Joe Posnanski On The Yankees' Glut And Baseball's Illusion Of Parity

by Eric Simon on Nov 6, 2009 12:54 AM EST Comment 74 comments

I know it's already linked in the FanShots, but if you've had any sort of argument with a Yankees fan in the past twenty-four hours and found your "They spend more money than anyone!" justification quickly rebuffed, go read Joe Posnanski's latest blog entry and arm yourself for the next encounter.

Here are a few excerpts.

There’s something else that people say: They talk about how money doesn’t guarantee wins. And they point out that other teams (the Mets, the Cubs, the Astros, etc.) spend a lot of money and don’t win.

/.../

But the Yankees are a whole different argument. They are their own argument. The Yankees are not a big market team. They DWARF big market teams. They are quantitatively different from every other team in baseball and every other team in American sports. They don’t just spend more money than every other team. They spend A LOT more money than every other team.

/.../

Don’t like it? Don’t watch. Some people have stopped watching, I suppose. But many of us keep on because we love baseball and there’s enough randomness in the game itself and enough volatility in the playoffs to distract us from the lunacy of having the game so ridiculously tilted toward one team.

/.../

And then: That team that spent $50 million more than any other team, that team with three sure Hall of Famers and as many as four others, that team that bought Milwaukee’s best pitcher and Anaheim’s best hitter and Toronto’s No. 2 starter and Boston’s favorite Idiot and the most expensive player in the history of baseball and so on, that team will win the World Series, and spray champagne on each other, and they will tell you that they won because they came together as a group and kept pulling themselves off the ground and didn’t listen to the doubters.

And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up. If you are not a Yankees fan, you are left hoping that next year the randomness of a short playoff series will get the Yankees and allow some other team to win so we can celebrate the hope of Opening Day. And that’s baseball.

0 recs | Comment 74 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: New York Mets, New York Yankees

Comments

This really was a great piece

and even convinced me that we need a hard salary cap for the MLB. I always thought the luxury tax needed to be raised to an even higher percentage, but after reading this, I think there really should be a cap at about 140 or 150 million.

"We must win and we must know how to win rather than win because we have statistical people."

by Evan_S on Nov 6, 2009 1:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of a salary basement

Force guys like Carl Pohlad and whoever owns the Royals to spend a certain amount of money on the team. If it turns out they’re not making as big a profit as they’d like, well, then sell the team to someone like Mark Cuban.

I also think something could be done to help keep players in their original cities – either some kind of restricted free agency like the NBA has, or an idea I really like: instead of the luxury tax going to owners of small market teams, have it go to players who re-sign with their hometown teams. Say that however much money is being paid into the luxury tax by whatever teams are over the threshold (read: Yankees) can be divvied up amongst any free agents who re-sign with their hometown team in proportion to the salary they sign. For example, if Grady Sizemore’s up for free agency, he might decide to sign for a little less with Cleveland, b/c he’s going to get a bonus from the luxury tax, so that put together might rival what a team like the Yankees would be offering him.

I really think these proposals would go a long way toward fixing things, b/c the Yankees endless supply of free agents might dry up a little earlier. But at the same time, the Yanks would be free to spend as much as they want, knowing that in a way, it’s hurting them a little bit.

"[The Giants] beat us down. We were beat by a grown-man team, a team we want to be like one day. They came in here and took it to us. Out-manned us, out-gunned us. ... It wasn't even close." - Raheem Morris, 9/27/09

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 2:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Interesting idea

I never even thought of that. It might work.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 7:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Signature

That sucks. And I’m not even a Jets fan.

If there's ever a riot at Citi Field and Oliver Perez was the starter, I started the riot.

by meigs1414 on Nov 6, 2009 4:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I've always thought, in general, is the problem.

More owners are unwilling pay enough money to field a competitive team than owners that spend WAY more than anyone else.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 6, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So something like a salary parameter

Fixed between $60m and $140m. That would be very interesting.

by deadspy3 on Nov 6, 2009 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking about the idea of

a discounted home town free agency in my thing about expansion/realignment last month. The way you describe it sounds good.

by deadspy3 on Nov 6, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we already have a GM basement

omar minaya, so why not?

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Nov 6, 2009 10:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't really think of Yankees fans as real baseball fans anyways

So I really don’t care what they think. Life as a baseball fan has a certain degree of suffering to it. In reality it’s more"Bad News Bears" than what exists in the Bronx.

