The Best Team Money Could Buy

[Gom]

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.

 

Dipre...read....learn....improve.

 

ORS, I disagree with it being simple to get the MLBPA to accept a cap of any sort. There is no benefit whatsoever for them.

 

Honestly, there really isn't a reason for baseball to do it either.

[Dipre]

Dipre...read....learn....improve.

 

ORS, I disagree with it being simple to get the MLBPA to accept a cap of any sort. There is no benefit whatsoever for them.

 

Honestly, there really isn't a reason for baseball to do it either.

 

As usual, you're full of ********.

 

However, your man-crush on ORS is disconcerting taking into consideration how many times he has ridiculed your pathetic arguments.

 

The more you know.

[Dipre]

The premise of the argument has changed.

 

Premise: The Yankees' financial advantage over everybody else is unfair.

 

This premise is correct.

 

No need for further analysis.

 

That's fine' date=' and, at this point, I'm not going to rebut that. But many people have said that this championship is unimpressive, because it was expected. I have a problem with that, because I feel like that's unfair.[/b']

 

You can say it was bought.

 

But i think it was bought within the rules. It's the system's fault.

 

Hey Gom, take the time and read this (which you never do) and explain to me how my arguments are "wrong" so i need to "learn from ORS".

 

If anyone needs to learn anything from ORS it's you. Learn to read.

[ORS]

Dipre...read....learn....improve.

 

ORS, I disagree with it being simple to get the MLBPA to accept a cap of any sort. There is no benefit whatsoever for them.

 

Honestly, there really isn't a reason for baseball to do it either.

If you can't see the benefit for the MLBPA, then you haven't put any thought into it. In system where the cap/floor level is established as a percentage of total revenues, it would insulate the players from situations like what happened this past offseason. Only one team went gang-busters with salary. The rest of the league was very cautious given the economic situation. You would see a more balanced distribution of contracts instead of the insane money the 3 guys who went to NY got relative to their peers.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting Adam Dunn or Bobby Abreu would get as much as someone like Mark Teixeira, but it wouldn't be 4x ratio either. There are more non-elite players than there are elites, and they could be seeing a larger piece of the FA money pie with mandated minimum spending levels.

[yankees228]

Have you ever picked a basketball pool?

 

Do you have a concept of how these things work?

 

Last March, I picked Kansas in my final four. Did I believe Kansas had the best chance to make the final four? No. I believed that their were so many people picking similar brackets in my small office that if Kansas had made the final four, I would have won my bracket (and this was true).

 

The fact that you are using a game we played involving a point system to determine a winner as evidence that the yankees exceeded expectations is laughable. You are trying to assign quantitative measures to everyone's (including your own) quite qualitative opinions.

 

 

Yankee228 - who did you pick to win the world series before/after the regular season? I know who I picked, and I know who the oddsmakers picked, and I know that it wasn't the Red Sox.

 

Fair enough. Because there was no price, I thought you guys were actually picking what you thought would happen. I admit to being wrong, and I apologize for calling you out on it.

 

However, my argument still stands that the Yankees did not necessarily do what was expected of them. While the oddsmakers favored the Yankees, before the playoffs started, there were plenty of other people who thought they weren't going to win the World Series. Some people liked the Phillies offense. Others liked the Cards one two punch. You get what I'm saying.

 

And, before the year, there were even more people questioning how good the Yankees were. Especially since A-Rod went out, there were many people who thought the only sure thing in the Yankees' lineup was Teixeira. Which brings me back to the point that Jeter, Damon, Matsui, Posada, and Swisher all outperformed expectations (which you refuted), and some did it by wide margins. There was also a lot of concerns about the Yankees pitching, and most of those proved to be accurate. My point is that you cannot say the Yankee players, and Yankee team, simply did what was expected of them.

 

As for what I thought would happen, based on those questions, and what I thought to be superior Red Sox pitching, I thought they would win the division, with the Yankees taking the Wild Card. I didn't predict that on this site before the year, but I made many references to it throughout the summer, and I was even paying more attention to the Rays than I was to the Red Sox. As for the World Series, I speculate and analyze, but I don't really offer up predictions for the same reason I don't bet on baseball. Over a small sample size, it's simply too unpredictable.

[ORS]

There's no demand for a third team in NY. They need to do one of two things, it's pretty simple.

 

One, institute a salary cap of anywhere from $80-$95 million. This will never happen because the contracts already in play would have to be restructured and the players union would never, ever, ever let that happen.

 

Two, increase the penalty for going over the luxury tax. What the Yankees are paying now is a mere pittance to their overall revenues, and in no way is a deterrent to their spending. MLB should have the penalty be $5 for every $1 over the tax, or some factor like that. This has a much, much larger chance of passing because let's face it, only one team would be affected by it.

This is clearly the biggest stumbling block to the implementation of a cap. However, it's not impossible to overcome. They'd just have to implement a cap in phases, while using a stiff penalty for new contracts that keep a team in violation of the cap. All current contracts keep their value, new contracts that put a team in violation of the cap in year 1 are penalized at 1x their over cap value, 2x in the 2nd year, and so on, or something like that, with an allowance that resigning current players at their current salary is exempt from cap penalty.

