Why I like the Yankees in baseball.....
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
NO, not my favorite team, but I like the fact that the Yankees exist in baseball. Why? Sports is entertainment and thrives on emotion, both good and bad. People love the Yankees, and people hate them, but either way they evoke a feeling among most fans, and that is why having a high spending team like the Yankees is good for baseball.
It is good for a sport to have a team to shoot for and to take down, a measuring stick so to speak. The Yankees provide that. If the Yankees were just like everyone else, then it takes away the David vs. Goliath drama, and that isn't good for a sport. YOu don't have "Can we beat the Yanks this year?" attitude. Then when a team like the 2002 Angels knock them off, it is all the more satisfying for the fans. If the Sox win it this year, then a TRUE underdog will win it...undergod being that nobody thought they had a shot before the season started.
Anyway, to all the Yankee fans like Gemmy, softparade, I like to hear you spout off about the Yanks, just look at the angst it draws from other fans, the passion!
Even if you hate the Yanks, they are darn near impossible not to respect. When baseball first started to turn from a recreational sport played just for the Ethos, to a competitive winning contest, the point was to assemble the best NINE to take on the best NINE you could assemble. People tried to get the best NINE they could get to take on the recognized best NINE. Well, that is what the Yanks have done...they have routinely assembled the best NINE. No crying unfair, if you want a better NINE then go and F*ucking assemble them, the Yanks will meet you at the ballyard! THAT IS BASEBALL, mmmm, I'm loving it.
I hate PARITY! Football sucks with parity! NFL's popularity stems mostly from the gambling aspect, not because of parity like some believe. The second most appealing aspect of the NFL is the violent nature of the sport. Without either one of those aspects, football loses most of its luster. Football isn't loved like baseball. Everytime I ask school kids to name some Bears, and then name some Cubs or Sox, the baseball gets far, far more answers. When the kids start gambling, that may change
. But I don't want to dwell on an NFL vs. MLB argument. I just want put a pre-emptive strike on the "Look at the NFL with its parity, and see how popular it is," untruths!
It is good for a sport to have a team to shoot for and to take down, a measuring stick so to speak. The Yankees provide that. If the Yankees were just like everyone else, then it takes away the David vs. Goliath drama, and that isn't good for a sport. YOu don't have "Can we beat the Yanks this year?" attitude. Then when a team like the 2002 Angels knock them off, it is all the more satisfying for the fans. If the Sox win it this year, then a TRUE underdog will win it...undergod being that nobody thought they had a shot before the season started.
Anyway, to all the Yankee fans like Gemmy, softparade, I like to hear you spout off about the Yanks, just look at the angst it draws from other fans, the passion!
Even if you hate the Yanks, they are darn near impossible not to respect. When baseball first started to turn from a recreational sport played just for the Ethos, to a competitive winning contest, the point was to assemble the best NINE to take on the best NINE you could assemble. People tried to get the best NINE they could get to take on the recognized best NINE. Well, that is what the Yanks have done...they have routinely assembled the best NINE. No crying unfair, if you want a better NINE then go and F*ucking assemble them, the Yanks will meet you at the ballyard! THAT IS BASEBALL, mmmm, I'm loving it.
I hate PARITY! Football sucks with parity! NFL's popularity stems mostly from the gambling aspect, not because of parity like some believe. The second most appealing aspect of the NFL is the violent nature of the sport. Without either one of those aspects, football loses most of its luster. Football isn't loved like baseball. Everytime I ask school kids to name some Bears, and then name some Cubs or Sox, the baseball gets far, far more answers. When the kids start gambling, that may change
. But I don't want to dwell on an NFL vs. MLB argument. I just want put a pre-emptive strike on the "Look at the NFL with its parity, and see how popular it is," untruths!0
Comments
<<just look at the angst it draws from other fans, the passion!>>
This is true.
<< <i>I just want put a pre-emptive strike on the "Look at the NFL with its parity, and see how popular it is," untruths! >>
Untruth?
