And they say they don't try to buy championships

[Flock of Moosen]

It's not a done deal yet, but the rumors are circulating and so far no one has come right out and denied it.

Oh yeah, they did it all through their farm teams.

Alex Rodriquez possibly to NY

[The Brain]

I don't recall the Yankees being the ones who gave A-Rod that $250 million contract in the first place. But let's face it, since the Tom Hicks, owner of the Rangers, was stupid enough to basically outbid himself to get one player, and is now trying to backpedal, there were very few teams capable of taking on that huge contract.

The Red Sox had their chance. The Mets did, too, a few years ago before Hicks finally offered A-Rod the moon and stars.

The Yankees are not just capable of paying the salary (although I believe Texas will still pay a portion of it); they are <i>willing</i> to pay it, which simply put not too many teams are willing to do.

The Angels and Marlins proved that small-or-mid-market teams (and for the life of me, I don't know how a team once owned by <i>Disney</i> can ever be considered a "small-market" budget team) can still compete and win when the disparity between "have" and "have nots" is so great. But in order to create <i>longevity</i> for your team, you have to be willing to spend money to make money. It is a simple rule of any business, and the sport of baseball <i>is</i> a business.

There is a reason why the Angels failed to even make the playoffs after their win, and why the 1998 Marlins looked nothing like the 1997 champs (remember that firesale which started less than a month after the World Series?). Even now, Ivan Rodriguez left the defending champs... <i>for more money</i>, although we all know he won't be sniffing the postseason anytime soon in Detroit. For teams to succeed, it has become absolutely essentially to be willing to pay for that success.

[Flock of Moosen]

Oh, I don't deny the fact that you have to spend money in order to win, but all you ever hear from Yankees fans is "We did it with people we brought up through the system" or "We don't buy championships" or "Well, every other team could spend the same amount of money if they wanted to."

While the part about the farm system may have been true back in 1996, there is no way anyone can say that with a straight face today.
Roger Clemens, David Wells, Mike Mussina, David Cone, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Kenny Lofton, Jason Giambi, Darryl Strawberry, Wade Boggs, Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill. Those are just a few off the top of my head.
You know what I see when I look at that list? An All-Star team paid for by a man with more money than God.

Sure, you mentioned the smaller market teams winning recently, but there is a huge emphasis on the word recently. You don't see these teams in the hunt every year, but you sure as hell see the Yankees there every damn year. Why? Because "God" buys himself an All-Star team every year and when they don't make it all the way, he gets all pissy and goes out and buys even more overpaid players.

Hey, more power to ya, you guys have a great team. I don't deny that at all, but it kinda ruins the sport for everyone else when they go into a season knowing they have to play well beyond their abilities just to have a shot at beating the Yanks.

[The Brain]

<marquee><font size=+2 color=red>WARNING! Incredibly long post following... people with attention deficit disorder should read in small doses... WARNING!</marquee>

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen
Oh, I don't deny the fact that you have to spend money in order to win, but all you ever hear from Yankees fans is \"We did it with people we brought up through the system\" or \"We don't buy championships\" or \"Well, every other team could spend the same amount of money if they wanted to.\"

While the part about the farm system may have been true back in 1996, there is no way anyone can say that with a straight face today.
Roger Clemens, David Wells, Mike Mussina, David Cone, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Kenny Lofton, Jason Giambi, Darryl Strawberry, Wade Boggs, Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neill. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

I would love, absolutely <i>love</i>, somebody to name a team that fields nine position players and at least one starting pitcher that all came up through that team's farm system.

The Yankee dynasty (for lack of a better term) has always been about the "core" of young home-grown players-- which up until this point was Jeter, Williams, Pettite, Rivera (and Posada becoming a starter later on). The rest has always been about veterans and journeyman coming in to fill key roles in other positions, and I don't know who could have been telling you otherwise.

The draft has never been a guarantee that a player chosen will make the big leagues-- case in point, Drew Henson. Nick Johnson (who by the way, the Yanks traded away a few months back) was the last home-grown talent to make it up to the starting lineup, even if he had to split time with Giambi at 1st base. So having gotten a third of their starting fielders (plus utility 1B/DH), a starting pitcher, and closer up through the farm system ain't too shabby, all things considered.

