The Best Team Money Could Buy

[yankees228]

I think this is pretty played out at this point. The Yankees have an enormous financial advantage. Their payroll dwarfs the payroll of any other team in baseball.

I'll share my final thoughts on the matter, at least for tonight.

I think George Steinbrenner deserves some credit. He cares so much about winning, and is willing to do whatever it takes. In this day and age, when Major League Baseball owners routinely take advantage of the fact that there is no salary floor, Steinbrenner does whatever it takes to win.

Now, last thing. For whatever reason, and we can debate this all we want, but the fact of the matter is that the Yankees do bring in tons of money. There are arguments against it, but don't you think it's reasonable that the Yankees should be able to take advantage of this fact? Even if they didn't create this advantage by themselves, and they just lucked into it, one could easily argue that they still deserve to take advantage of it. If someone buys a new house, and, by pure chance, there happens to be a ton of gold buried beneath the foundation of the house, should he be allowed to profit from it, even though he didn't earn it?

[TedWilliams101]

Originally Posted by yankees228

Yes, but, on opening day, a decent amount of teams have a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Once you get to the playoffs, due to their crapshoot nature, any of the eight teams can win.

By this logic (and yes, it is logical), sixteen of the thirty teams in Major League Baseball are largely unaffected by the Yankees once the season starts. Now, because of the unbalanced schedule, nine of the fourteen teams in the American League aren't greatly affected by the Yankees, because they just have to out and win their own division. Once the season starts, there really are only four teams that are affected by the Yankees financial superiority.

The article REFUTES this view. Sure, a decent amount of teams have a shot at winning the WS because of the playoff structure, but that doesn't mean they have anywhere near an equal chance. In the long run, the Yankees will win more. It might not be this year or next, but in the end, they will win more, as they have.

There really isn't a good argument for not having a cap. Having a cap would make the game far more competitive and would help teams financially. There is no downside (unless you are a Yankee fan).

[TedWilliams101]

Originally Posted by yankees228

Even if they didn't create this advantage by themselves, and they just lucked into it, one could easily argue that they still deserve to take advantage of it. If someone buys a new house, and, by pure chance, there happens to be a ton of gold buried beneath the foundation of the house, should he be allowed to profit from it, even though he didn't earn it?

The difference is that the guy who found gold isn't part of a SPORTS LEAGUE. The Yankees aren't some independent corporation, they are part of MLB. The point of sports is for competitive entertainment. The way you keep teams competitive and keep a level playing field is to have a cap. MLB is too stuborn to institute a cap because it's not "traditional".

[Divinity]

Originally Posted by TedWilliams101

The difference is that the guy who found gold isn't part of a SPORTS LEAGUE. The Yankees aren't some independent corporation, they are part of MLB. The point of sports is for competitive entertainment. The way you keep teams competitive and keep a level playing field is to have a cap. MLB is too stuborn to institute a cap because it's not "traditional".

If a salary cap were introduced all MLB players would be upset because it would mean lower salaries for them all, the owner's wouldn't be jumping for joy ether because there 25+ Million annual check from the Yankees from Luxury Tax would be gone.

The biggest loser in the cap would actually be the small market teams that would be forced to spend more and receive less while remaining in a market that may or may not be able to support a baseball team.

[Dipre]

Originally Posted by Divinity

If a salary cap were introduced all MLB players would be upset because it would mean lower salaries for them all, the owner's wouldn't be jumping for joy ether because there 25+ Million annual check from the Yankees from Luxury Tax would be gone.

The biggest loser in the cap would actually be the small market teams that would be forced to spend more and receive less while remaining in a market that may or may not be able to support a baseball team.

This argument is failthought.

Closing the payroll disparity would create much more benefits to the lower-end teams than the pittance they receive from the revenue sharing system.


Also, to y228.

Whether or not they helped create the current advantage doesn't matter because it's still an unfair advantage.

[Mr Crunchy]

Id buy into this shit if we werent paying JD Drew 75million fucking dollars to be less effective than Nick Swisher...The game needs a cap yet as I say this 8 teams won pennants in the national league in the last 10 years and 6 AL teams won pennants in that same time frame, is this parity or what?
The sox shouldnt bitch, in fact they should be the last team to bitch
No its not fair, it never has been and it never will be until a cap is installed and once that happens the players union will go on strike and finally we can have the retraction we all have been begging for.
The problem this time is that the oldest and most traditional franchises like the Reds and Pirates, teams that dont draw shit or win anymore will be the teams gutted along with both Fla franchises and perhaps the Royals and DC.
A cap would hurt the sox but not as much as it would hurt Ny.

[Dipre]

Originally Posted by Mr Crunchy

Id buy into this shit if we werent paying JD Drew 75million fucking dollars to be less effective than Nick Swisher...

Do you watch baseball sir?