I’m content to let them have have there day. Lord knows how they suffered for the last nine years waiting for this championship. LOL

by Chickendirt on Nov 6, 2009 1:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

yes it must have been horrible for them

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 6, 2009 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I've always used this ananlogy

If you like the yankees it must feel something like this……..i.e., taking the bar exam with answer sheet in your lap and then bragging about how smart you are, about every 3 years or so.

Besides, haven’t they been to like 1 out of every 3 world series played? with the amount of money they spend it’s absurd to think their’s no link. Yeah, their just always much better than the other 31 teams or how many their is.

The fun is being taken out of the game.

by skinsymets on Nov 6, 2009 9:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's a good one...

…but here’s my favorite analogy: Yankee fans were born on third base and think they hit a triple.

Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?

by CharlieH on Nov 6, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Yankees are the prime example of a flawed system

but that system is not their fault.

They turn a greater profit than all the other MLB franchises, which allows them to spend more, and they have owners that are committed to putting that profit back onto the field. Not every organization has such ownership.

by TheBigStapler on Nov 6, 2009 9:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeap.

Just had my first off season pissing contest with a Yankee fan because of this article.

by fxcarden on Nov 6, 2009 10:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Did you win?

Oh, the butcher and the baker and the people on the street: wheredotheygo?!?!?

by CharlieH on Nov 6, 2009 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He lost when another Yankee fan took my side of the argument.

by fxcarden on Nov 6, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't buy it

Yes the Yankees spend more than anyone else. Yes they make the playoffs with high frequency. But whatever. The Yankees outspent everyone in baseball for every year of the decade and they managed only two WS wins.

Between those two wins, there was only one duplicate winner, and plenty of good smart teams from all over won it all. The most fluky was St. Louis, and the two coolest were Chicago and Boston (both teams winning their first series in decades.) Underneath it all were the teams from Minny and Oakland that were exciting and competative small-market teams.

The NFL and NBA did not come close to the Championship or diversity MLB had this decade.

And, as Mets fans, we know that spending money is not going to help your team make the playoffs or win all 11 games in the post-season.

Our team spent a lot of money this decade and have only one WS appearance to show for it. Bad free agent signings, kids who didn’t pan out, injuries, etc.

All that aside, I find the salary cap to be a terrible idea. Not only does it limit the amount of money a player can make (while letting owners to make all the money they want) but it clearly not a way to create balance. Sure, the NFL has ‘parity’ but it is only because they legislated mediocrity. Fuck that.

Lastly, what would MLB be like if the Yankees were not the biggest monsters? With a salary cap they would be like any other team – and maybe lose a bit of their ethos. Where’s the fun in that?

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I totally get what you're saying

about the Yankees playing perpetual heel to the rest of baseball, and there’s definitely a conversation to be had about that. The fact that eight different teams have won the last nine World Series serves to underscore the point that baseball’s susceptibility to randomness helps offset the clear disparity between the Yankees’ wherewithal and everyone else’s.

There is some degree of parity among the non-Yankees teams, but with the Yankees representing the American League in four of the last nine World Series (and eight of the last fourteen), and doing so in many cases because of the money they spent as opposed to the competence of their management, I think there’s a tough row to hoe if you want to argue that the Yankees are good for American League baseball (or at least its teams).

I do believe that a salary ceiling and a salary floor are in order, but I don’t expect that we’ll see either as long as baseball continues to flourish financially as it has.

by Eric Simon on Nov 6, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hate to disagree w/ you eric

and i hate even more to defend the yankees here but IMO the fact that they yankees spend so much more and thus have a better shot to reach the playoffs each year is just good example of a healthy, free market system.

more input = more output. the yankees re-invest more revenue into player salaries than anyone else, so they SHOULD garner better results. whereas a great deal of teams pocket those profits and allow the owners coiffers to grow larger (which IMO is the real problem here, not the yankees)

and yes, you might say “well the yankees have more to input” but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, thats life, thats business. that represents good brand management over the last 50+ years as well as the fact that they are the most popular team in the most popular/populous city in the world. more people spend money on the yankee brand than spend money on the twins brand so shouldn’t that be reflected in their bottomline? shouldn’t the city of new york be rewarded for supporting their team better than the city of miami?

