The Best Team Money Could Buy

[jacksonianmarch]

My god you are dense. So, because the yankees did it in one offseason and the sox did it with a collection of guys they bought over the yrs makes a difference? Thats stupid and you know it. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on here

[Dipre]

Personally I think there is a difference between signing players over time and signing 60% of your franchise players in a single offseason.

 

Manny signed SIX years prior the Red Sox World Championship but if we're going to count him as a bought player than he's is the only one from the Red Sox 2007 core. (We gave up two highly touted prospects for Beckett and Lowell was basically seen as a debit at this point. Schilling also took a large package of prospects to land).

 

On the other end of the spectrum is the Yankees who really only have Jeter as non-bought player of their core. As noted CC/AJ/Tex were all bought in one offseason for a whopping price of 450 mil, a price that'd be crazy to try to justify in terms of what other teams have done (because no team has even remotely came close to that). Throw in the 300mil FA Arod and that's basically 3/4 of a billion dollars of bought core players.

 

Again, no comparison here.

 

That's just a ******** argument.

 

He's using Manny Ramirez in his 2007 argument.

 

Now THAT'S a resource that ran dry.

 

Let's mention Damon, Matsui and A-Rod as key signings for the 2009 Yanks championship amirite?

[Dipre]

My god you are dense. So' date=' because the yankees did it in one offseason and the sox did it with a collection of guys they bought over the yrs makes a difference? Thats stupid and you know it. Just admit you are wrong and we can move on here[/quote']

 

:lol::lol:

[jacksonianmarch]

That's just a ******** argument.

 

He's using Manny Ramirez in his 2007 argument.

 

Now THAT'S a resource that ran dry.

 

Let's mention Damon, Matsui and A-Rod as key signings for the 2009 Yanks championship amirite?

 

you should. Those players were BOUGHT.

[Dipre]

you should. Those players were BOUGHT.

 

By your logic, every championship this decade has been bought.

[yankees228]

Personally I think there is a difference between signing players over time and signing 60% of your franchise players in a single offseason.

 

Manny signed SIX years prior the Red Sox World Championship but if we're going to count him as a bought player than he's is the only one from the Red Sox 2007 core. (We gave up two highly touted prospects for Beckett and Lowell was basically seen as a debit at this point. Schilling also took a large package of prospects to land).

 

On the other end of the spectrum is the Yankees who really only have Jeter as non-bought player of their core. As noted CC/AJ/Tex were all bought in one offseason for a whopping price of 450 mil, a price that'd be crazy to try to justify in terms of what other teams have done (because no team has even remotely came close to that). Throw in the 300mil FA Arod and that's basically 3/4 of a billion dollars of bought core players.

 

Again, no comparison here.

 

Burnett and his slightly above average ERA is not a franchise player. Rivera is an enormous piece, and he's home grown. So is Posada, considering the production they get out of him from his position. As for A-Rod, the only reason they were in position to re-sign him was because they acquired him via trade, and they gave up an all star for him.

 

The two teams aren't on the same level, but your argument reeks of bias.

[jacksonianmarch]

By your logic' date=' every championship this decade has been bought.[/quote']

 

2003 was not bought

[Dipre]

Burnett and his slightly above average ERA is not a franchise player. Rivera is an enormous piece, and he's home grown. So is Posada, considering the production they get out of him from his position. As for A-Rod, the only reason they were in position to re-sign him was because they acquired him via trade, and they gave up an all star for him.

 

The two teams aren't on the same level, but your argument reeks of bias.

 

Premise:

 

2004 Championship was bought.

 

2009 Championship was bought.

 

2000 Championship was not bought.

 

2007 Championship was not bought.

 

Your POV on the subject, Y228?

[yankees228]

Premise:

 

2004 Championship was bought.

 

2009 Championship was bought.

 

2000 Championship was not bought.

 

2007 Championship was not bought.

 

Your POV on the subject, Y228?

 

It all depends how you define "bought". The word is being thrown around like it has a definitive, meaning, when it really doesn't. Many of the recent champions were won because the teams were able to spend significant amounts of money. Money played more of a role in the 2009 championship than any other (with the exception of 1919, but that is completely different).

