at team payroll between 1993 and 2010 you see that while the Yankees were almost always on top, the difference between them and the rest of the league was not that great. There were only 8 teams with a payroll less than half of the Yankees'. By 2000 you see them starting to double the payroll of the teams in the middle of the pack. By 2005 they've doubled the payroll of every other team but Boston, who is still a very distant second.
Originally posted by rwingettCome on.....you are way off base with this argument.
It's not that arbitrary. The 1994 strike year and the subsequent implementation of the wildcard system makes for a convenient before-and-after point.
Part of the reason it's been harder for small market teams to compete in recent years has been the rising cost of top free agents. They can't afford to retain their own top talent and are seldom able to si ...[text shortened]... less than what the Yankees are paying Rodriguez alone.
*Guess who got the better deal.
Tell me what the 25th man on each team was making in your two examples.
Then take that multiplier and use it against the top salary to get the economic factor
established.
Now, the difference beyond the economic factor would be the overage.
Otherwise I could say babe Ruth was a bargain because the towel boy earns more today than he did then.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI honestly don't have the slightest idea what your point is here.
Come on.....you are way off base with this argument.
Tell me what the 25th man on each team was making in your two examples.
Then take that multiplier and use it against the top salary to get the economic factor
established.
Now, the difference beyond the economic factor would be the overage.
Otherwise I could say babe Ruth was a bargain because the towel boy earns more today than he did then.
Originally posted by rwingettYou are talking 1993 versus 2010 salary differences, it appeared to me.
I honestly don't have the slightest idea what your point is here.
Reread your post that I replied to.
The Giants last year had 7 players who were paid more than Carter was in 1993.
What does that prove when all players' numbers were elevated?
All I said was you need to equate the two economies before you could compare salaries.
Originally posted by shortcircuitMy point was plainly evident. As the salaries for top talent continues to rise, fewer and fewer teams are able to effectively compete for their services. The comparative payrolls between 1993 and 2005 demonstrate a rising inequality among teams. What was a modest inequality among most teams in 1993 has now become a glaring one.
You are talking 1993 versus 2010 salary differences, it appeared to me.
Reread your post that I replied to.
The Giants last year had 7 players who were paid more than Carter was in 1993.
What does that prove when all players' numbers were elevated?
All I said was you need to equate the two economies before you could compare salaries.