One just need to look at the TV ratings for the super bowl vs. the world series to show which is more popular.
I love both sports, but I can easily see why some people would enjoy football more than baseball...shorter schedule, each game means something (unlike the 162 game monster schedule in MLB), and yes, parity does drive more fans. I am sure you feel it's solely the gambling aspect that drives people to watch football (not sure your point on this...since when don't people gamble on MLB? Pete Rose would surely disagree with you on that one).
You don't have to have a team with a ridiculous payroll advantage in order to have a dynasty in the NFL (the Patriots winning 3 out of 4 super bowls with the same payroll footing as every other team is among the most impressive sports feats ever), and the Patriots have proved you can win consistenly without everyone despising you as everyone outside the Bronx seems to do with the yanks.
And respect the yankees? Are you crazy? Why should I respect an organization that exploits the lack of a payroll cap like they do? They aren't good because they develop talent, or have great front office people making decisions on talent - they just buy talent.
I agree with some of what you say - the existence of the Yankees does make things more interesting. However, I disagree with your statement that they are "darn near impossible not to respect". Untrue - I disrespect them for their money/payroll advantage. Just like I disrespect all of the steroid users, even if they are breaking records. Make it a level playing field and then see who wins. I doubt that the Yankees ever would.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just want put a pre-emptive strike on the "Look at the NFL with its parity, and see how popular it is," untruths! >>
And respect the yankees? Are you crazy? Why should I respect an organization that exploits the lack of a payroll cap like they do? They aren't good because they develop talent, or have great front office people making decisions on talent - they just buy talent. >>
The above comments are not only wrong, but absurd!
Axtell says the Yankees "exploit" the lack of a cap. What do you want? The Yankees NOT to try and do everything they can within the RULES to be successful? Do you want the Yankees to try LESS than they are capable of just so the rest of the "guys" can keep up? This would be a bigger disgrace. I have said this before and unfortunatley have to again. All of the Yankee haters/bashers need to take this up with MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. You know, the enity that makes the rules? Condeming the New York Yankees for doing everything they can to be successful is ludicrous. The SYSTEM is flawed. Go after the SYSTEM.
Axtell and many others say "They aren't good because they develop talent, or have great front office people making decisions on talent - they just buy talent"
Another long line of claims that are beyond absurd. The New York Yankees not only DO develop talent, they have very good people in the front office and dugout which counts more than the baffoon in Tampa, AND they spend the money they make because it is WITHIN THE RULES. Again, blaming the Yankees for being able to do this defeats the crusade most Yankee bashers think they are on.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
SD
<< <i>If Axtell has his way we all would drive chevy's wear a uniform and everyone would make the same amount of money, regardless of what they do.
SD >>
Another moronic post from the master...thanks for contributing NOTHING as usual WP.
And parade, what do I want? I want a hard salary cap, plain and simple. I didn't say the yankees shouldn't spend what they can, but I loathe the fact that the disparity in payroll between the yankees of the world and the royals of the world creates an inequity that is impossible for these great baseball cities like KC and Pittsburgh to not even dream of competing.
And are you going to sit there and say they don't exploit the fact there isn't a cap? How is spending over 50% more than the second highest team NOT exploiting the lack of a cap? If that's not the epitome of the word exploit, I don't know what is.
A salary cap (and salary floor too, mind you) would bring competitive balance back to a lot of teams that are unable to 'keep up with the joneses'.
You seem to go off kilter any time a yankee 'basher' (me in particular) rips into the facts surrounding the yankees. The yankees have a financial advantage that is undeniable; they play in the biggest media market in the nation, and are able to tap that for tons of extra cash. They spend money, yes (who ever denied that?), and I can see how a yankee fan would HATE the idea of a salary cap, or try to see how it would hurt their team.
Wait a minute, lets get some facts on developing talent....Lets look at their recent WS champ years.
1) They do develop talent. Developing talent is really just picking the right guys that they think will be future stars.