because MLB is not like the NFL where every game is a sellout in every city. in baseball, some cities support their teams better and that is reflected in the attendance and ultimately the revenues. the yankees attendance is by far the highest every year, at home and on the road. so how can you institute a system that doesn’t incentivize superior support?

in a salary cap model, regardless of how a fanbase supports its team in terms of spending $ for tickets, merchandise, etc. they’re all rewarded the same in terms of salary expenditure. w/o any incentive people don’t have to go to games because they know their team won’t suffer financially. and that just happens to be the definition of communism which i personally don’t buy into.

you might then say “well thats not fair, new york has a built in advantage due to its population size” and that is true but thats capitalism. the more people that financially support a company, the higher their revenues. and the yankees could easily pocket those massive revenues but they don’t. it might seem unfair in terms of results on the field but honestly, i’ve read reports that all (or most) teams can all spend upwards of $80M and still turn a strong profit but the fact that they don’t want to because they like larger profits shouldn’t be turned around on the yankees.

by robcast23 on Nov 6, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I subscribe to this

R.J. Anderson had a nice post at Fangraphs about the salary cap topic. Also I saw a guy in a Darryl Strawberry Yankees jersey this morning in Penn Station and it pissed me off, maybe even moreso than the Yanks winning the World Series.

by James Kannengieser on Nov 6, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

random thing that pissed me off

I was going through iTunes “MLB’s Greatest Games” list trying to find some classic Mets games to watch, and I saw “Tom Seaver…” and “Dwight Gooden…” and went to click on both of them, only to realize it was their no-hitters, neither of which came for the Mets. The Gooden one is worse b/c it came as a Yankee and I’m old enough to have seen Gooden pitch as a Met and remember the no-hitter. So depressing.

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have never liked the free market argument.

The Yankees ability to spend more is not a result of some sort of free market development. This argument does not work in the environment of a professional sports league in which competition is heavily restrained. For example, in a free market other competitors would be able to relocate their places of business in order to take advantage of the financial benefits of the New York market.

In addition, other teams could innovate and change the competition in different ways. The Reds and the Pirates could decide to merge and play half of their home games in each home city. The Rays could have an IPO in order to raise enough money to keep their talented roster together. The Marlins could enter into a developmental contract with the Mets where young players can receive major league experience in return for cash payments. Some of these ideas are probably unreasonable, but they are all examples of types of innovation you might see if free market principles were active. In reality, MLB would allow neither a third team to move to NYC nor the Reds and Pirates to merge. This control by MLB protects the market share of the Yankees and avoids the possible instability of competition.

by metslaw on Nov 6, 2009 1:25 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs

+1

I’m as big an advocate of a free market as anyone, but MLB does NOT operate as a free market, and to be honest, it shouldn’t.

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

man could you imagine a real free market environment in sports

it would be a free for all.. I can’t even picture the madness, but it would be sorta fun, aside from the whole killing the sport thing.

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 6, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

check out baseball in the 1870's

that’s pretty much what it was. Teams folded every offseason, new teams joined, they’d move mid season, sell their players to other teams. Some owners owned multiple teams and used one to stockpile talent for the other.

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yup like the legendary Spiders

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 6, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There are no free markets

in the sense that most people misuse the phrase. Your definition is about as accurate as it gets: no rules.

What most people describe as “free” markets are actually heavily subsidized, and include an established and controlled currency, subsidized travel routes, police to prevent disruption of those “free” markets, and so on and so forth.

by SeanSchirmer on Nov 7, 2009 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

This is precisely what I was thinking to myself over lunch today and had planned on writing when I got back. You’ve saved me the effort.

Nothing about the nature or domain of a professional sports league entitles it to operate via free market capitalism, and obviously a compelling argument can be (and has been) made that it shouldn’t operate in that manner at all.

by Eric Simon on Nov 6, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you.

