And they say they don't try to buy championships

[mrcrowley1206]

One of the local news show interviewed a Met fan and the guy said something to the effect of.."A-Rod is good,but I dont see him helping the Yankees all that much". When the news anchor came back on he said..."Well..... thats typical of Met fans"
And he's right.

[Flock of Moosen]

One last thing on the matter that I just researched.
Check out the team salaries from last season.

2003 MLB Salaries

There is almost $36 million difference in salary between the 1st (Yankees) and 2nd (Mets) highest teams. That's not even counting how much more distance will be put between the Yankees and the rest of the league once A-Rod's contract is factored in.

This is why I strongly believe a salary cap is needed in baseball. It would allow other teams who, no matter what anyone says, can't fully compete monetarily to have a chance each year. If the same team(s) still keeps winning when the salaries are evened out, then there would be no room for argument. Then the truly better team does deserve to win, but as far as I'm concerned the Yankees could win the next 10 World Series', but it means nothing since those titles will have been bought, not earned.

[The Brain]

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.

In a era where even the Little League World Series is broadcast on primetime ESPN, with little 11-and 12-year olds mugging for the cameras, and the big boys are negotiating $4 <b>b</b>illion contracts with that network and ABC to televise their games, then no, I would have to say that the "sport" of baseball has been non-existent for a long time. But this would occur with or without Steinbrenner's presence in the game.

Look, prior to Curt Flood (shame on you for not knowing who he was), ballplayers were little more than indentured servants, barely making an honest wage while owners kept pocketing money at their expense. Now we've flown to the other extreme, but at least in the free agent era, a player can at least get a slice of that incredibly large pie of money that the owners have been hogging for decades.

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen
This is why I strongly believe a salary cap is needed in baseball. It would allow other teams who, no matter what anyone says, can't fully compete monetarily to have a chance each year. If the same team(s) still keeps winning when the salaries are evened out, then there would be no room for argument.

Make no mistake, I agree. It's not that I don't believe for one second these guys are vastly overpaid (they are), but I understand that in a multi-billion dollar entertainment business, the people who put the most fans in the seats will reap the most benefits.

I would take your idea one step further. The luxury tax exists as a <i>flexible</i> salary ceiling; teams can go over a set amount (roughly $125 million), but they get progressively more and more penalized the higher they go. But I want to see a "salary floor", a standard minimum by which all teams must be willing to spend every year to put a competitve product on the field. The notion of the Kansas City Royals thinking they can continue to compete on a $45 million payroll is absurd.

If all teams were forced to pay within a $75-125 million dollar range, with those going above or below those numbers paying luxury taxes to compensate, you would see more parity throughout the league.

But now I'll pose this to you: would such a parity really be all that desirable? A great deal has been made about the parity taking over the NFL, and how it has begun to breed mediocrity. Do we really want all the baseball teams hovering no more than 20 games above or below .500, with neither clear cut favorites nor also-rans? You can argue that it keeps everyone in contention for the playoffs, but what good is that if the teams are interchangeably mediocre?

Then the truly better team does deserve to win, but as far as I'm concerned the Yankees could win the next 10 World Series', but it means nothing since those titles will have been bought, not earned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the players still have to go out and actually <i>play</i>. There are no sure guarantees in life other than death and taxes. You could field the 1927 "Murderer's Row" Yankees, and there is still always the chance that some team will simply come out and play better than them that day. Or some young pup of a pitcher will pitch lights-out, and shut them down. That's why they actually play the game, not just look at sheets of paper and deduce that <i>x</i> or <i>y</i> will just naturally occur.

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by The Brain

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.

In a era where even the Little League World Series is broadcast on primetime ESPN, with little 11-and 12-year olds mugging for the cameras, and the big boys are negotiating $4 <b>b</b>illion contracts with that network and ABC to televise their games, then no, I would have to say that the "sport" of baseball has been non-existent for a long time. But this would occur with or without Steinbrenner's presence in the game.

