World Champs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Real World]

No amount of spin you put on it is going to change the fact that the Yankees have a $65m payroll advantage over every other team. No they aren't gonna win every year, just more than every other team. To say that that isn't the primary factor in their championships is a joke.

Your argument is like giving a team corked bats and steroids, then just giving every other team regular bats and no steroids and pointing to the championships they didn't win as evidence that somehow the steroids and corked bats don't matter. It's a ****ing joke that in any other sport would be laughable but for some reason the Yankees PR machine has been able to delude their fans into thinking that your argument makes sense because other teams have the second and third highest payrolls. If they were bound by the restraints of every other team, they wouldn't have been able to grab A Rod, Tex, CC and Burnett and co. and put them all on the same team and wouldn't be hoisting yet another trophy. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain.

The Yankees don't have a great GM, they don't have exceptional homegrown talent, but what they do have is the ability to grab any FA they want and that's why they win. So enjoy your artificial championship, Steinbrenner's paychecks earned it.

You point to the Sox fans as being hypocritical because they are in the second tier of teams that have payroll advantage over most other teams, which I agree is BS too. But if there was a salary cap do you really think the Sox would have to spend that much to try nd compete with the Yankees? If the Yankees weren't in their division with a huge advantage every year are you really telling me the Sox wouldn't have more championships? It's such laughable logic to try and wash away an enormously unfair competitive advantage by saying that because other teams spend more than the rest they have no right to point out the obvious.

You sound like a whiny cry baby. Anyone in this forum who's paid attention to what I've said in here over the years, knows that I think it's an advantage they have. However, my point is that teams like the Sox should (Please be quiet - edited) about it, cuz they are a have, and not a have not.

I'm sure you weren't basking in enjoyment over the Redsox two WS wins in the last few years, cuz they had spent more money to win those, than any other team in history at that point. I bet you felt cheap about those victories, since you spent double of what most other teams spent.

Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Posada, Cano, Hughes, Gardner, Cabrera, Chamberlain, Robertson, Coke, Pena, Wang, Aceves, etc.

Youk, Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, Ellsbury, Bard, Delcarmen, Kotraras, etc/. the Yankees have more home grown talent on their roster than the redsox do.

I must admit that I do enjoy the whining, and hypocracy of some, and I stress some, Redsox fans (there are yahoo's and fools on both sides, that's who I'm speaking to). $100+ million for Dice k, $70 million for Drew, $36 million for Lugo, $36 million for Lowell, etc. They spend more than about 25 other teams, yet they don't like it when a team that spent more than them wins. I'm sure you were hoping Tampa won when the Sox played them in the playoffs last year. Afterall, the Sox spent 2-3 times as much as they did on payroll.

 

[Wildo7]

You sound like a whiny cry baby. Anyone in this forum who's paid attention to what I've said in here over the years, knows that I think it's an advantage they have. However, my point is that teams like the Sox should (Please be quiet - edited) about it, cuz they are a have, and not a have not.

I'm sure you weren't basking in enjoyment over the Redsox two WS wins in the last few years, cuz they had spent more money to win those, than any other team in history at that point. I bet you felt cheap about those victories, since you spent double of what most other teams spent.

Jeter, Rivera, Pettitte, Posada, Cano, Hughes, Gardner, Cabrera, Chamberlain, Robertson, Coke, Pena, Wang, Aceves, etc.

Youk, Pedroia, Lester, Papelbon, Ellsbury, Bard, Delcarmen, Kotraras, etc/. the Yankees have more home grown talent on their roster than the redsox do.

I must admit that I do enjoy the whining, and hypocracy of some, and I stress some, Redsox fans (there are yahoo's and fools on both sides, that's who I'm speaking to). $100+ million for Dice k, $70 million for Drew, $36 million for Lugo, $36 million for Lowell, etc. They spend more than about 25 other teams, yet they don't like it when a team that spent more than them wins. I'm sure you were hoping Tampa won when the Sox played them in the playoffs last year. Afterall, the Sox spent 2-3 times as much as they did on payroll.