You put it better than I could. Baseball is not a free market. It’s heavily protected, both by itself and the US government, which allows it to operate with an anti-trust exemption.

by BobbyV_Incognito on Nov 6, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

understood

baseball is clearly not a completely free market by any means (obviously). i mean, they’ve got anti-trust exemptions so you’re right there. but that was just semantics, poor wording by me because that was not my central point.

in terms of the market that baseball operates under (however you want to call it), the ability to spend more incentivizes/rewards a fanbase for its support as well as an organization for good brand management. i don’t see how you can support a system that supports equal compensation (in terms of player payroll) for every fanbase when they are so clearly different. i mean how can you reward marlins fans the same way you reward red sox fans?

marlins fans might say ‘thats not fair because they’ve already got a bigger/better fanbase than we do so we’re doomed from the start’ but IMO a proven model to increase your fanbase and thus your brand is to win, and you can do that no matter what kind of fanbase you’ve currently got. however, it involves the owner in pittsburgh taking a big cut in profits to buy free agnets or draftees, etc. which he doesn’t want to do so i have a very hard time feeling sorry for the pirates inability to contend because of revenue issues.

so my bottomline here is that yankees fans spend more money on their team than anyone else thus should expect higher revenues on the field.

by robcast23 on Nov 7, 2009 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When your city has 7-8 million less people than the Yankees

It’s hard to get a fanbase anywhere close to Yankee level, no matter what model you’re using, and how much you win. Your argument is gets very close to “there are more New Yorkers than Kansas City… people, so they are more important.”

by yellomellojello on Nov 7, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

to be fair, it's true, in a way.

Each individual person is the same importance, but the sum is greater.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Nov 8, 2009 9:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One point here, brother.

While the NBA has been pretty well dominated by the Lakers (I had no idea they won 6 titles this decade), the NFL has had 7 different Super Bowl winners from 2000-2009, and 14 different teams have played in the Super Bowl. MLB has also had 14 different teams in the World Series. Superficially speaking, I don’t think that there is as little championship diversity between those two sports as you suggest.

(For reference from another salary cap sport, the NHL has had 8 different winners in the last 10 times it has played the Stanley Cup Finals, and 12 different teams in the Finals.)

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

MLB and NFL have always been close

But the NFL is suppose to have ‘parity’ so I would expect them to do ‘better’ than MLB. But it is not. MLB is doing just fine with a system that allows everyone to get rich (and buy all the paintings of mythical greek animals they want.)

Living in Baltimore I get a lot of this “we need a salary” cap garbage. Their owner is unwilling to spend the money to make a talented young team into a competative team. Angelos could have pulled out all the stops to get Tex, but he didn’t. I am willing to bet that he will not put up the necessary money to keep Adam Jones or Nick Markakis when they come up for free agency.

For me the bottom line is this: teams should be able to do whatever they can to build a team that can make a run for the series. What’s more, they should be able to keep their best players if they want. If a salary cap were in place, the Yankees would have been forced to let go of Jeter, Rivera and Posada at some point in the last 10 years. That would have been unfortunate. As much as I would hate it, the Phillies should be able to keep Hamels, Howard, Rollins and Utley for a long as they want. A free system like we have now would allow that.

I feel terrible for Royals and Pirate fans, but mostly I don’t. They suffer from bad ownership just like us Mets fans. The only difference is that their owners don’t pretend they are making a run for the playoffs – their owners take their money and run before the season starts.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

Excuses shouldn’t be made for the lesser teams. The Pirates’ new owner, in spite of his talk, has made it clear that he has no actual interest in winning. And the Royals have decided to make their occasional splurges on extremely undeserving players (the Yankees are the only team that can afford to give someone like Gil Meche $55 million). But something about the current system needs to be changed. And I don’t think it’s unfair that the Yankees would have had to let some of their core players go under the cap. How is that any different from what happens to other teams? If you don’t have a cap in place, at least create a floor.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Im all about the floor first

Considering the money that is coming in from MLB.com and the MLB Network, everyone should have at least a minimum – for the fans if no one else.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think floor is a great idea

and once that floor is established for a few years we can see where the cap needs to go.. maybe once teams are forced to spend a certain minimal amount they’ll be more inclined to field better teams to offset the amount of money they’re no longer pocketing.

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 6, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Why would they have been forced to let those players go?

If the Yankees valued Derek Jeter over, say, Alex Rodriguez, wouldn’t they have just kept Jeter instead? If they decided that their money would have been better spent at shortstop with Rodriguez, then they would have cut ties with Jeter. It doesn’t particularly bother me that they maybe would have had to make some decisions instead of just stockpiling talent (and/or bad contracts).