Hey, I knew if we kept this up long enough, we'd eventually agree on something.
Look, I understand it's a business and all. I don't dispute that fact. All I'm saying is it's sad that it's all about the almighty dollar and not about the competition. Remember playing sports as a kid? I won't speak for anyone else, but I know damn well when I was growing up and playing I never thought to myself "Hey, if I get good enough at this sport I can make millions of dollars." It was all about having fun for me.
Also I don't solely blame Steinbrenner for this, but he is one of, if not the biggest, violator of a once great game.

Originally posted by Flock of Moosen
This is why I strongly believe a salary cap is needed in baseball. It would allow other teams who, no matter what anyone says, can't fully compete monetarily to have a chance each year. If the same team(s) still keeps winning when the salaries are evened out, then there would be no room for argument.

Make no mistake, I agree. It's not that I don't believe for one second these guys are vastly overpaid (they are), but I understand that in a multi-billion dollar entertainment business, the people who put the most fans in the seats will reap the most benefits. [/quote]
Wow, that's twice now. We better cut this out otherwise people may begin to talk. :wink:

But now I'll pose this to you: would such a parity really be all that desirable? A great deal has been made about the parity taking over the NFL, and how it has begun to breed mediocrity. Do we really want all the baseball teams hovering no more than 20 games above or below .500, with neither clear cut favorites nor also-rans? You can argue that it keeps everyone in contention for the playoffs, but what good is that if the teams are interchangeably mediocre?

See, this is where we have different tastes. I for one love to see new teams in the hunt every year. I got so bored watching the the Yankees, or the Lakers, or the 49ers and Cowboys winning every damn year. While you may consider a new team every year mediocrity, I consider it good, even competition. I love going into a new season not having a clue who is the team that has the best shot at winning a champioship, but before it was always "Can't wait to see yet another 49ers/Cowboys NFC Championship game again this year."

Let me just clear something up so you don't think is a solely bash the Yankees type deal because it's not. I would feel the same exact way about this situation if it were the Red Sox, the Braves, the Mariners, or the Giants doing this. It just so happens that George Steinbrenner and the Yankees do it far more than the other teams and at this point in time it is far out of control. Major League Baseball needs to get and hand on this and quickly before no one else has the slighest chance of competing because believe me if it keeps up Uncle George will have 9 All-Stars out in that field every game instead of the 5-6 he has now. Deny that all you want, but everyone knows it to be true.

[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
See, this is where we have different tastes. I for one love to see new teams in the hunt every year. I got so bored watching the the Yankees, or the Lakers, or the 49ers and Cowboys winning every damn year. While you may consider a new team every year mediocrity, I consider it good, even competition. I love going into a new season not having a clue who is the team that has the best shot at winning a champioship, but before it was always \"Can't wait to see yet another 49ers/Cowboys NFC Championship game again this year.\"

Here I gotta strongly disagree. Some of the greatest rivalries in sports have been created when one team had what the other did not. The old Yankee-Giant, Yankee-Dodger, and Yankee-Red Sox (hey, it's not my fault the Yanks are so freakin' successful) rivalries.

Or how about Magic Johnson and Larry Bird? The NBA would not have become the popular sport it has were it not for Boston and L.A. trading championships for an entire decade. And even before them, no one semed to mind Boston winning some 8 titles in a row, during the old Bill Russell and Bob Cousy era. It was something for every other team to aspire to: knock off the top dog. Isiah Thomas finally did that to both Bird and Magic, and it was wonderful to see. Then Michael overcame Thomas and the Pistons after years (<i>years</i>) of trying, and became basketball immortality.

The Yankees of the '20s, '30s, '40s. The Celtics of the '60s. The Cincinnati Reds "Big Red Machine" of the '70s and '80s. The Oakland A's of the late '80s, when MacGuire and Canseco were like Maris and Mantle, and Eckersley ruled the 9th inning like Mariano does today.

The San Francisco 49ers under Montana; the '90s Cowboys under Aikman-- even the Buffalo Bills of the early '90s, making it to the big game year after year, although they always came up short. The Edmonton Oilers under Gretzky and Messier. Muhammed Ali owning the ring, decades before Tyson and Jones Jr., and decades after guys named Dempsey, Tunney, and Louis.