 

This would mean that today's generation of stars could maintain their current salaries for as long as their current team is willing to keep them at their current value.

[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.

 

I was thinking about the sentiment that this championship is delegitimized, and I wanted to revisit it once more.

 

I completely, 100%, disagree. The Yankees have an enormous financial advantage. One of the main reasons they won this championship was because of that enormous financial advantage. And the system is clearly flawed.

 

However, this championship is completely legitimate, in my opinion, for two reasons.

 

1. Everything the Yankees did was well within the rules.

 

2. While they had an enormous advantage, they still had to go out on the field and perform, including winning three short series, which is incredibly difficult. They have proven many times that these championships are not won by writing checks.

 

There have been 105 Major League Baseball champions. In my opinion, 104 of them were legitimate, and that 1 is not the 2009 Yankees.

[ORS]

1. Everything the Yankees did was well within the rules.

So? When you play Chess at my house under my rules, all my pawns have the power of queens, and my queen has all the normal powers, plus it can move like a knight. If I beat you, is that a legimate victory? No, you didn't have a level playing field because of my rules. Now, it's not the fault of the Yankees that they were given an unfair advantage or that they took advantage of it, but the inequity exists, and whenever an inequity exists in competition that is supposedly based on fairness of opportunity, then you don't get a true outcome. You get a delegitimate result.

 

2. While they had an enormous advantage, they still had to go out on the field and perform, including winning three short series, which is incredibly difficult. They have proven many times that these championships are not won by writing checks.

I think history speaks volumes about how wrong this statement is. For decades, the Yankees have enjoyed the benefit of playing in the premier resource market for the entertainment industry. Prior to the amateur draft, they had the most farm system teams that horded the most elite young talent, and they won the most championships. Since the beginning of free agency, they have consistently either lead or been near the lead in total team salary, and they have won the most championships. Clearly, neither of these things correlate perfectly to winning championships, because if they did they would have won #27 long ago, but the evidence is clear that their advantages lead to more success on the field.

 

They had to go out on the field and win the games? Well, duh. That doesn't change the umimpressiveness of the accomplishment when their advantages are taken into consideration, just like it wouldn't be impressive if I beat you in chess under my "house rules".

[yankees228]

All you're showing is that the Yankees have an advantage. I'm not disputing this. I just don't think it's producing a delegitimate result. In my opinion, your analogy would only be applicable if the Yankees were receiving some sort of advantage on the field. Because the conditions were fair on the field, I'm of the opinion that the championship is legitimate.

 

The only championship in baseball that I would be willing to call delegitimate is the 1919 Chicago White Sox.

 

In fact, I think you can make better cases for other championships than the 2009 Yankees.

 

Do you think the 1985 Royals championship is delegitimate?

[Dipre]

All you're showing is that the Yankees have an advantage. I'm not disputing this. I just don't think it's producing a delegitimate result. In my opinion, your analogy would only be applicable if the Yankees were receiving some sort of advantage on the field. Because the conditions were fair on the field, I'm of the opinion that the championship is legitimate.

 

The only championship in baseball that I would be willing to call delegitimate is the 1919 Chicago White Sox.

 

In fact, I think you can make better cases for other championships than the 2009 Yankees.

 

Do you think the 1985 Royals championship is delegitimate?

 

So you don't think being able to acquire the three best FA any given offseason will give the Yanks an on-field advantage?

 

I think it does.

[yankees228]

So you don't think being able to acquire the three best FA any given offseason will give the Yanks an on-field advantage?

 

I think it does.

 

Obviously it gives them an on-field advantage. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that, between the lines, they play by the same rules as everyone else. So, in that sense, the competition is still fair, which, in my opinion, makes their accomplishments legitimate.

[Dipre]

Obviously it gives them an on-field advantage. That wasn't my point at all. My point was that' date=' between the lines, they play by the same rules as everyone else. So, in that sense, the competition is still fair, which, in my opinion, makes their accomplishments legitimate.[/quote']

 

It's not your point, but it's a fact.

[yankees228]

It's not your point' date=' but it's a fact.[/quote']

 

And a fact that I never disputed.

[Dipre]

And a fact that I never disputed.

 

That's why i like you.

[ORS]

All you're showing is that the Yankees have an advantage. I'm not disputing this. I just don't think it's producing a delegitimate result. In my opinion, your analogy would only be applicable if the Yankees were receiving some sort of advantage on the field. Because the conditions were fair on the field, I'm of the opinion that the championship is legitimate.

My analogy is applicable because I'm not changing the field, I'm changing what the players can do on the field. This is exactly what's happening with the Yankees advantage. They take the field with players that can do more.

[Gom]

As usual, you're full of ********.

 

However, your man-crush on ORS is disconcerting taking into consideration how many times he has ridiculed your pathetic arguments.

 

The more you know.

 

He's won some arguments, he's lost some arguments with me. It's the nature of the beast. However, he backs up his arguments with logic and statisics and solid reasoning, as well as being articulate. I've learned from him, as I'm reasonably sure he learned from me.

 

That's why you should learn.