[Dipre]

It all depends how you define "bought". The word is being thrown around like it has a definitive' date=' meaning, when it really doesn't. Many of the recent champions were won because the teams were able to spend significant amounts of money. Money played more of a role in the 2009 championship than any other (with the exception of 1919, but that is completely different).[/quote']

 

In the case of 2004, even though the Red Sox did not spend vast amounts of money the year before, they were still basically an assembly of mercenaries, so i believe they fall into the category as well.

[yankees228]

In the case of 2004' date=' even though the Red Sox did not spend vast amounts of money the year before, they were still basically an assembly of mercenaries, so i believe they fall into the category as well.[/quote']

 

I just really don't like using that word, because I think (and I know this isn't your intention) it devalues the accomplishment. The word "bought" makes it seem like it's a purchase. Winning a Major League Baseball championship is never a purchase.

[Dipre]

I just really don't like using that word' date=' because I think (and I know this isn't your intention) it devalues the accomplishment. The word "bought" makes it seem like it's a purchase. Winning a Major League Baseball championship is never a purchase.[/quote']

 

I don't think it devalues the accomplishment, but rather it denotes how easily exploitable the system is.

 

The crapshoot factor and the toughness required to make it all the way still remain.

[yankees228]

I don't think it devalues the accomplishment, but rather it denotes how easily exploitable the system is.

 

The crapshoot factor and the toughness required to make it all the way still remain.

 

Fair enough. We're on the same page about what it takes to win a championship. And we're on the same page about the system.

 

I just feel like the word carries around such a negative connotation to it. You know quite well that I'm the first person to admit that the Yankees have a financial advantage over every other club. I guess I just prefer not to use the word "bought".

[Dipre]

Fair enough. We're on the same page about what it takes to win a championship. And we're on the same page about the system.

 

I just feel like the word carries around such a negative connotation to it. You know quite well that I'm the first person to admit that the Yankees have a financial advantage over every other club. I guess I just prefer not to use the word "bought".

 

Then under what other definition would you characterize the hand that the financial advantage played in both the 2004 and 2009 Championship?

 

I'm all eyes.

[yankees228]

Then under what other definition would you characterize the hand that the financial advantage played in both the 2004 and 2009 Championship?

 

I'm all eyes.

 

I don't think it needs a specific definition. We both openly acknowledge that the financial advantage of the Yankees, and, to a lesser extent, the financial advantage of the Red Sox contributed to those two championships.

[Dipre]

I don't think it needs a specific definition. We both openly acknowledge that the financial advantage of the Yankees' date=' and, to a lesser extent, the financial advantage of the Red Sox contributed to those two championships.[/quote']

 

You plain just don't like the word.

[yankees228]

You plain just don't like the word.

 

Haha, you have a point. Fortunately, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that we might have reached a bit of a consensus here.

[Dipre]

Haha' date=' you have a point. Fortunately, and correct me if I'm wrong, it seems that we might have reached a bit of a consensus here.[/quote']

 

Well unlike the two unmentionable fellows, it is quite possible to have a an informed, unbiased conversation with you.

[Rdsxmbnt]

 

The two teams aren't on the same level, but your argument reeks of bias.

 

I respect your opinion, but I'm going to have to say you're wrong (about the bias part).

[yankees228]

I respect your opinion' date=' but I'm going to have to say you're wrong (about the bias part).[/quote']

 

Well, I never said it was bias. All I said is that's what it seemed like to me. Regardless, I believe you.

[Rdsxmbnt]

Well' date=' I never said it was bias. All I said is that's what it seemed like to me. Regardless, I believe you.[/quote']

 

I'm just messing with you. But regardless Jacko there is a very clear line between what the Yankees did and what the Red Sox did regarding FA signings. Beckett/Lowell/Schilling were by no means salary trades in the same nature that the Yankees signings were which really puts a dent in that roster you posted earlier.

[TheKilo]

This is why Rdsxmbnt needs to post more.