Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    07 Nov '09 02:22 / 4 edits
    This is from a sports columnist on yahoo posted today that I just found. He must be an RHP poster because he's copied almost word for word EVERYTHING that i've been saying for the past few days. I know you all hate it when uzless is right about something but ffs, read on.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yankees widen baseball’s chasm

    Less than 24 hours after the richest team in baseball won the World Series, its biggest foe began reloading for next year by making a trade. The Boston Red Sox are among baseball’s most affluent as well, so giving up a couple of prospects to the Florida Marlins for high-ceiling outfielder Jeremy Hermida(notes) amounted to a no-brainer.

    Never mind that Hermida will cost around $4 million this season and, depending on Boston’s other maneuvers, might play a fourth-outfielder role. The Red Sox, just like the recently crowned New York Yankees and another handful of teams with payroll flexibility, can afford such luxuries. In a market that could see an overload of young, arbitration-eligible players deemed unaffordable by small-market teams, those high-revenue teams could be in an even more dominant position than before.

    In other words: Get used to seeing the Yankees and their ilk in the World Series.

    How that can happen when Major League Baseball so proudly trumpets its sport as a more real testament to parity than the NFL is the collision of two combustible factors: the depression of the free-agent market and the increase in salaries for arbitration-eligible players. Free agency is supposed to be a player’s nirvana. In many cases, the automatic raises given to players in their fourth, fifth and sixth seasons can make them more.

    So the trade of Hermida from low-revenue Florida to big-bucks Boston, just like the rumored deal of Mark Teahen(notes) from the Kansas City Royals to the Chicago White Sox, may be the start of an offseason as packed with activity as any in recent memory. With a Dec. 12 deadline to tender a contract to players, general managers will be in overdrive during the Dec. 7-10 winter meetings, trying to get some return on players they plan to nontender – or, more simply, dump.

    “Get ready,” one small-market American League team official said, “for a lot more.”

    The first stops in the selling GMs’ contact lists, of course, will be the numbers for executives with nine-figure payrolls. Nine teams cracked $100 million on opening day last year; five of them made the postseason. And if baseball’s equality argument didn’t die with that reality, perhaps it will when the have/have-not divide becomes even greater until the 2011 collective-bargaining talks aim for a solution.

    The disparity is greatest at the top, where the Yankees bathe in money while some teams can draw a tub only half full. Yeah, yeah. Grass is green, sky is blue, etc. Everyone knows the Yankees are the last living embodiment of Wall Street in American sports, and yet the figures still stagger: New York made $100 million more in revenue than any other team, according to calculations from Forbes. And the Yankees brought in twice the revenue of 18 teams.

    Granted, the majority of those teams receive money from MLB’s revenue-sharing program, to which the Yankees are the greatest donor. It doesn’t lessen New York’s ability to spend preposterous money, whether it’s the billion-plus dollars over the past half-decade or the $300 million lavished on Alex Rodriguez(notes), the $180 million given to Mark Teixeira(notes) or the $161 million bestowed upon CC Sabathia(notes). Those contracts, along with that of A.J. Burnett(notes), give the Yankees a commitment toward 2013 of $92.9 million. Which is bigger than the 2009 payrolls of all but a dozen teams.

    For the next few years, at least, they also put the Yankees in proper position to keep winning. Yes, A-Rod’s hip remains a concern, even after his transcendent October; Jorge Posada(notes) looks more like a DH/catcher than an everyday backstop; and Derek Jeter’s(notes) contract becomes an issue for the first time in a decade after 2010. Plus, Yankees GM Brian Cashman must determine whether to re-sign Johnny Damon(notes) or World Series MVP Hideki Matsui(notes) (or both – or neither), how long to extend Mariano Rivera(notes) (who said he wants to play five more years) and which, if any, of the big-name free agents this offseason appeal to him. The Yankees, almost without fail, appeal to them.

    Be it Matt Holliday(notes), Jason Bay(notes) or John Lackey(notes), the Yankees can offer more than anyone and can do so with the backing of a big, fat, knuckle-to-knuckle ring. Should they particularly fancy a nontender, they can pay him more – or give up a prospect to ensure he doesn’t hit the open market, as the Red Sox did with Hermida.