I’m not sure of the best answer but, like Prince says, I think something needs to be changed. For the record, I’m in favor of a relegation system, because it would force all owners to put money back into their teams or else lose the cash cow and status that come with being in the Major Leagues. Of course this will never happen, so I could also go with both a salary ceiling and salary floor.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, you're right

If the Yankees were in a position where they had to make room for Jeter, they could always not re-sign A-Rod for twice his value or overpay for Johnny Damon. A cap would simply force the Steinbrenner’s to do something they’ve never done before: be a little fiscally responsible. However, I agree that a salary floor would be the first thing put in place.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I fail to see a need

No one was complaining about a need to change the system last year – at least not that I remember.

This is the kind of irrational thinking that is tied directly to Yankee-hatred. When the Yankees win somehow the world is upside-down and needs to be fixed. I don’t agree.

Sure, the Yanks spent a ton of money, but they also got lucky. Few injuries, Howard became a strike-out machine, Anaheim choked, etc.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, it's not needed (per se)

And you’re partly right that the Yankees winning reinvigorates these discussions. But I do find it unfair that the Yankees finally missed the playoffs for the first time in 15 years, realized that something needed to be done about it, and promptly dropped half a billion dollars to fix it instantly. They went out and grabbed the best pitcher in the majors, one of the best hitters in the majors, and another well-above average starter. Oh, and they overpaid for every one of them. I know that personal ideology has something to do with it. But I look at that and see that something needs to be done. I said this in March, too; the Yankees winning it just reinforces my belief.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course, I contradicted myself

with whether something “needs” to be done. Nothing needs to be done in MLB’s view, which is why it won’t change. If the money is coming in, then nothing will ever need to be done.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly.

As long as people are paying for the MLBtv packages and the MLB network is making money, and as long as butts are in the seats, nothing will change.

Again, I am in Baltimore and their problem is unrelated to the Yankess payroll. They have an owner who is not making the best long-term investments in free-agents. If the Yankees spent $50 million less next year, the O’s would still be a 70-win team.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Nothing will change the fact that Angelos is an asshat.

3:45 PM on 10/25/09-changed signature to "Leon Washington for President"
4:45 PM on 10/25/09-Leon Washington suffers season-ending injury

by Prince on Nov 6, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

As a Blue Jays fan as well as a Mets fan

I can tell you that being a fan of a team in the AL East that isn’t the Yankees or Red Sox is incredibly depressing (being a Rays fan the last two seasons notwithstanding, obviously).

You are constantly forced to watch your team play against two teams with consistently much higher payrolls (and in the Yankees case a payroll more than double). I would love to see the Jays spend a bit more to try to keep pace, but looking at it from their perspective, that’s really difficult to do. Take the Vernon Wells contract, for instance. No one made them ink that deal, but they were trying to show they’d compete . . . obviously it didn’t work out.

Your solution that owners should just spend money that their baseball team isn’t making is incredibly flawed. It’s not just about baseball being a business, it’s about having a team that can sustain itself. I understand that owners are making money hand-over-fist and that’s frustrating in and of itself, but the idea of a salary floor but no salary cap is not a good strategy.

The reason that the Yankees can spend so much money is because their team generates even more money. If the Steinbrenners owned the Twins, the team would have the Twins payroll.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Nov 6, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

People have been complaining about it for years, including last year.

The seemingly inevitable march of the team with the best players and the $200 million+ payroll to the WS title this year just makes those complaints a little louder.

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The complaints are louder in years like this.

And in three years when those overpaid pitchers are fat, old and floundering (and untradable) we can all laugh.

The Yankees made a play for the biggest players in baseball and they took them all. That is something that will happen from time to time. I can live with that. It’ll make the Mets next championship that much more awesome.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You might not mind living with it,

but, in my view, it ain’t all that fun, brother.

(PS – Mom says you guys are trying to get rid of a breadmaker. I will totally take it off your hands.)

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, we have a breadmaker

You can have it when you visit. Art Brut and fresh bread!!!

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rad!

Dad totally rolled his eyes when she mentioned it, all like “Another piece of crap in the kitchen?”

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Art Brut the band?

I just saw them in DC, they were great

by deadspy3 on Nov 6, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

We’re seeing them on the 14th. It’s the second time we’ll have seen them together, although not nearly as memorable as the first time (we caught the last song or so at Irving Plaza after watching game 7 of the 2006 NLCS).