How is this any different than when Babe Ruth came from the Red Sox, and paired up with home-grown Lou Gehrig to win titles? How about Roger Maris, who came over from the old Kansas City A's to pair up with home-grown Mickey Mantle? Now Rodriguez will come over to play alongside Jeter. It's not even like the Yankees wooed A-Rod away from his original team with more money-- this will be his <i>third</i> team, and the Yanks will be paying him the same amount of money the Rangers signed him to, but were afraid to follow through on.

Why the Yankees should now be penalized for some other team's bad business dealing is beyond me. As I alluded to before, the Mets offered somewhere in the neighborhood of $150-175 million to him-- Tom Hicks than kept bidding against himself by $100 million. This move (even had it been A-Rod to the Red Sox), will now benefit the Rangers, who can free up money to go after pitchers that they were afraid to chase when they had so much money tied up in one player. Of course, had they been smart, they either would have:

A) Not offered so much money to him in the first damn place, or

B) Sucked it up, and gone out and spent the necessary money to complement their expensive acquisition with a pitching staff.

You know what I see when I look at that list? An All-Star team paid for by a man with more money than God.

No, because the Yanks would have Bonds playing left field next season if that were true. :tongue:

Sure, you mentioned the smaller market teams winning recently, but there is a huge emphasis on the word recently. You don't see these teams in the hunt every year, but you sure as hell see the Yankees there every damn year. Why? Because \"God\" buys himself an All-Star team every year and when they don't make it all the way, he gets all pissy and goes out and buys even more overpaid players.

No, because these teams spend money for a <i>single year</i> (see the 1997 Marlins), and then suddenly get wallet-shy when they realize that to stay <b><i>consistently successful</i></b>, they need to not only spend money to keep most (if not all) of their current roster, but spend to acquire new players to fill voids that will inevitably be created.

The Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Mariners (especially the Mariners, considering the future Hall-of-Famers they let go) all have this in common: even when they lose cogs in the proverbial machine, they don't tear the whole damn thing down and rebuild it from scratch-- they simply find a new cog and reload. More teams should follow this business model, because these teams' continued success brings in revenue by putting fannies in the seats.

Hey, more power to ya, you guys have a great team. I don't deny that at all, but it kinda ruins the sport for everyone else when they go into a season knowing they have to play well beyond their abilities just to have a shot at beating the Yanks.

You know what: you're absolutely correct. Someone should back in time and assassinate <a href=http://www.baseballreliquary.org/flood.htm target=new>Curt Flood</a> for ever dare challenging the old rules which basically bound players for life (unless traded) to their teams, eventually opening the doors to free agency and all these absurdly expensive contracts.

Then we can go back to arguing about how players are sorely <i>underpaid</i>; how they have to organize traveling baseball sideshows like Ruth and Gehrig used to do during the offseason-- not for themselves, since they were making a few hundred thousand in salaries and endorsements, but to supplement the salaries of their fellow ballplayers, who were lucky to make $5-10,000 a year.

Yes, folks: steroid scandals and league expansion (or at least, lack of retraction of the Expos) and dilution of overall talent apparently don't hurt this game <i>nearly</i> as much as a sports business franchise willing to spend money to make money. Leaving one whom some would argue the best ballplayer (and most expensive) today wallowing in last place on a team going nowhere fast is now preferred to putting him back in the spotlight where he belongs, on a team (any team) in contention for a world title.

Oh, I forgot. It's the Yankees. They play by different rules than everyone else.

No. They just play the rules <i>better</i> than everyone else.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by The Brain
The Yankee dynasty (for lack of a better term) has always been about the \"core\" of young home-grown players-- which up until this point was Jeter, Williams, Pettite, Rivera (and Posada becoming a starter later on). The rest has always been about veterans and journeyman coming in to fill key roles in other positions, and I don't know who could have been telling you otherwise.

Woo Hoo, 5 whole players! I'm impressed.
As for who has been telling me otherwise, oh that would be just about every single Yankees fan I've ever debated this with in the past. At least you admit that the team is basically an All-Star team bought by Uncle George's billions.

Why the Yankees should now be penalized for some other team's bad business dealing is beyond me.

And why exactly should other teams that can't possibly afford these players suffer at the bottom of the standings year in and year out while big market teams build "superteams"?