    Cash in baseball yields more than talent. It buys the freedom to take risks and the leeway to make mistakes. It gives players the knowledge that, come June and July, if a team needs to improve, that club can purchase reinforcements. It allows for peace of mind with the Yankees, who watched their plan to build around pitching from the farm system (Joba Chamberlain(notes), Phil Hughes(notes), Ian Kennedy(notes)) implode, only to find rescue with a quarter-billion-dollar bailout from Goldman Steinbrenner.

    Now, let it be said: Money does not equal a World Series championship. It never did and it never will. It does drastically increase the chances that a team will make the postseason, at which point it isn’t chalk, per se, but generally leans toward the most talented teams … which are often the most moneyed. There is some sort of equation to explain this from the perspective outside of New York, and it goes like this: $$$$$$$$Yankees$$$$$$$$ = suck.

    That equation won’t change anytime soon. Unlike the low- and mid-revenue teams freezing or paring payrolls, the Yankees should stay in the neighborhood of $200 million, if not in excess. The YES Network is a cash cow. Merchandise sales are going to be bonkers. Seats – even the champagne-and-caviar ones – will sell next year. A championship whets the appetite of every Yankees fan and leaves the lingering feeling that makes you hungry for more.

    The rest of the baseball world, meanwhile, wretches at the prospect of continued Yankees dominance. There is no equalizer, like a salary cap, to reel in New York’s spending – only the team’s weighing of bottom line vs. success, a scale that tips toward the latter year in and year out.

    Philadelphia was more than a sacrificial lamb, certainly, but the Phillies ran into a hotter, more talented Yankees team, and that’s a bad combination. It’s frightening to think the Yankees’ payroll was about $85 million more than the Phillies’ – the biggest disparity since the Yankees outspent the Marlins in 2003 by more than $100 million and lost – but it’s a truth that isn’t worth fighting because it’s changing no time soon.

    “The Yankees won the World Series,” team president Randy Levine said, “and all is right with the world again.”

    Although he could’ve chosen words a little less, well, embarrassingly obnoxious, Levine’s point rang true because it’s surprising that a team so endowed (with revenue, with fans, with history and, most of all, with talent) could go nine years between World Series victories and six years between appearances. That’s not happening again, not anytime soon.

    The landscape is shifting, the chasm widening, baseball beginning its descent toward a place it can’t afford to go long term. The consequences are playing themselves out, and right into the hands of the New York Yankees, who are poised to start the next decade just as they did this one: with a championship.

    Jeff Passan is a national writer for Yahoo! Sports.

    http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-yankees110609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
  2. 07 Nov '09 03:46
    It could be worse! The Devil Rays might copy the Yankees! Or the Mariners, or the lowly Mets. Who nows maybe all high priced teams will be ushered straight into the wolrd series sight unseen! Probably better than the long garbage game season. Low end teams should just bend over and concede. Why bother? Give it to the Yankees and Red Sox on a rotation basis. Maybe other sports could follow. The Redskins won a bunch of championships under the stewardship of Dan Snyder. Oh? They didn't? The reality is the dripping green envy is tiresome and loathsome! Yanks had not won in almost ten years. How do you explain this minor discrepancy? Lastly, are you admitting to being a secret sportswriter?
  3. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    07 Nov '09 05:52
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Yanks had not won in almost ten years. How do you explain this minor discrepancy?
    again, missing the point entirely. The yanks MADE THE PLAYOFFS virtually every year this decade. So did boston so did Los angeles angels. Money gets you in...there are no guarantees once you're in but you at least have a shot at winning the whole thing.

    Looks llike you need to actually READ THE ARTICLE a little more closely this time, rather than just spew forth crap that the article disproves over and over again.
  4. 07 Nov '09 07:25
    Originally posted by uzless
    This is from a sports columnist on yahoo posted today that I just found. He must be an RHP poster because he's copied almost word for word EVERYTHING that i've been saying for the past few days. I know you all hate it when uzless is right about something but ffs, read on.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [ ...[text shortened]... oo! Sports.

    http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-yankees110609&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
    Nice thread.
  5. 07 Nov '09 14:47
    Originally posted by uzless
    again, missing the point entirely. The yanks MADE THE PLAYOFFS virtually every year this decade. So did boston so did Los angeles angels. Money gets you in...there are no guarantees once you're in but you at least have a shot at winning the whole thing.

    Looks llike you need to actually READ THE ARTICLE a little more closely this time, rather than just spew forth crap that the article disproves over and over again.
    I read it. populist claptrap is all it is. envy and loathing for teams who invest wisely in order to win. Those little teams have poor revenues because they suck and no one wants to go see a loser. My Rangers have a fairly decent sized market. When they win the stadium is fairly full. They have the money and poor scouting and a suckish general mgr. We seem to buy players who go bust once here. Maybe we need Cashman to come to TX before we get more of these terrible free agents.