"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez

by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Nov 6, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They are so much more popular outside the UK

than in it, which is unfair as they are great. I liked their latest album, produced by Frank Black too.

by deadspy3 on Nov 6, 2009 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it is fun

Because my team is in the NL. The only think I don’t like is hearing people who wish MLB had a weak-ass system like the NFL. Nuts to that.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I do feel legitimately bad for the O's, Blue Jays, and Rays though

yea, Angelos is an asshat, but those 3 teams will never be able to compete at the same level as the Yankees and Red Sox. Basically, they’re gonna have to hope that once or twice a decade things crest like they did for the Rays last year. That sucks. Maybe we should rotate teams in and out of the AL East every few years? I nominate the Phillies and Braves

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree at all

IanB said: “And, as Mets fans, we know that spending money is not going to help your team make the playoffs or win all 11 games in the post-season.”

That’s certainly not true. What we know is that spending money is not going to guarantee that your team makes the playoffs or wins the World Series. Even spending money intelligently doesn’t guarantee anything. That randomness is one of the great things about baseball.

But it certainly does help. I mean, the fact that the Yankees make the playoffs so often and the fact that they spend so much money are hardly unrelated.

by JoshNY on Nov 6, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Correct

Money does help, but it can help everyone equally. In the middle of the decade the Yanks overpaid for their team, but the Red Sox spent money wisely. As a result, the Sox were the big-dog in the yard for a minute.

At the end of the day I prefer this system to the NFL.

Grission and Husart - that is either the non-union Mexican equivelant of "Starsky and Hutch" or the key to winning the World Series.

by IanB in MD on Nov 6, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

i HATE the NFL system. it ruins a sport. you can’t build anything, you can only root for a player for 1-2 years before your entire roster is turned over and every year is just a crapshoot.

by robcast23 on Nov 6, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed, Josh

And come to think of it, would any of us be kvetching right now if 90% of diehard Yankee fans were not certified assholes and Timmy and Joe and Ken did not spend the past 10 days promoting Derek Jeter-is-the-Messiah storyline?

by JE on Nov 6, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's an idea

Everyone become a yankee fan and spend all money on them. Then sit back and watch the salary cap get put in place.

Randomness is an illusion in baseball. Yankees have been to 40 of the 105 world series, next is the Dodgers at 18 and Cardinals at 17. If this is randomness, then please by all means, feel free to send me some of what your smoking, I can sure use some delusion in my life to.

by skinsymets on Nov 6, 2009 11:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

thats not fair

you can’t use the world series appearances from 1921 to prove this point, it was a different system then. in fact, the current system has really only been in place for the last 30 years or so.

and yes the yankees have been to more playoffs/WS in those 30 years but 1) its not nearly as slanted in those years and 2) if you really want to reward the owners who would rather pocket your money then go ahead, the yankees put a much larger percentage of their fans dollars right back into the team which to me isn’t a bad thing; a salary cap is punishing the wrong side, a salary floor is much more apt here

by robcast23 on Nov 6, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I Don't completely disagree

However, yankees used 3 pitchers in the WS, 2 of which they bought last year and they also added Tex. C.C. and Tex were a huge part and they most likely would not have won if not for these 2. All other teams were not able/or willing to spend this type of money. WHY? not because they weren’t willing but because for most all other teams it’s to big of a risk, for the Yankees it is not.

The top 5 paid yankees yearly salaries combined are as much as about 40% of MLBs entire teams. What where you saying about not being fair?!?!

Twist it, turn it, spin it anyway you want. The facts are that the Yankees will be in a little MORE than one in three world series and this is directly tied to money.

by skinsymets on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

By the way

This topic right here is why I’m glad the Yankees won the World Series. If the Phillies won, all we’d be hearing is how grissiony and full of heart they are. Instead, we get to have a serious discussion about the Yankees out of control payroll. And in a way, it cheapens the Yankees victory. Even the truest Yankees fan knows that deep down inside.

