The Best Team Money Could Buy

[yankees228]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[TedWilliams101]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[TedWilliams101]

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

 

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

[Divinity]

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

 

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

 

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

[Dipre]

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

 

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

 

This argument is failthought.

 

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

 

 

Also, to y228.

 

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

[Mr Crunchy]

Id buy into this s*** if we werent paying JD Drew 75million f***ing dollars to be less effective than Nick Swisher...The game needs a cap yet as I say this 8 teams won pennants in the national league in the last 10 years and 6 AL teams won pennants in that same time frame, is this parity or what?

The sox shouldnt bitch, in fact they should be the last team to bitch

No its not fair, it never has been and it never will be until a cap is installed and once that happens the players union will go on strike and finally we can have the retraction we all have been begging for.

The problem this time is that the oldest and most traditional franchises like the Reds and Pirates, teams that dont draw s*** or win anymore will be the teams gutted along with both Fla franchises and perhaps the Royals and DC.

A cap would hurt the sox but not as much as it would hurt Ny.

[Dipre]

Id buy into this s*** if we werent paying JD Drew 75million f***ing dollars to be less effective than Nick Swisher...

 

Do you watch baseball sir?

[Dojji]

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

 

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

[BSN07]

Id buy into this s*** if we werent paying JD Drew 75million f***ing dollars.

 

Your paying JD's salary?

[BSN07]

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

[Dipre]

Your paying JD's salary?

 

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

 

Go f***ing figure.

[yankees228]

This argument is failthought.

 

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

 

 

Also, to y228.

 

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

 

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

[yankees228]

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

 

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

 

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

 

New York Yankees: 95-67

Boston Red Sox: 93-69

Los Angels Angels of Anaheim: 92-70

Minnesota Twins: 86-77

Philadelphia Phillies: 92-70

St. Louis Cardinals: 91-71

Los Angeles Dodgers: 99-63

Colorado Rockies: 90-72

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2002 World Series winner: Anaheim Angels

2003 World Series winner: Florida Marlins

2004 World Series winner: Boston Red Sox

2005 World Series winner: Chicago White Sox

2006 World Series winner: St. Louis Cardinals

2007 World Series winner: Boston Red Sox

2008 World Series winner: Philadelphia Phillies

2009 World Series winner: New York Yankees

 

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

 

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

[Dipre]

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

 

Fallacy.

[yankees228]

Fallacy.

 

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

[Dipre]

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

 

I'll believe it when i meet one.

 

Every baseball fan i know operates under the assumption that either the Yanks', or Yankees AND Sox advantage is unfair.

[yankees228]

I'll believe it when i meet one.

 

Every baseball fan i know operates under the assumption that either the Yanks', or Yankees AND Sox advantage is unfair.

 

There is a Red Sox fan on this board who doesn't mind, at all, the money that the Yankees spend, and hasn't complained about it once.

[Dipre]

There is a Red Sox fan on this board who doesn't mind' date=' at all, the money that the Yankees spend, and hasn't complained about it once.[/quote']

 

The fact that he hasn't complained doesn't mean he doesn't think it's unfair.

 

It might be that he thinks he should shut up because the Sox also have a significant advantage.

[BSN07]

They just need to make a floating salary cap type deal. Something like a 70M bottom end and a 150M top end. And give the teams 3-5 seasons to make the proper adjustments and go from there. If you over you pay X5 the amount your over, and whatever your under, comes out of how much revenue your particular team would get or something.

 

Not saying my suggestion doesn't need some work, just something to build around.

 

 

 

 

Besides that, the whole money thing does seem absurd an I probably would feel more strongly about it if I was a Royals or Pirates fan. But I try not to get too hung up on it.

[ORS]

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

Not anyone who understands the concept of competitive sports. The ethos of competitive sports is fairness in competition, an equal playing field. The current system fails to provide that.

 

Only when every team is allowed to use an equal amount of shared resources for the purposes of constructing their rosters will the playing field be level. And until that happens, every win by a large market team is delegitimized IMO. The degree to which it is delegitimized is dependent on how much advantage they had over the field. It's intellectually dishonest and logically deficient to argue otherwise.

[yankees228]

They just need to make a floating salary cap type deal. Something like a 70M bottom end and a 150M top end. And give the teams 3-5 seasons to make the proper adjustments and go from there. If you over you pay X5 the amount your over, and whatever your under, comes out of how much revenue your particular team would get or something.

 

Not saying my suggestion doesn't need some work, just something to build around.

 

 

 

 

Besides that, the whole money thing does seem absurd an I probably would feel more strongly about it if I was a Royals or Pirates fan. But I try not to get too hung up on it.

 

You wouldn't blame your own owners if you were a Royals or Pirates fan? It would be like the unsuccessful adult who keeps blaming his parents for raising him wrong, instead of going out and doing something to better himself.

 

But hey, this society doesn't believe in personal accountability anymore, so why not right? Blame your problems on someone else. It's the American motto.

 

*Not a personal attack at BSN.