 

See, one thing your little brain can't figure out is one of the reasons I came here was to hear the other side and debate things. Kilo, ORS, a700, example1...all have debated with me. However, sadly, you're not up to par. Hopefully, seriously, you will be one day. I think you're a smart guy, just not a good debater.

 

Back to the argument...or debate....you can't blame the Yankees for winning. Change the system, blame the system...but don't blame the Yankees. In the last 10-15 years, the Red Sox have employed EVERYTHING the Yankees have, just to a lesser degree. As the second richest team, they have the 2nd most success. Pretty much the end of the story.

[Dipre]

He's won some arguments, he's lost some arguments with me. It's the nature of the beast. However, he backs up his arguments with logic and statisics and solid reasoning, as well as being articulate. I've learned from him, as I'm reasonably sure he learned from me.

 

That's why you should learn.

 

See, one thing your little brain can't figure out is one of the reasons I came here was to hear the other side and debate things. Kilo, ORS, a700, example1...all have debated with me. However, sadly, you're not up to par. Hopefully, seriously, you will be one day. I think you're a smart guy, just not a good debater.

 

Back to the argument...or debate....you can't blame the Yankees for winning. Change the system, blame the system...but don't blame the Yankees. In the last 10-15 years, the Red Sox have employed EVERYTHING the Yankees have, just to a lesser degree. As the second richest team, they have the 2nd most success. Pretty much the end of the story.

 

*Yawn* at first part.

 

*Yawn* at second part.

[yankees228]

My analogy is applicable because I'm not changing the field' date=' I'm changing what the players can do on the field. This is exactly what's happening with the Yankees advantage. They take the field with players that can do more.[/quote']

 

Except that they don't always take the field with players that can do more. The Yankees PYTH this year was only two games better than the Red Sox, and three games better than the Angels. It wasn't even the best in baseball.

 

I think it's fair to say that when a team like the 2003 Marlins wins a championship it's much more impressive than the 2009 Yankees' championship. If you want to, you could even say this championship is among the least impressive of all time. I just still think it's legitimate, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

[a700hitter]

I was thinking about the sentiment that this championship is delegitimized, and I wanted to revisit it once more.

 

I completely, 100%, disagree. The Yankees have an enormous financial advantage. One of the main reasons they won this championship was because of that enormous financial advantage. And the system is clearly flawed.

 

However, this championship is completely legitimate, in my opinion, for two reasons.

 

1. Everything the Yankees did was well within the rules.

 

2. While they had an enormous advantage, they still had to go out on the field and perform, including winning three short series, which is incredibly difficult. They have proven many times that these championships are not won by writing checks.

 

There have been 105 Major League Baseball champions. In my opinion, 104 of them were legitimate, and that 1 is not the 2009 Yankees.

To argue otherwise is just sour grapes. I will not engage in it. I hate the Yankees down deep in my bones, but they got it done this season. They were clearly the better team, and there was nothing illegitimate about it.

[Paradisecity]

Its legitimate. And bought. Its both, in my opinion.

[a700hitter]

Its legitimate. And bought. Its both' date=' in my opinion.[/quote']Agreed

[yankees228]

Its legitimate. And bought. Its both' date=' in my opinion.[/quote']

 

They bought the tools, but that's something they had done before, without the same result.

 

Overall, I agree with you, but when you say they bought it, there is a little more to it.

[Paradisecity]

I think its just a defense mechanism because it sounds bad. And it kind of is bad. Is it within the rules? Absolutely. I'm pretty sure you can still f*** your first cousin in lots of states too.

 

 

Does spending all that money guarantee a world series? Of course not. Do the yankees win the world series without spending all that money? Most likely not.

[yankees228]

I think its just a defense mechanism because it sounds bad. And it kind of is bad. Is it within the rules? Absolutely. I'm pretty sure you can still f*** your first cousin in lots of states too.

 

 

Does spending all that money guarantee a world series? Of course not. Do the yankees win the world series without spending all that money? Most likely not.

 

Fair enough. I think we've generally reached a consensus here. The system has it's flaws. The Yankees, within the rules, take advantage of those flaws, because they're the team that is best equipped to do so.

 

That helps them a lot on the field, but they still have to go out and earn all those wins, which, for the first time since 2000, they did.

[Dojji]

With the caveat that a discussion on whether and how those flaws should be amended is legitimate, I agree.

[yankees228]

With the caveat that a discussion on whether and how those flaws should be amended is legitimate' date=' I agree.[/quote']

 

Absolutely.

 

EDIT: When I said a consensus, I really meant between PC and I. I know there are participants in this thread, specifically ORS, who is far apart from me on the issue. Just wanted to clarify that.

[Paradisecity]

I think this is the first time in the history of the internet that all of this agreement has occurred. Should we all sign and date this thing?

[yankees228]

I think this is the first time in the history of the internet that all of this agreement has occurred. Should we all sign and date this thing?

 

Have to do something to remember the moment. It is likely going to be a very long time before we see something this extraordinary again.

[Dipre]

Ban Jacko and Gom from the thread NOW.

[Paradisecity]

Seriously- this should be closed and stickied or sent to Obama for approval or something