Yankees signed as Amateur Free Agents include......Mariano Rivera, Bernie Williams, Andy Pettite, and Alfonso Soriano!! Every single team had a cheap shot at any one of those players! They didn't 'buy' them, those were shrewd picks. El Duque was also an amateur free agent, but not as cheap.
Jeter, and Posada were both drafted. Posada in the 24th Rd.
2) Getting talent is also a key. No team just wins with their own talent that they drafted, especially nowadays.
Nobody was beating down the door for Scott Brosius, and the Yanks took him for a song.
Roberto kelly turned into Paul O'Neill with a trade, and that wasn't a salary dump either...he was almost a scrap heap pick up.
Russ Davis and Sterling Hitch***k turned into Tino Martinez and Jeff Nelson with a trade from Seattle.
So all those players were acquired cheaply or shrewdly, NOT BOUGHT, and were the core for their championship teams.
OK, their big Free Agent guys during the title runs were David Cone, and Clemens.
Then they mixed in a bunch of aging veterans(some whom nobody wanted) during those years with some role players to form their title teams.
LETS PUT THIS NOTION TO BED THAT THE YANKEES BOUGHT THEIR RECENT WORLD SERIES TITLES, PLEASE!!! They either signed cheaply as amateur free agents some great players, or they drafted their key players, or they traded young players whom they drafted for players who weren't in super high demand. Then they mixed in a bunch of aging veterans and role players. They capped it off with a couple of key free agents. THERE IS NO WAY THEY BOUGHT THOSE TITLES!
What they did buy was paying extra to keep all those players, and then the Mussina, Giambi, Unit deals, but those are all POST WS years.
So all you Yankee bashers, get off this crusade of the Yanks buying their titles, because they didn't!! They have been buying in the last five years, but that isn't what net them their titles, but it did net them the reputation of buying titles.
Axtell, football gambling is waaay more prevelant than baseball. Most fans don't even know or understand how to bet on a baseball game. I'm not sure if you remember, but the football 'card' was always the thing to do and bet on. It was simple with the point spreads, and it caused casual fans to wager and watch a game they had money on. TV ratings are a product of the wagering. You bet on a game, you watch it. I could give you a whole discourse on the gambling aspect, but NOBODY, and I MEAN NOBODY watches the NFL because of Parity! The second thing is the violent aspect of the game! This is the original draw to football. This si for a different thread. Right now I just want to debunk the myths you guys are throwing around!
And how does each game mean something?? Since when does two 1-5 teams squaring off mean something?
P.S. Gehrig, Dimaggio, Mantle, Berra, Ford, Dickey, Gomez, Joe Gordon, etc...ALL signed and groomed by the Yanks!
Yes, I reapet, RESPECT!!! It is undeniable fellas. Get rid of your bias please, and admit it!
Thanks, skinpinch. well said.
<< <i>
You seem to go off kilter any time a yankee 'basher' (me in particular) rips into the facts surrounding the yankees. >>
If your "facts" were not so off kilter I would be happy to never talk Yankee baseball. You can use whatever word or term you want such as "exploit" to try and point blame at an organization that uses every resource it has to try and be successful while a team like the Kansas City Royals who are owned by David D. Glass use almost none of his vast resources but are given a pass becuase of the "small market" they play in boo hoo hoo. I am sure Mr Glass will be happy to take some of George's luxury tax to field another high school team even though he could spend right with George, which would then attract fans and money and TV to the ballpark.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Well, how recently do you want to talk about? The 1977/78 Yankees had Munson and Guidry. Every single other substantial contributor to those teams was bought from another team. Every one. George bought the team in the early 70s, and George bought those championships.
The 80s, I guess we can skip, since they didn't win squat. If you want to look at the 81 AL champs, start with a guy named Winfield bought with a mildly famous, ridiculously large contract, that lead them to the strike shortened division title (and tanked in October of course). Or maybe the great Goose Goosage, signed as a free agent in 77, without whom the Yankees do not win the AL in 78, nor reach the WS in 81.
