yankees228

I agree with this, but when you say they bought their championship (while, in many ways, it's true) you're also taking credit away from the players who performed on the field.

I'll try to make my thoughts on the matter clear, once more, point by point. I think the Yankees have an enormous advantage over the other 29 teams in baseball. I think their market has, in large part, helped to create this advantage. I think, to some extent, they have helped to create this advantage by the incredible amount of success they had from 1996-2000. I think it is much more impressive for a team with a lesser payroll to win than a team with a much larger payroll. I think that, no matter what a team's financial resources are, winning a championship is an impressive and significant accomplishment.

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

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.

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.

It's also a business.

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.

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.

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

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.

Kilo, also, I don't understand how can you can that the Yankees financial advantage renders the Red Sox financial advantage irrelevant. The goal, in terms of how you create your team, is to make the playoffs. You build your team to perform over a 162 game sample size, and then you take your chances in the playoffs. Boston Red Sox payroll: $121,745,999 Toronto Blue Jays payroll: $80,538,300 Baltimore Orioles payroll: $67,101,666 Tampa Bay Rays payroll: $63,313,034 Source: http://www.getlisty.com/preview/2009-mlb-team-payrolls/ While the Yankees are best equipped to win the AL East, and have the best record in baseball. The Red Sox are best equipped to win the Wild Card. You make a lot of good points. However, to say the Red Sox advantage is irrelevant, is flat out incorrect.

That is a ridiculous analogy. For the most part, baseball operates under capitalist principles. If you look at it that way, it isn't necessary unfair.

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.

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?

Whatever, if you can't see how that comes off, then I don't really have anything more to say. Anyway, Optimist is more than capable of speaking for herself. I just found that to be a bit ridiculous.

The "*******" and "PLZ READ" comments are a little much when you're talking to someone that isn't incorrect on the matter.

I don't think you can get on Optimist for this. TK didn't say what you're saying he said. All he said was "homegrown talent". What he meant by that was another matter, but, by definition, Optimist is correct. Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, and Posada are all homegrown. Now, I understand that I'm talking about a technicality, but, considering Optimist is far from being blatantly wrong on the issue, I don't think you should really be talking down to her.

When the Yankees were winning a World Series and three American League championships (1962-64), they weren't as popular as the last place New York Mets.

Right, but you keep making such a big deal about the media market. They're operating within the same media market. Yet the Yankees have been more successful, financially, than the Mets. In my opinion, that is due to their past success. I don't have the numbers to back it up, so you can dismiss the claim if you want, but I view it as a very logical assumption.