You know what I see when I look at that list? An All-Star team paid for by a man with more money than God.

No, because the Yanks would have Bonds playing left field next season if that were true. :tongue:

Don't dismiss this one so quickly. Knowing Uncle George and his deep pockets, I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

The Yankees, Red Sox, Braves, Mariners (especially the Mariners, considering the future Hall-of-Famers they let go) all have this in common: even when they lose cogs in the proverbial machine, they don't tear the whole damn thing down and rebuild it from scratch-- they simply find a new cog and reload. More teams should follow this business model, because these teams' continued success brings in revenue by putting fannies in the seats.

I agree wholeheartedly, but like I've said before some teams aren't able to do such a thing. Ya know, that whole money issue causes a problem every so often. :wink:

You know what: you're absolutely correct. Someone should back in time and assassinate <a href=http://www.baseballreliquary.org/flood.htm target=new>Curt Flood</a> for ever dare challenging the old rules which basically bound players for life (unless traded) to their teams, eventually opening the doors to free agency and all these absurdly expensive contracts.

Okay, first off I have no clue who the hell Curt Flood is, nor do I care. Also I never said players should be stuck on one team all their careers. That's a ridiculous scenario. I still believe though that the league should be fair and more even than it is today. How many years do we have to see the fucking Atlanta Braves win the NL East? What is it now, 10 years straight? That division is a joke because the other teams cannot, for whatever reason, hang with their superstars for a full season.

Don't get me wrong, I totally see your point, but step out of your luxurious Yankee shoes for a minute and look at it through the unbiased lens. It's not just me and it's not just Mets fans/Yankee haters that say these things. It's fans from all over. Why do you think everyone gets behind the teams playing the Yankees in the postseason? It's because everyone is sick and tired of watching "superteam" dominate everyone all because they are able to throw tons more money at players that other franchises can't. Sure, there are others in the league that have the bankroll of Steinbrenner. Those teams that don't pull off these trades that the Yankees do have absolutely no excuseand no right to complain, but others that can't play the bargaining game have every right to have a problem with the state of baseball today.

[TheGameHHH]

oooh jesus, i'm about to bust a nut.......this deal is absolutly amazing, fuck the Sox!

[Flock of Moosen]

Here's another one for ya Brain, just so you don't think this thinking is just my own or is so far out there.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/st...id=1731633

My favorite quote from that article came from Yankees GM Brian Cashman in regards to other teams,

\"You have only $50 million? Tough, find a way to win. That's your job.\"

You mean to tell me that's acceptable in your opinion? Why is it sports success has to be determined by money instead of talent? What a joke!

[The Brain]

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen

<i>Originally posted by The Brain</i>
The Yankee dynasty (for lack of a better term) has always been about the \"core\" of young home-grown players-- which up until this point was Jeter, Williams, Pettite, Rivera (and Posada becoming a starter later on). The rest has always been about veterans and journeyman coming in to fill key roles in other positions, and I don't know who could have been telling you otherwise.

Woo Hoo, 5 whole players! I'm impressed.

33% of your everyday starting lineup (44% when you count Nick Johnson as the DH; 55% on days Pettitte starts). And I didn't initially include Soriano, even though he played in Japan, he also came up in the Yanks' minor league.

Now go ahead and tell me another team which can routinely pencil in that much of its own home-grown talent in the everyday starting lineup.

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen
My favorite quote from that article came from Yankees GM Brian Cashman in regards to other teams,

\"You have only $50 million? Tough, find a way to win. That's your job.\"

You mean to tell me that's acceptable in your opinion? Why is it sports success has to be determined by money instead of talent? What a joke!

From what I said earlier:

But in order to create longevity for your team, you have to be willing to spend money to make money. It is a simple rule of any business, and the sport of baseball is a business.

The success measured on the field is talent; but off the field, it's the ability to acquire products (in this case, players) who will both achieve, and bring in revenue in the form of fans. I know we prefer this lofty idea of sport as noble and pure, but in the world of <i>professionalism</i>, it's about the bottom dollar (and the collegiate level isn't that far behind).

But I notice you keep saying that the small- or mid- market teams <b>can't</b> compete. That is not entirely the case.