<i>Every</i> sport has an instance (or more) where one team or man ruled the roost, and everyone wanted to be the guys who knocked them off. To even think that the very nature of sport would be better off with constant turnover, instead of one or two models of <i>consistency</i> for everyone to hunt, is obscene.

If you want that to be the case, then we might as well abolish the actual season, and start picking a team name out of a hat, then just hand them a trophy. You would get the same amount of randomness in the winner. If you still need to actually witness a "game" at that point, it can be completely pre-scripted like pro wrestling.

Let me just clear something up so you don't think is a solely bash the Yankees type deal because it's not. I would feel the same exact way about this situation if it were the Red Sox, the Braves, the Mariners, or the Giants doing this. It just so happens that George Steinbrenner and the Yankees do it far more than the other teams and at this point in time it is far out of control.

Steinbrenner and the Yankees do <b>it</b> far more often. What is <b>it</b> exactly? If you mean take risks by aggressively going after players, and by performing standard business techniques in order to keep a competitive product on the field, then yes, I agree. Contrary to what you might seem to believe, they don;t do anything underhanded; they play under the exact same league rules. The Yankees just have more <i>cajones</i> to go after what they require to win.

Major League Baseball needs to get and hand on this and quickly before <b>no one else has the slighest chance of competing</b> because believe me if it keeps up Uncle George will have 9 All-Stars out in that field every game instead of the 5-6 he has now. Deny that all you want, but everyone knows it to be true.

Am I missing something? Is every other GM in the league holding onto little ceramic piggy banks, while Steinbrenner is the only who owns a Fort Knox-sized vault? That's nonsense. All I see is that everyone faults Steinbrenner for using the exact same <i>aggressive business</i> tactics that would have someone named Trump applauded down on Wall Street. As I've said before, at least "The Boss" gives a damn in putting a high-quality product on the field each and every year, rather than trying to cut corners like most owners do.

OK, yes, it helps greatly that he has a team in the #1 media market, where he can negotiate high-revenue TV contracts. But try and remember that the Yankees were <i>once owned by the CBS TV network</i>, and were only worth $10 million when they were sold to him back in the early '70s. Something tells me that the guy would have still succeeded using this model, even had the team been located elsewhere.

The money he has spent on them in all this time since... <i>is his own</i>. Not money from some "revenue-sharing" deal, or courtesy of a "luxury tax". No, that's money that goes to teams that play on the cheap, like Cincinnati and Kansas City. People in those cities should be far more concerned that their team owners and GMs are taking that money and <b>not</b> putting it back into the team payroll to improve personnel, than they should concern themsleves with what a George Steinbrenner is doing. It's owner apathy in such places like Cincy and Milwaukee (Bud Selig fans, take note of what he did to that franchise under his ownership), and in Montreal-- hey, they had to sell the team back to the league office because they were fucking it up so much-- that is the true poison in baseball. Not the owner who cares about his team winning, and the bottom line of winning.

Remember playing sports as a kid? I won't speak for anyone else, but I know damn well when I was growing up and playing I never thought to myself \"Hey, if I get good enough at this sport I can make millions of dollars.\" It was all about having fun for me.

I think you're just unique, then. I'm sure every kid growing up has emulated one of his favorite players during a game, and wanted to be that player, with the money and fame, cars, women. You think kids in the '50s looked at DiMaggio, and didn't wish they could be the one playing in fron of 70,000 at Yankee Stadium in October, and marrying Marilyn Monroe? Come on.

[The Brain]

Oh yeah, is there any way we can get this:

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

built into a button, that I can just press when I decide to go on one of my long-winded rants?

Where's Jack when we need him?

[Flock of Moosen]

Originally posted by The Brain
<i>Every</i> sport has an instance (or more) where one team or man ruled the roost, and everyone wanted to be the guys who knocked them off. To even think that the very nature of sport would be better off with constant turnover, instead of one or two models of <i>consistency</i> for everyone to hunt, is obscene.

If you want that to be the case, then we might as well abolish the actual season, and start picking a team name out of a hat, then just hand them a trophy. You would get the same amount of randomness in the winner. If you still need to actually witness a \"game\" at that point, it can be completely pre-scripted like pro wrestling.

