The argument would be much more valid had they actually won. I mean, of course you'd spend an outrageous amount of money to win, it's a sport without a salary cap. However, the fact that the Yanks have a payroll that is much higher than any other team is going to be criticized at times, and for this, they are often one of the main reasons why others want to see a salary cap.
No, the media was talking about, in the offseason, how the Yankees were actually spending less money. $450 in commitments is an outrageous figure for a few guys.
Yeah I believe it. Michael Jordan used to intimidate his teammates like this too. Actually I can't remember the name of their big man when MJ first came into the league but he said way back in the day, something like: if you talk to me like that again i'll break you in half. Jordan never bothered him again.
This, a million times.
Tigers vs. Cardinals says it all.
1. The Cardinals from that season barely made the playoffs, and didn't look like they belonged in the playoffs until the playoffs.
2. The Tigers were a proven team, they won 96 games during the regular season.
3. The difference between the Yankees and Dodgers is a lesser difference than that between the Tigers and Cardinals back then.
As Dipre said, there's a crapshoot nature to the postseason that doesn't necessarily need or have a logical explanation to it.
o rlly?
I'll agree with that list, aside from Clemens, whose best years were in the 1980s, pre-steroid era, with the Red Sox, when he was much thinner. However the point overall is very, well, obvious.
I'm a hybrid Twins/Sox fan, but I consider myself sports fan first, Red Sox fan second, all other sports and teams third.
PS: Whatever you do, don't listen to Jacko