The 90s Yankees, are you kidding me? Where to begin. Girardi, Tino,Boggs, O'Neill, Strawberry, Raines, Jimmy Key, Kenny Rodgers, David Cone, John Wettland, Knobloch, David Wells, Clemens, Mike Stanton, Chilli Davis, Jeff Nelson. And on it goes. And then you get to the 2000s where, even you've admitted, they've become nothing more than a dumping ground for high priced free agents. You can split hairs all you want about picking up guys no one else wanted, or how one mediocre player turned into a great player via smart trades, but c'mon, let's be serious here.
Going back to the 20s, the Yankees have had the highest payroll in all of sports, every year, without dispute. You can justify it all you want, you can twist the numbers all you want, you name-drop all the Yankee greats all you want, but that fact remains true.
Want to talk 50s and 60s? Allie Reynolds, Eddie Lopat, Johnny Mize, Gene Woodling, Don Larson, Bob Turley, Ryne Duren, Roger Maris... Those are the stars bought to fill roles typically filled on other teams by minor leaguers. The Yankees, on the other hand, can fill them with all stars.
The 70s, as mentioned, are a joke. The worst example of them all... Reggie, Chambliss, Randolph, Nettles, Dent, Rivers, Pinella, Figueroa, Tidrow, Catfish, Gossage etc.
Listen, I agree with your points about people who claim the Yankees don't develop talent. That's silly, and as you pointed out there is plenty of history to dispute that. But don't be so naive as to try to dismiss the fact that they spend more money than everybody else. They always have. Go back as far as you want...
I'm a Yankee hater who is not bitter about this, honestly. It's the way it is, and the way it will always be. I won't cry that it's unfair or against any rules. So just accept it.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!!
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
But if you want to go back to where the reputation (rightfully) originated, you might want to take a look through the championship teams of the 20s and take a look at some big fat slugger named Ruth.
<< <i>And I don't know if you're intentionally ignoring the obvious, or pretending like it didn't happen...
But if you want to go back to where the reputation (rightfully) originated, you might want to take a look through the championship teams of the 20s and take a look at some big fat slugger named Ruth. >>
Ummm, he wasn't FAT until the later years
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
But I won't let Yankee fans ignore or deny it either.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Man thats bad huh?
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Yes. Wait. What? My point is another person on this thread is trying to ignore and deny that fact. He even used capital letters to make sure we knew he is serious that THERE IS NO WAY THEY BOUGHT THOSE TITLES! I was trying to point out that he is either ignoring and denying the facts.
Thanks for bringing it the memories though, I really appreciate it.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I think the "have to spend now and win now" shift that has taken place over the last 5 years is obviously not working, Steinbrenner is driving it, and that cash has to come from somewhere - ie the farm system. Cashman may be good at negoitiating trades and contacts, but Michaels was the guy that knew how it worked - top to bottom.
I think the Yankees are lacking good baseball organizational guys. They have left....because they can't influence what George is doing anymore. He and his puppet - Cashman - load the deck and then hand it over to them. Torre and Stottlemeyer have done super jobs managing the deck handed to them. But they have no influence over the baseball operation. So guys that were able to continue the heritage of this team are gone - ala Micheals, Randolph and Stottlemeyer.
At this juncture in the past, George would bring back Billy Martin. The reason being... Martin would not be afraid to tell him where he was screwing up....and would not be hesitant to whip the butt of any high paid prima donnas in the dugout. Too bad it is no longer an option.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Still a tough justification in 96... Wettland basically won the WS for them (or Jimmy Key). Skinpinch would argue they picked up Wettland by dumping a mediocre player for a player no one else wanted, but anyone who actually remembers would know they stole him from the Expos after quite a few good season there, as the Expos dumped him before he reached free agency. That's another problem with his argument... a lot of the trades mentioned look reasonable on paper - trading minor leaguers for guys everyone had a shot at getting, but apparently didn't want. But that's often not true. The Yankees, for example in the case of Wettland (or O'Neill for that matter), traded for guys coming up on free agency who couldn't be afforded by their current teams, whereas the Yankees could afford to extend existing or offer a new contract no one else could/would afford.