    Boston had not won it all in 87 years? How do you figure this was possible when all you need is to throw money at the problem? What I see as a problem with the article is it fails to give kudos for doing things right within a system which allows it.
  6. 09 Nov '09 18:07
    I read the article too. It indicates that 5 of 9 teams that spent over 100M at the beginning of the season made the playoffs -- really nothing overwhelming. It was also shocked that the Red Sox might spend 4 million dolars on Hermedia (a guy with high upside who might only be a fourth out fielder. The article (like the individual who posted out it) really offeres nothing new
  7. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    09 Nov '09 18:13 / 1 edit
    "I don't care what facts you give me, i'm not going to change my mind"

    -most RHP posters
  8. 10 Nov '09 22:11 / 12 edits
    There are major downsides to the big spending strategy. Almost all of those players you're paying gazillions had better maintain their high level of performance. But players who get the ultra-huge contracts are generally all 28 or older, many of them are in their early 30's. Which means you're giving lots of money to people on the backside of their career - where their numbers are likely to drop or their injuries are likely to increase. So in all likelihood, you end up with a lot of stiffs who aren't close to what they used to be, or else they can't stay healthy.

    Why were the Yankees successful this year?

    Posada, Jeter, A-Rod, Matsui, Damon, Pettitte, Rivera -- big-money players -- all of them now 34 or older -- all of them well past their "prime" -- and yet all of them had repeatedly posted seasons over the last few years that were pretty much what you could have expected if this was five or more years ago. There's been almost NO decline from any of these geezers.

    And the three mega-signings from the past off-season, Sabathia, Burnett and Texeria, all lived up to the hype. How often do we hear about the big free agent who ends up stinking up the place? Even Nick Swisher comes in and has a career year.

    Now where would the Yankees be right now if three or more of the "seven geezers" had gotten "old" -- something one would normally expect. Say, Jeter was only hitting .265 and Posada was struggling to hit .230 with 10 HRs, and Rivera was blowing 10 saves a year. And suppose one of the big mega-signings underperformed (let's say Burnett had a record of 8-13 with an ERA over 5.00) and suppose one spent most of the season on the DL.

    The result would have been what you often see when teams play the "big contract" game. The Yankees would've maybe won 85 games, missed the playoffs, and everyone would've wondered what went wrong.

    The reality is that the Yankees are either VERY wise about who they sign (Jarret Wright and Carl Pavano notwithstanding) or they are VERY lucky. Yes, the Yankees have the ability to eat the occasional mistake, but even they can't afford very many mistakes or bad luck when they hand out the money. If A-Rod's hip had ended his career, the Yankees would've been stuck throwing $30million a year into the fireplace for the next seven yrs. The Mets can tell you a great deal about that (whether it be this season or the memories of Mo Vaughn's contract).

    Now - who's to say whether Texeira, Sabathia, Burnett, and whoever the Yankees sign this year and beyond will have the same longevity of their past signings? Will the Yankees continue to mostly avoid signings that turn out to be busts (like Jarret Wright)? And who's to say when the calender will finally catch up with the aforementioned "geezers"? - most of whom the Yankees will be counting on for the next several years.
  9. 10 Nov '09 22:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by uzless
    "I don't care what facts you give me, i'm not going to change my mind"

    -most RHP posters
    It is a joke to present unconvincing arguments and then accuse those who disagre with you of ignoring your facts.
    As Melanerpes points out the Yankees signed older players who had good years. Burnett has a history of being hurt. Jeter and Pasada were better than they were the year before. Rivera has been successful for an unprecidented amount of time. In '08 they did not make the playoffs becuase it is not like they have some unfair formula that always works.
    Last offseason they were smart to be agressive and get the guys they wanted (they were available and guys of that caliber are not free agents this year) They won the World Series nine years after they won the first won. Michael Jordan won 6 championships but no one said the system is unfair even when they added a guy like Rodman to an already talented team. Simply stop crying the Yankees are a great organization -- they have kept their talented, gathered some other talent, produced a winning product, built a great stadium, sent money to other teams, got good ratings in their World Series.
    Baseball's problem isn't that they have the Yankees. It is that they don't have more teams like the Yankees.