The truth is, they <b>won't</b> compete simply because they are unwilling to spend money.

Case in point: in 1994, prior to the strike/walk-out (whatever you wish to call it) that ended the season, the two teams at the top of the standings were the Yankees and Montreal Expos. If you were to look at the sheer amount of All-Stars that the Expos have let go over the past decade simply because they were being cheap bastards, you'd be amazed.

Quick list: Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, Moises Alou, Vladimir Guerrero, John Wetteland, Javier Vasquez. Three starting pitchers, two outstanding outfielders, and a closer. And I'm sure there are more.

I know we like to toss the term "small-market" around like the teams are owned by some little mom-and-pop corner grocery store, instead of billionaire businessmen, but the fact is there are a lot of billionaire owners who are just all too happy to claim themselves team owners (in any sport), but don't really do anything to improve the product they put out there for the fans. Which is why it is a surprise, rather than simple fact of life, when a team like the Royals or the Athletics or Angels actually goes out and signs a free agent for "fair-market value". They are actually showing willingness to <i>be competitive</i>. Too often, owners are content to let the Yanks, Braves, Mets, Red Sox, Orioles, and Dodgers have big payrolls, pay the new "luxury tax"... and then pocket that revenue share in lieu of putting back into the team to acquire new players, or pay the ones they already have. Then they turn around and cry how "poor" they are in comparison to the big bad Steinbrenner.

Yes, the Tribune Company (who owns the Cubs), Disney (who owned the Angels), Hiroshi Yamauchi (president of Nintendo, who owns the Seattle Mariners), David Glass (former CEO of Wal-Mart, now owner of the Kansas City Royals)... yep, none of them, or the myriad other billionaires out there, have/had any money whatsoever to play with. None of them apparently have any cash to take on a shipping magnate who once spent a grand total of $10 million back in the early '70s to buy the Yankees from CBS. You know what Steinbrenner did with that $10 million investment? Transformed it into a billion-dollar franchise that is hated, envied, or copied across the nation. <i>That</i> is good business acumen.

[Canadian Tool]

I'm obviously a Blue Jays fan. I'm not even going to bother this year. I'm not interested in paying for tickets when I know they have no chance at winning anything. Even if we're close in July, the Yanks will just go buy more talent and up that payroll to over 200 Mill.

I hope Yank fans are happy. You're all gonna win again. Problem is, most of us don't give a fuck anymore.

Have fun when there;s like 5 teams left in this shitty league.

[Flock of Moosen]

Well, it's obvious this argument would go back and forth forever. You have your opinions and have made good points, but even though you don't agree with mine, I feel my arguments and opinions are valid as well. In case you didn't read that last link I posted, I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Hell, it even says Bud Selig, the commisioner himself, can't stand Steinbrenner and hates his business practice. Not in so many words, but it is implied.
I hope you at least agree with me on the fact that the sport of baseball is no longer about sport, but more about the almighty dollar as proven by Steinbrenner's spending habits. So much for the Great American Pasttime, huh.

Now, just to clear up one thing you said.

Originally posted by The Brain
Yes, the Tribune Company (who owns the Cubs), Disney (who owned the Angels), Hiroshi Yamauchi (president of Nintendo, who owns the Seattle Mariners), David Glass (former CEO of Wal-Mart, now owner of the Kansas City Royals)... yep, none of them, or the myriad other billionaires out there, have/had any money whatsoever to play with. None of them apparently have any cash to take on a shipping magnate who once spent a grand total of $10 million back in the early '70s to buy the Yankees from CBS.

In case you overlooked my post, I said

Sure, there are others in the league that have the bankroll of Steinbrenner. Those teams that don't pull off these trades that the Yankees do have absolutely no excuseand no right to complain, but others that can't play the bargaining game have every right to have a problem with the state of baseball today.

I do agree that there are others teams that can spend buck for buck with Steinbrenner. The fact they don't is their own fault and no one else's. Still, it doesn't change the fact that if you look around the league, you don't see any other teams with the lineup the Yankees have.

This wasn't merely an issue with the A-Rod deal, as it was more along the lines of the Yankees buying just about every damn superstar they throw money at. Guaranteed, if they wanted Bonds and Sosa tomorrow, they'd pull off the deal.