You know what, for as intelligent and as thorough as you have been in this whole thread, this made absolutely no sense.
How does wanting to see new teams every year equate to pulling names out of a hat to play for the championship? I'll answer that for you, it doesn't.

In baseball, I sure as hell don't expect the Mets to do anything each year. It would be nice, but I don't expect it. Yankees fans on the other hand expect to win every damn year.
In football I don't expect the Giants to win every year, but they may surprise me game to game. That's why they play full seasons, not draw names out of a hat.
In hockey, for as dominant as they have been the past 5 years, I don't expect the Devils to win every season. Call this sacrilege or whatever, but even as a fan of the team I would not want to see them win every year. Two years in a row maybe, but not every damn season.

Ya know, nevermind. In the beginning this was fun, but now it's just starting to give me a headache with how stubborn you are on every facet we covered. Then again that's typical of a Yankee fan. They go into every season expecting to win so why would they want to see diversity around the league. Sorry I dared try to tarnish the great legacy of Steinbrenner and the Yankees, it will never happen again sir.

[Goatweed]

[JimmyBlueEyes]

WARNING WARNING JBE LONG ASS POST ALERT!!!! WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!


I've been sitting here reading this rather spirited debate and trying hard to keep the grey matter in. I was a Yankee fan, because of my father at first. Simply because he was. He took me to my first baseball game when I was 5 or 6,but, it was a Mets game. I grew to admire them and watch them more than the Yankees. I was 12 going on 13 when they won it in 86 and had already been a fan before that. I, like Flock have suffered thru the good(86 and 00) the bad, (Bobby Bonilla and Glavine) and the ugly, (the past two seasons and most of the 70's and 90's along with that Anthony guy who lost 26 straight starts). Brain, your name suggests a lot of intelligence, and when it comes to baseball it seems to me that you are a walking book of stats and figures. I don't get into it. The Yankees have won 26 World Championships in their 100 yr existencse. In my eyes, the present owner has a win now, and nothing else is good enough attitude, along with some extremely deep pockets. He also has a strong fan base in a city where many can afford to pay the prices for tickets and food to help pay these big salaries. He wants to bring the team back to the era of Di Maggio, Ruth, Gehrig, and those who came before and after. Admirable, however, what I believe Flock is getting at here is money has gotten in the way of competition. And it goes for all sports. Greed of the players and others has gotten the better of them. We both agree that ALL pro athletes are overpaid. Steinbrenners biggest problem is his lack of patience. He wants it all now. And yes, you Yankee fans have gotten spoiled by that, and the belief has permeated through the ranks, from the players to the fans. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. And losing sucks. But you have to expect to lose a few. This last World Series the Yanks underestimated every team they played. It cost them. They did the same with the Angels in '02 and with Arizona in '01. They got cocky. And they got beat. I think if the Yanks can pull this trade off, great. But what if A-Rod is a bust at third base?? What happens if he gets hurt like Boone did??What happens when Boone is healthy?? $200plus million gone. The Yankees have thrown money at a lot of players and they haven't produced. Example Giambi, he was a shell of his former self from Oakland. Money doesn't always solve the problem. Atlanta is another good example, all that money and what, 2, maybe 3 World Championships out of it?? Not to mention the Yankees showed no Loyalty to Tino, and even I liked Tino.

It's nice to see a little variety out there. I for one, would have loved to have seen a Cardinals/Red Sox or a Cubs/Red Sox Series last year. Not because I hate the Yankees, simply because it makes it more interesting. I'm not trying to make this a Mets fan vs. Yankee fan issue here, but can you understand the frustration of other fans and teams when Steinbrenner throws money at another greedy player who is being paid far too much?? It doesn't even out the playing field, when you're putting out an all star team every day, or in the minds of a few, a bunch of hired guns. Which is what many players on any given team are.(Example, the opening sequence in BASEketball) No equality, so the guys who only have a budget of say $75 million can put up a team with enough talent to stand a chance against a team that has a $185 million budget. Unless it's the Mets who have Steve Philips to blame for a lot of bad deals. I hope you understand this slightly neutral look at the situation.