Just like the Red Sox picking up Pedro Martinez for a handful of minor leaguers. I wouldn't claim that's a smart trade where the Red Sox saw something no one else did, and traded for a player no one else wanted. The Sox bought Pedro because they had the money to take him off the books in Montreal.
Yes, the Yanks spent the cash, but TINO and NELSON were trades for some regarded prospects at the time. Wells was coming off a 5+ ERA when they got him, and he didn't exactly break the bank. O'Neill was also a trade for a regarded prospect in Kelly. A lot of the others weren't huge contributers except Cone, and Clemens. Wetteland was there for one title. The ones that were semi-contributers like Raines, Strawberry, Chili, and Boggs were also not 'bought' as in outspent others becasue they were in high demand. Knoblacuh of the Twins would have been a better contributor than he was witht he Yanks. He was a buy that backfired.
The fact is, the yanks of the 90's were mostly a product of the guys they signed as amateur free agents, drafted, or received in trade for players they drafted, with guys like Paul O'Neill being virtually discarded by their teams. So those weren't salary dump trades. Those titles were won with drafts, amateru signings, and trading of prospects, plain and simple. Of course they had to fill in the gaps by spending on other players, BUT WHAT TEAM HASN"T DONE THAT??
Go ahead and measure those Yankee teams with all the recent WS teams and see if anybody even comes close to having a team assembled of core guys like the Yankees did. You won't find a single team that can even come close to matching the players the Yankees SHREWDLY got. FOR PETE'S SAKE, LOOK AT BOSTON'S TEAM LAST YEAR!!!! NEARLY EVERY SINGLE MAJOR STAR THEY GOT FROM ELSEWHERE, AND BY OUTSPENDING MOST OF THE OTHER TEAMS. Pedro and Schilling were received in pure salary dump trades. Manny Ramirez was a pure BUY. Damon was a pure BUY. Those are the keys to their team. Only Ortiz and Varitek were the stars that were shrewdly acquired.
EVERY team has to buy some players in this age to win. The Yankees simply acquired a group of players, and did a job of building a perennial WS team without "BUYING" their way to it. How did Arizona win? Schilling and Unit. Both big time Buys!
Yes, I know the Yanks have historically done more buying than others, you are preaching to the choir, but that is what I was saying to Axtell about how having a team like the Yankees is good for baseball. Baseball has always been strong, and it has always been a rich/poor league. This isn't anything new. Just check the perennial bottom feeders of the 50's to see what I mean. The Yankees always spent more, and bought the other teams stars when the other team couldn't afford them anymore. This is the jist of my lead post on this topic. Anti-parity is good for sports when you get 'known' good teams to measure and knock off, and the yanks fit that bill better than anyone.
So I repeat, there is NO WAY the Yankees "BOUGHT" those titles of the 90's. Actually, it was Boston that bought their title
<< <i>
Still a tough justification in 96... Wettland basically won the WS for them (or Jimmy Key).
Just like the Red Sox picking up Pedro Martinez for a handful of minor leaguers. I wouldn't claim that's a smart trade where the Red Sox saw something no one else did, and traded for a player no one else wanted. The Sox bought Pedro because they had the money to take him off the books in Montreal. >>
96 was a complete team effort. No one or two players "won" that series. And even if you did have to pick one, you are forgeting Mariano Rivera holding plenty of leads.
Also, don't you dare accuse another franchise besides the Yankees of "buying" a player. Are you crazy?????
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Just the run of the mill free agents that ANY team could've signed to "fill in" their roster for a 5 year championship stretch...
Wells was not in high demand at all. Cone and Clemens were the only true BUYS that netted them good value. The rest is what I said.
Like I said above, The Red Sox bought a title last year. That is a classic example of salary dumps for Pedro and Schilling, and outspending everyone for Manny. Those are their three best players. They also bought Damon.
All the Yanks best players were shrewd singings/trades. No WS team in recent history did as good as job as the Yanks with that group of players.