[ORS]

Someone mentioned the difficulty of getting MLBPA approval of a salary cap.

 

I don't think it would be all that difficult. There's data to set the cap and floor that the union would have a hard time fighting against. Take the gross revenues and gross salaries over a 10 year period, find the average % of gross revenues that went to player salary, and set up the cap/floor around that number. It would show the players they aren't losing anything relative to the current system in the deal, and the number floats with revenues.

[yankees228]

Not anyone who understands the concept of competitive sports. The ethos of competitive sports is fairness in competition, an equal playing field. The current system fails to provide that.

 

Only when every team is allowed to use an equal amount of shared resources for the purposes of constructing their rosters will the playing field be level. And until that happens, every win by a large market team is delegitimized IMO. The degree to which it is delegitimized is dependent on how much advantage they had over the field. It's intellectually dishonest and logically deficient to argue otherwise.

 

That's a fair and legitimate take. Also, I never claimed that the playing field was level, and I don't think any Yankee fans is claiming that the playing field is level.

 

I just don't think the wins are delegitimized. The Yankees operate with an advantage, but it isn't like it's impossible for other teams to win. In fact, many teams have made the playoffs with small payrolls, due to the fact that there are other ways to put a winning team together. In the end, you have to go out on the field and play the games. If you win, whether you're a big spending team or not, you deserve credit for your accomplishments.

 

That's my entire, summed-up opinion. Many of you disagree, but I happen to think it's a fair opinion.

[ORS]

They are absolutely delegitimized. The number of baseball players talented enough to be successful at the major league level is a fixed resource market. The current system allows teams with more financial resources to pick and choose from that resource market, with one team having substantial advantage to the point of having first choice at all times.

 

No, it's not impossible for other teams to find success, but they have to do so through the burden of having to rely on unproven players. Not all of these players find ultimate success, which is why no small market teams are "in it" every year. Being "in it" almost every year for large market teams is the manifestation of the inequities of the system.

[Paradisecity]

You wouldn't blame your own owners if you were a Royals or Pirates fan? It would be like the unsuccessful adult who keeps blaming his parents for raising him wrong, instead of going out and doing something to better himself.

 

But hey, this society doesn't believe in personal accountability anymore, so why not right? Blame your problems on someone else. It's the American motto.

 

*Not a personal attack at BSN.

 

 

Yeah, because Kansas City and Pittsburgh have the same market to draw from as NY. Definitely.

 

 

If the Royals won 4 world titles 10 years ago do you think they would have the ability to spend 200M per year on payroll?

 

Do you think their city would have funded 1.8 Billion dollars for a new park?

 

This whole " Its just good business by the ownership" argument is ridiculous. Of course its good business. That isnt the point. It is unfair business that rewards certain geographical areas and hurts others.

 

Hey, both of LA's teams are in the top 10 in payroll! Hey- Chicago is in there too! Hey, so are Houston and Philly! WOW.

 

It must be the great work done by the ownership of those teams.

[Dipre]

^ Specially by the Houston ownership, who makes s***ing the bed in every aspect of managing that franchise an art form.

[yankees228]

Yeah, because Kansas City and Pittsburgh have the same market to draw from as NY. Definitely.

 

 

If the Royals won 4 world titles 10 years ago do you think they would have the ability to spend 200M per year on payroll?

 

Do you think their city would have funded 1.8 Billion dollars for a new park?

 

This whole " Its just good business by the ownership" argument is ridiculous. Of course its good business. That isnt the point. It is unfair business that rewards certain geographical areas and hurts others.

 

Hey, both of LA's teams are in the top 10 in payroll! Hey- Chicago is in there too! Hey, so is Houston and Philly! WOW.

 

It must be the great work done by the ownership of those teams.

 

When did I say it was great work by the ownership?

 

Obviously the Yankees have an enormous advantage. I just think that those teams could do more to help themselves.

[yankees228]

They are absolutely delegitimized. The number of baseball players talented enough to be successful at the major league level is a fixed resource market. The current system allows teams with more financial resources to pick and choose from that resource market, with one team having substantial advantage to the point of having first choice at all times.

 

No, it's not impossible for other teams to find success, but they have to do so through the burden of having to rely on unproven players. Not all of these players find ultimate success, which is why no small market teams are "in it" every year. Being "in it" almost every year for large market teams is the manifestation of the inequities of the system.

 

So, to what extent do you believe the Yankees' championship is delegitimate?

[Paradisecity]

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

 

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p4ew-fwu2XT3cpPRtt9qIGw

 

Only two teams from the top 10 in payroll break precedent here- Seattle, and the Boston Red Sox.

[Paradisecity]

So' date=' to what extent do you believe the Yankees' championship is delegitimate?[/quote']

 

 

They aren't delegitimate. They are bought. They bought it completely within the rules.

 

Would you say that Mayor Bloomberg bought his initial election as NY's mayor? I would. Does that mean we should take it away from him? No. It does, however, leave him subject to the criticism of "fairness", the butt of jokes, and makes it evident that a better system should be put in place.