Flame away my friend.....

[The Brain]

How does wanting to see new teams every year equate to pulling names out of a hat to play for the championship? I'll answer that for you, it doesn't.

I'll re-answer it for you... it does.

What you basically ask for is for every year to be its own little microcosm-- no continuity from one season to the next. So that, let's say in 2000, the Yanks and Mets play for the title. Then 2001 is completely different, and two other teams play... is that what you're getting at? Well if that's the case, the Yanks and Mets might as well take the year 2001 off, since under your system they (as league champions) wouldn't be allowed to compete for the title again, having been eligible for it the year prior. A sort of "previous contest winners need not apply" rule.

Therefore, it would be perfectly simple to adopt a "pick a team" from the hat, where the prior winner's name would be eliminated from contention. That way, every year someone new wins.

That's what you want, right?

But that's not how the essence of sports works.

*Actually, I realized there is a system that emulates what you want. It's called the BCS. The previous year's champion is not always guaranteed of returning to the championship bowl game-- hell, they're not always preseason #1 the following year, either.

In baseball, I sure as hell don't expect the Mets to do anything each year. It would be nice, but I don't expect it. Yankees fans on the other hand expect to win every damn year.
In football I don't expect the Giants to win every year, but they may surprise me game to game. That's why they play full seasons, not draw names out of a hat.
In hockey, for as dominant as they have been the past 5 years, I don't expect the Devils to win every season. Call this sacrilege or whatever, but even as a fan of the team I would not want to see them win every year. Two years in a row maybe, but not every damn season.

Why not, exactly? You are a <i>fan</i>, a <i>supporter</i> of the team you chose to root for. You are supposed to have faith that your team can win it all until standings or playoff elimination dictates otherwise. To do anything other than that is inconsistent with the nature of team allegiance.

Your stance honestly confuses the shit out of me. As a Devils fan, why on earth would you want to see any team other than the Devils win? I could understand if you wanted another team to be nearly equal in stature to the Devils, to provide a foil for them to struggle against... but for that team (or any other) to win out <i>over the team you support</i>?

Oh yeah, just for the record... I'm sure every Devils player goes into every year thinking their team will win it all. Wonder how they would feel if their fans didn't share the same faith they do?

In any case, you harped on it earlier-- I'm a Yankee fan (much to your apparent chagrin). I like when their rivals are almost as good-- the Red Sox, Mets, Braves, Cubs, whoever-- so long as the Yanks manage to come out on top. It means that the team I love rises to the challenge, and proves itself the best of the bunch against marvelous competition.

<i>That</i>, my friend, is the essence of sports.

Then again that's typical of a Yankee fan. They go into every season expecting to win so why would they want to see diversity around the league. Sorry I dared try to tarnish the great legacy of Steinbrenner and the Yankees, it will never happen again sir.

Now what the heck is that all about?

You know, we may make fun of Cubs fans and their "Wait 'til next year" slogan, but they're the most diehard loyal fans in the business. Every year they believe that the Cubs will finally get off the snide and win it all. We don't fault them for this; because they support that team through thick and thin. Their belief in their team is perceived as noble and true.

Oh, but a Yankee fan says every year, "This will be the year we win a title", and suddenly it becomes arrogance. A "stubborn" (to use your word) sense of entitlement. Why am I, as a Yankee fan, not allowed to display the same faith in my team that a Cubs fan can in his? Just because mine has won in the past decade? Why should I be told that it would be best if the Red Sox, or Mariners, or Twins won this year, just to help compensate for my team winning so frequently? If I wanted to see the Twins win so much... I'd become a Twins fan. But I'm not a fan of any of those teams; my loyalty is not to them. Frankly, if the other team wants it that bad, let them go through the necessary channels to earn it.

By beating on the field whoever currently holds the title.

Just one last point:

Didn't one of my previous posts list a bunch of dynasties from <i>all</i> major sports? I thought I had conveyed a point that parity is bad for a league (any league), and that it is often better to have one or two teams (or in boxing, one man) at the top of the pyramid, so that everyone else has something to prove themselves against-- a litmus test, if you will.