BTW, Roberto Kelly was very highly regarded in the O'Neill trade. O'Neill wasn't a player breaking the bank. Nearly any team could have gotten him being that the Reds thought he would never get any better.
I'm not defending the Red Sox in that regard either. In fact, every team does it as much as they can - they buy the best players they can afford. The Sox can usually afford the second most players in baseball today. But don't forget, it's second by a large margin.
And don't kid yourself here...
A lot of the others weren't huge contributers except Cone, and Clemens
Yeah, well, a logical human being might argue (with great success) that none of the championships would've been won without those signings (especially if you throw in Jimmy Key). You guys (people arguing your point) always point to Posada, and Jeter, and Rivera, and Williams and how they're the core of this great championship run and conclude that's reason enough they didn't "buy' those championships.
But the point is, no other team in sports had the resources ($$) to say "hey, we need a starting pitcher, let's sign Cone, or Key, or Clemens. Hell, let's sign them all!".
The Red Sox can (and do) do it a bit. But no nearly as much. No organization can or does. That's the point here. The Sox are a good example in fact. When they lost Fisk and Lynn and Burleson in the early 80s, they didn't have the resources to replace them with anything close to equal calibre players, and they drifted to mediocre until 86. When the Yankees need to fill a position, the Yankees always have (and always utilize) those resources.
C'mon. Wade Boggs was Wade Boggs. The Yankees bought him after the 92 season and paid him more money in 93 than any other season in his career to that point. He continued to hit like Boggs with the Yankees.
And Clemens... are you freaking kidding me? After his two year exile in Toronto, the greatest pitcher in the game made it very clear to everybody who would listen that he wanted Yankee money. So they gave it to him.
I repeat, read my initial analysis of how they assembled their teams of that era. There were only two true BUYS, Cone and Clemens. The rest was amateur signings, drafts, and trading for players that were NOT salary dumps, but for prospects and shrewd moves.
The rest were signings of veteran players that were not salary purges or bank breakers. Many probably could have even made more going to other teams actually.
In '98 they would have still won 108 games if Ramiro Mendoza were in for Cone, and maybe they would have lost 3 or 4 games the entire post season instead of just TWO!
I was also pointing out to Axtell about baseball economics and how parity was never around in baseball to begin with, so why all the fascination with it now?
Anyway, it was fun going back through those signings, and you are absolutely correct, they may have only won one or two titles if their payroll was trimmed, but I didnt' want to let the great work they did with some very good signings/drafts/trades go unnoticed or into the myth bin.
DGS, You have a good quick recall of some of the facts and knowledge of the players, that is a good job
In 96, their rotation consisted of (the ace) Pettitte... and Key, Rodgers, Gooden, and Cone. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WHICH WERE BOUGHT, NOT ACQUIRED THROUGH AMATURE SIGNINGS, DRAFTS, OR "SHREWD" MOVES. Their closer was Wettland, again, obtained by the Yankees in 95 and given a $3.3m contract because the Expos COULDN'T AFFORD HIM.
In 98, Wells was added to the mix. Key and Rogers were gone, so they went out and signed David Wells, the free agent, for $3.7m to replace them. In addition, they dumped a bunch of minor leaguers to the Twins to pick up ALL STAR FREE AGENT TO BE WHO WASN'T GOING TO SIGN WITH THE TWINS Chuck Knobloch. And gave him $6m.
99 was essentially the same team as 98, oh, except they bought a certain Roger Clemens. Bought, even though it was a trade. Even you've acknowledged they bought him. The 2000 squad, again pretty much the same. Lots of above average tangent players bought to fill the gaps, just like they do every year.
I brought up the Pedro thing as a peace offering. I'm not just being a pain about it. Everybody does it as much as they can. I'm not faulting the Yankees, but still can't believe people try to deny that the Yankees actually do it, and do it more than every other team in professional sports, and especially in years they win championships. I don't see how you keep saying Cone and Clemens were the only "buys".. They bought Wettland. They bought Knobloch. They bought Key. They won championships. Just as the Sox bought Pedro, even though it wasn't a free agent signing on paper. That's what teams do.