[Dojji]

Time for a third team in New York. If there's that much revenue to go round, it should go round further.

Either that, or it's time to do what the NFL does, have the league claim the media rights for each team, and if the owners haven't lynched you yet, distribute that revenue more evenly.

[BSN07]

Originally Posted by Mr Crunchy

Id buy into this shit if we werent paying JD Drew 75million fucking dollars.

Your paying JD's salary?

[BSN07]

Originally Posted by Dojji

Time for a third team in New York. If there's that much revenue to go round, it should go round further.

Either that, or it's time to do what the NFL does, have the league claim the media rights for each team, and if the owners haven't lynched you yet, distribute that revenue more evenly.

Goddell has balls, Selig does not. Goddell has the ability to look down the road and make adjustments for the better of the NFL. Selig is stuck in 1970's, and fears change!


I think it be a good idea to bring another team to NY. TB could benefit from a move to the Brooklyn

[Dipre]

Originally Posted by BSN07

Your paying JD's salary?

Not only that, but apparently even though Drew had a better season offensively (he led Swisher in every important offensive category except HR and the stuff of legend, RBI, and don't get me started on OPS: .914 to .869) and defense ( i don't even need stats for this one, because Swisher is fucking horrible in RF) Swisher was still more "effective" than Drew.

Go fucking figure.

[yankees228]

Originally Posted by Dipre

This argument is failthought.

Closing the payroll disparity would create much more benefits to the lower-end teams than the pittance they receive from the revenue sharing system.


Also, to y228.

Whether or not they helped create the current advantage doesn't matter because it's still an unfair advantage.

It all depends what your definition of "fair" is. Some would argue, whether they're Yankee fans or non-Yankee fans, that in this society, you should be able to prosper from your advantages.

[yankees228]

Originally Posted by TedWilliams101

The article REFUTES this view. Sure, a decent amount of teams have a shot at winning the WS because of the playoff structure, but that doesn't mean they have anywhere near an equal chance. In the long run, the Yankees will win more. It might not be this year or next, but in the end, they will win more, as they have.

There really isn't a good argument for not having a cap. Having a cap would make the game far more competitive and would help teams financially. There is no downside (unless you are a Yankee fan).

Lets take a look at the Pythagorean W-L records for some of the contending teams this year.

New York Yankees: 95-67
Boston Red Sox: 93-69
Los Angels Angels of Anaheim: 92-70
Minnesota Twins: 86-77
Philadelphia Phillies: 92-70
St. Louis Cardinals: 91-71
Los Angeles Dodgers: 99-63
Colorado Rockies: 90-72

No one is denying that the Yankees have a huge advantage off the field. That's undeniable. But how much is it really translating to play on the field? If you just take a look at this year (a year in which the Yankees won the championship, because past years would even further prove my point), were the Yankees significantly better than the other seven teams that made the playoffs?

According to PYTH, the answer to that question is no. In fact, they weren't even the best team this year. The difference between the Yankees and the Red Sox is two games. In terms of who was better, that difference is negligible. If the Red Sox get a break here, or a break there, they easily could have had a better year than the Yankees.

So I think it's important to note that while the Yankees spend so much more money than anyone else (which, again, no one is denying), they don't have nearly that same advantage on the field, where it actually counts.

EDIT: Also, according to the article of the author, the Yankees began separating themselves from the rest of the pack (in terms of payroll), starting in 2002. Now when you say "win more" I'm going to assume you're talking about winning the World Series, because, in the end, that is what constitutes a successful season (I guess some clubs don't see it this way, but a decent amount do).

2002 World Series winner: Anaheim Angels
2003 World Series winner: Florida Marlins
2004 World Series winner: Boston Red Sox
2005 World Series winner: Chicago White Sox
2006 World Series winner: St. Louis Cardinals
2007 World Series winner: Boston Red Sox
2008 World Series winner: Philadelphia Phillies
2009 World Series winner: New York Yankees

Eight champions have been crowned over that time span. The Yankees have won 1/8 of the titles. The same goes for the Angels, the Marlins, the White Sox, the Cardinals, and the Phillies. The Red Sox have won 1/4 of the titles. I know all this stuff is obvious, but it helps to make a point.

According to you, the Yankees will win more, and they have won more. However, the facts do not back that up. The Yankees might go on, over a much larger sample size, to win a higher percentage of championships than anyone else. But, and most importantly, that is conjecture. You're speaking of these things as if they are based in fact. Part of what you said is incorrect, and part of what you said is conjecture. None of it is fact.

[Dipre]

Originally Posted by yankees228

It all depends what your definition of "fair" is. Some would argue, whether they're Yankee fans or non-Yankee fans, that in this society, you should be able to prosper from your advantages.

Fallacy.

[yankees228]

Originally Posted by Dipre

Fallacy.

You're telling me there aren't non-Yankee fans that feel that way?