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 1:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yes but unfortunately that insecurity leads to further inflated douchiness as a defense mechanism.

by KeithsMoustache on Nov 6, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what annoys me about the Yankees victory

This one was won by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at the problem. The 1996-2000 teams really weren’t like that and really had one miserable mercenary type: Clemens. This Yankees team is, apart from Cano, Chamberlain, Hughes, and Melky, nothing but mercenaries (and spare me Jeter, Posada, Mo, etc. If they weren’t paid absurdly more than they’re worth, they’d be in Boston or LA right now).

It’s made worse by the fact that the Yankees managed to rip off NYC for hundreds of millions to cover the bloated cost of their new stadium. God forbid they pay for the cost overruns and not sign Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett! I mean, they’re getting humiliated on an annual basis by Boston and Tampa Bay: two teams with excellent front offices who would win every year if they didn’t have to compete with a team spending multiple hundreds of millions every offseason.

Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.

by Greenpoint Ian on Nov 6, 2009 1:46 PM EST reply actions 3 recs

rec'd

b/c it’s so true

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Competition!

Maybe MLB should locate a second franchise in NYC.

That franchise would have all the same advantages that the Yankees have, in terms of access to an enormous fanbase in the NY metro area, so therefore they’d be able to outspend all other teams, and enjoy the same success as the Yankees.

Oh wait…

by Mex_17 on Nov 6, 2009 3:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

this made me lol

b/c at first I thought you meant to say 3rd franchise, and then I got it.

by cjmulrain on Nov 6, 2009 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

can't wait for those financial resources to be spent

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re proud to announce the signing of Omir Santos to a 6-year, $85 million contract!

Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.

by Greenpoint Ian on Nov 6, 2009 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The big difference I see is the Yankees can make mistakes other teams can’t afford to. If these other teams were to spend the money the Yankees did on Tex and he crapped the bed those teams might not ever recover. If the Yankees buy a bust(Randy Johnson) they just wait another year and buy another one. I would personally like to see a system where the other teams were not the Yankees farm team. I would like to see a system where teams could keep their talent. Like football used to have Plan B. Maybe let teams use the franchise tag on like 4 position players and two pitchers. And pay them the average of the top 10 players at their position. Then if you have a core that you can protect you can fill in around that year by year.

by burtonboypa on Nov 7, 2009 11:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

teams are becoming less and less the Yankees farm system

At least the smart ones are. Take the Tampa Bay Rays and Evan Longoria. Last year, they locked him up with an extension that has multiple club options and should keep Evan in a Rays uniform through his prime seasons. When it’s all over, the Yankees can sign a 33-year-old on the downside of his career.

That’s what teams like the Royals and Pirates need to do: sign their young superstars (OK, assuming the Pirates eventually develop a young superstar) to deals that will keep them in Kansas City and Pittsburgh through their prime years. Then when the Yankees finally get a chance to sign the guy, they’ll overpay for a guy in decline.

Somehow, a chain of events unfolded that put Steve Phillips in a professional broadcast booth Sunday night so he could rip Carlos Beltran. Try to explain that in any other terms.

by Greenpoint Ian on Nov 7, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"assuming the Pirates eventually develop a young superstar"

good news! they did, his name is Oliver Perez and we have the honor of watching his awsumness for the rest of the decade!!

I.M. Forme
"When you get yourself into trouble is when you feel you have to do something, and then you get yourself in trouble." --Omar Minaya

by itsmetsforme on Nov 7, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True

Instead of MLB trying to even the playing field at all, why not just make all teams cross their fingers and hope that their 3rd overall picks end up working out perfectly.

For the record, Rays top draft choices since 2001 (number overall in parentheses):

Dewon Brazleton (3)
B.J. Upton (2)
Delmon Young (1)
Jeff Niemann (4)
Wade Townshend (8)
Evan Longoria (3)
David Price (1)
Tim Beckham (1)
LeVon Washington (30)

Fans of other teams love to talk about how the Rays strategy really works, but that’s because they aren’t Rays fans. The Mets, who have been terribly managed, have been to as many World Series as the Rays this decade and been to the playoffs more times. How is this fair to small-market teams?

We complain that the Mets, who won 70 games this season, sucked. Between 1998 and 2007, the Rays never won more than 70 games. They averaged 64.5 wins per season. Do you want to root for a team that — over a ten year period — lost an average of 5.5 games more than the Mets this year and didn’t once have a better season? Even if it meant winning the World Series the next season, I wouldn’t take that deal.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Nov 8, 2009 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs