Options
Thursday Evening Spam: Boston Headed Towards the Cellar
Gemmy10
Posts: 2,990 ✭
in Sports Talk
From World Champions to Bottom Feeders.
Yankees are now 1/2 game ahead of Bosox and tied with Toronto for 2nd. Just in time for the start of the series with Red Sox tomorrow. Wish I were going. My brother owes me.
A-Rod is gunning for League MVP. At this rate he will be a Shoe In.
15 outta 17 BABY!!!!
Yankees are now 1/2 game ahead of Bosox and tied with Toronto for 2nd. Just in time for the start of the series with Red Sox tomorrow. Wish I were going. My brother owes me.
A-Rod is gunning for League MVP. At this rate he will be a Shoe In.
15 outta 17 BABY!!!!
0
Comments
YEAH BABY!!!!
JS
LMK
JS
Unfocused, impulsive collector of everything ...
<< <i>Just because a team spends millions doesn't mean they will win the WS. Just ask the Marlins or Diamondbacks. >>
Well, let's see... Both the Marlins and D-Backs won the WS with HUGE payrolls only to see their teams be dismantled the following year.
Uh, I don't get it. What's your point??
<< <i>The Marlins did not have a hugh payroll in 2003 when they beat the Yankees and Arizona had much less. >>
I wasn't talking about the Marlins' payroll in 2003, I was referring to 1997.
.......
From the site above:
The Florida Marlins became the first expansion team to win the World Series after only five years of existence. Although the victory was over the American League powerhouse Cleveland Indians, most fans did not grant the Nationals the respect they deserved citing the team's $89 million dollar payroll as the determining factor. The accusations eventually proved true as the financially strapped owners were forced to dismantle the majority of the franchise in the post-season expansion draft.
........
In regards to Arizona in 2001, they "only" had 26% less in payroll than the Yanks; yet still in the top 10.
Yankees - $109,558,908
DBacks $81,206,513
And here is a great summary:
..........
Because they began to contend in their second season, the Diamondbacks made trades sent prospects such as Brad Penny and Vicente Padilla away for veterans. They also spent a lot of money to lure major league free agents (which also cost them seven compensatory draft picks from 1998-2000) as well as amateurs in Travis Lee and John Patterson, two loophole free agents from the 1996 draft.
While Arizona has remained in contention, millions of dollars in deferred payments will have to be made soon, forcing the team to trim payroll and go with more youth. The biggest sign of that came when the Diamondbacks traded Curt Schilling to the Red Sox in November. Though Arizona spent some of that savings in the subsequent Richie Sexson deal with the Brewers, it reduced its 2004 payroll by roughly $10 million.
..........
And just to keep things in perspective, the Yanks payroll is 41% HIGHER than the next team.
1 New York Yankees $208,306,817
2 Boston Red Sox $123,505,125
That's $84,801,692
Los Angeles Dodgers $83,039,000
Houston Astros $76,779,000
Chicago White Sox $75,178,000
Baltimore Orioles $73,914,333
Detroit Tigers $69,092,000
San Diego Padres $63,290,833
Arizona Diamondbacks $62,329,166
Cincinnati Reds $61,892,583
Florida Marlins $60,408,834
Minnesota Twins $56,186,000
Texas Rangers $55,849,000
Oakland Athletics $55,425,762
Washington Nationals $48,581,500
Colorado Rockies $48,155,000
Toronto Blue Jays $45,719,500
Cleveland Indians $41,502,500
Milwaukee Brewers $39,934,833
Pittsburgh Pirates $38,133,000
Kansas City Royals $36,881,000
Tampa Bay Devil Rays $29,363,067
That's 20 teams!
I know Georgie isn't doing anything "wrong" according to the rules, but please... Bragging about winning with a payroll like that is pretty weak.
Congrats on buying the championship this year. I guess having the highest payroll for, what, the past 10 years, is finally paying off?
<< <i>Congrats on buying the championship this year. >>
Stown, your post was spot on - with one exception. They haven't won anything yet. And, can you imagine how embarassing it will be if they lose with a $200 million plus payroll?
I can.
1996
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
I'll give you one guess who had the higest payroll each of those years.
Still awaiting a rebuttal/comments in regards to the above.
Thanks in advance!
Yes, I too would like to hear Gemmy's rationalization regarding stown's careful analysis.
<< <i><<Still awaiting a rebuttal/comments in regards to the above.>>
Yes, I too would like to hear Gemmy's rationalization regarding stown's careful analysis. >>
The most you'll get is 'hey George is playing within the rules of the game!'
But with the yankees losing 2 of 3 of the BoSox, he'll be a ghost here tonight (again) thank god.
<< <i>OK I admit I was wrong about the 1997 Marlins and 2001 Diamondbacks but I was correct about the 2003 Marlins. >>
BUZZ, wrong answer....
As I said, it had nothing to do with the 2003 Marlins.
You said:
Just because a team spends millions doesn't mean they will win the WS.
Yet EVERY year the Yanks have made it to the World Series, they have had the highest payroll in the Majors. This year, your payroll is 41% than the second higest payroll.
It's pretty pathetic to brag about a team with a payroll like that.
Well, let's see... Both the Marlins and D-Backs won the WS with HUGE payrolls only to see their teams be dismantled the following year.
As I said, it had nothing * to do with the 2003 Marlins.
I guess you don't understand the word win.
I admitted I was wrong about the 1997 Marlins and 2001 Diamondbacks but the 2003 Marlins had a very low payroll and were not dismantled.
* By the way the 2003 Marlins won the WS in case you did not know.
<< <i>I guess you don't understand the word win. >>
Keep dancing and perhaps your double talk will eventually start to make some sense...
Of the six times the Yanks made it to the World Series with the highest payroll in the Majors, they won it four times.
You may not "win" the World Series every year, but according to the law of averages, you will win a majority of them. And let's not forget the fact that over at least the past nine years, the Yanks have made it to the World Series 66.6% (ironic number, isn't it??) of the time. That number would have been higher but they choked a 3-0 lead last year, remember? So as I was saying, of the 66.6% appearance rate, they won it 66.6% of the time...
Whoa, there's the same number again... I guess it is true, they sould their souls to the Devil... MUWAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry to take your 66.6% away from you but during the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, the Yankees didn't get to the World Series in 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, and 2004. That's 50% of the time.
Yeah 66.6%, fun with numbers for you. Or perhaps I should call it the twisting of the numbers.
What's an stown anyway?
<< <i>stown, You are the one who is dancing in the dark.
Sorry to take your 66.6% away from you but during the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, the Yankees didn't get to the World Series in 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, and 2004. That's 50% of the time.
Yeah 66.6%, fun with numbers for you. Or perhaps I should call it the twisting of the numbers.
What's an stown anyway? >>
I mean if you want to add the year prior to making it to the World Series, by all means go ahead; their 1st appearance was in 1996. Even taking your 50%, it's still more than any other team by quite a margin. Only the Braves made it more than two times (three total=30% and they too were a top spender) during your time period. Any way you attempt to spin it, it still shows MONEY BUYS CHAMPIONSHIPS... Georgie has done it over and over and over. Gemmy, I know you see it but you just don't want to admit to it.
With all that considered, to brag and boast about regular season games is weeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaak.
Twist that
And if I wanted you to know what an stown was, I would have let you know.
<< <i>And let's not forget the fact that over at least the past nine years, the Yanks have made it to the World Series 66.6% (ironic number, isn't it??) of the time. >>
To which you respond:
<< <i>stown, You are the one who is dancing in the dark.
Sorry to take your 66.6% away from you but during the 10 years from 1995 to 2004, the Yankees didn't get to the World Series in 1995, 1997, 2001, 2002, and 2004. That's 50% of the time.
Yeah 66.6%, fun with numbers for you. Or perhaps I should call it the twisting of the numbers. >>
Pot, meet kettle