Hey, I agree entirely about people complaining about the Yankees and claiming they can only buy their championships. Absolutely, they make good moves. They've developed far more talent over the years than any other team - a lot of which can be attributed to their spending however - the ability to sign amatures has always partially been tied to deep pockets to an extent, long before Scott Boras came on the scene.
It's all just the playing field of MLB, the way it's always been. I love it for what it is. I love to hate the Yankees. And I'd hate to see them go.
<< <i>
And how does each game mean something?? Since when does two 1-5 teams squaring off mean something?
>>
When you have 16 games to play, yes, each and every one means something for playoff contention.
And with 10 times the number of games played in MLB as opposed to the NFL, I would be willing to wager that the net sum of money bet on baseball games is close to that of football games.
Yes, the Yanks spent the cash, like all other WS winner of recent times. However, their best players of those teams were all home grown, except for Cone. The talent of the shrewd moves they made is the key to their titles. Actually, Clemens was a below average pitcher in 1999 with a 4.70 ERA, so it could be reasonable to say that they could have just 'bought' a league average pitcher and still won. Clemens was actually overkill that year for the money they paid. He improved to 3.70 the next year, again, not Ace numbers, but they still won the WS.
I agree, that spending helped them those years, but it helped less than any other WS team, because it is still the shrewd moves that formed their best players who were MOST responsible for winning, and in the Brosius type players. That is probably why they have FOUR titles in that span, instead of the one like the other 'spenders' have. That seems to be the difference, their core group that evolved.
Arizona '01(which beat the yanks) was a clear example of buying your BEST players outright. Flordida '97 is a textbook example of the same thing. Nobody did as good as a job as the Yanks of assembling their team with draft/amateur signings/trades(non salary dump ones). That is the main point people need to remember, because from the early posters, and the typical Yankee bashing that gets "Lost in Translation"
Now, the last few years are a different story....Now they are really trying to just buy a title. Most of the core shrewd players are either gone or not as good anymore, and they fill it by spending tons of money. And if they don't start getting better players like they did before(the shrewd way), then they still may not win a WS. Like a poster said above, that is the fault of the GM. It seems the previous GM did a heckuva job in preparing the late 90's teams.
Anyway dgs, good conversation. Thanks for the entertainment.
-skin
Skin as usual great post.
<< <i>Axhole, Skin is correct. You should keep your foolish comments to yourself. A little thought before you post may help you.
Skin as usual great post. >>
Hey WP, you got some brown stuff on your nose...may want to wipe it off before *you* post from now on.
And yes, every game *does* count in football...I am sorry you are so blinded by your love of baseball to realize that.
of course every game counts in any sport (even GOLF) with that said not every game has meaning towards playoff or seeding etc.
your wrong as usual.
SD
Next thing you know, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig will be classified as average because they played for the Yankees.
Axtell - it's a joke. It was only a joke.
Great discussion on the 90s and 00s spending and players!
And as far as Wettleand goes...Mariano was the middle relief and I think he didnt get the credit he deserves for those years! I think almost any average closer would have looked like Wetteland when Mariano took care of business before you!
<< <i>Axtell your an A$$
of course every game counts in any sport (even GOLF) with that said not every game has meaning towards playoff or seeding etc.
your wrong as usual.
SD >>
Yes, every game DOES count in football you buffoon.
How witty do you think you are, spelling out your 'insult' (and I use that word lightly) with 2 $$s? Oooh clever!
I find it humorous at best that the baseball nuts think that each game in baseball has as much weight as in football...based purely on the number of games, 1 football game has the weight of TEN baseball games.
I find it humorous at best that the baseball nuts think that each game in baseball has as much weight as in football...
No one every made that implication.
And NO every game DOES NOT count in football. If of course bt saying count you mean towards making playoffs, seeding, etc etc.
SD