The Sox have an advantage but it's not anywhere near what the Yankee's advantage is and they have to play in the same division as them. As long as there is no salary cap then what else are the Sox supposed to do to compete? Become a small market team like the Rays or Royals and hope lightning strikes once every 20 years? Of course they are going to spend on FAs because that is oing to be better than anything they can consistently do in the farm system. I do love the "oh you're just whining" rationalization, of course in any unfair system those who point out the inequalities are going to be accused of "whining" by the team that benefits most from it (and its bandwagon fans).

But I'll bet you any amount of money you want that you won't find a single post from me "whining" about the Colts, Lakers, Habs winning because they won fair and square. The Yankees won because they were able to pay more to get better players than any other team. Seriously, what possible enjoyment comes out of rooting for a team with a $65m payroll advantage over everyone else? How much would you expect a team to win if they are given that much of an advantage over everyone else? About what they have done? A little less? seriously, what does this Yankees championship mean to you? That they had the money to sign Teixera and CC and the Sox didn't? Is that the "Pride of the Yankees?" I really don't get it at all.

The fact that baseball doesn't have a salary cap is a joke, and that goes for the Sox too. But the Sox don't have the same advantage that the Yankees do anyway you slice it.

 

[Real World]

The Sox have an advantage but it's not anywhere near what the Yankee's advantage is and they have to play in the same division as them. As long as there is no salary cap then what else are the Sox supposed to do to compete? Become a small market team like the Rays or Royals and hope lightning strikes once every 20 years? Of course they are going to spend on FAs because that is oing to be better than anything they can consistently do in the farm system. I do love the "oh you're just whining" rationalization, of course in any unfair system those who point out the inequalities are going to be accused of "whining" by the team that benefits most from it (and its bandwagon fans).

But I'll bet you any amount of money you want that you won't find a single post from me "whining" about the Colts, Lakers, Habs winning because they won fair and square. The Yankees won because they were able to pay more to get better players than any other team. Seriously, what possible enjoyment comes out of rooting for a team with a $65m payroll advantage over everyone else? How much would you expect a team to win if they are given that much of an advantage over everyone else? About what they have done? A little less? seriously, what does this Yankees championship mean to you? That they had the money to sign Teixera and CC and the Sox didn't? Is that the "Pride of the Yankees?" I really don't get it at all.

The fact that baseball doesn't have a salary cap is a joke, and that goes for the Sox too. But the Sox don't have the same advantage that the Yankees do anyway you slice it.

You're such a weenie cry baby. Waaaaaaa, my sox can't compete, waaaaa....Yeah, I'm sure you were complaining in 2004, and in 2007 too. If the sox were a small market team, I'd agree with you. the sox are not. The Yankees have an advantage in total dollars over the sox, but it's not as severe as it is for the smaller market teams, who cannot afford to retain their own players, nevermind sign JD Drew to $70 million deals. Look at Cleveland for example. CC, and Lee were the two best pitchers in the World Series, and Victor Martinez secured Boston's spot in the playoffs. Who do you think has a beef? You, a Phillies fan, or a fan from Cleveland? Exactly.

Last year, Major League Baseball transferred approximately $400 million in revenue sharing and luxury tax - a little more than 25% of that coming from the Yankees alone. The Indians received slightly more than $20 million and the Pirates - despite their beautiful, eight-year-old, taxpaper-funded stadium - received over $40 million. This is how MLB rewards incompetent ownership.

In addition to that, all major league teams received stipends of $35 million from the MLB central fund, which includes revenue from licensing, properties, national TV and advanced media. So going in, the Indians had approximately $55 million in the bank offset by their $81 million payroll - a deficit of about $25 million before they sold one ticket.

The Pirates had about $75 million in the bank, offset by their $48 million payroll, which means they had a profit of $35 million before they sold one ticket. And this doesn't even include what these teams additionally reap from their local TV and radio rights packages and in-house concessions, advertising, signage, parking, etc.



Crying poverty, some MLB owners are laughing all the way to the bank

The Yankees shared $100 million dollars with other teams in the league. The Yankees didn't pull a Pirates, and invest less, to ensure a larger profit. They spend money to make money, and every dollar they spend, is only worth about 66 cents because of revenue sharing. Furthermore, the Sox had every opportunity to sign Text, and they blew it. You have John Henry to thank for that. Again, if you were a Royals fan, or from Tampa, I'd agree with your personal disdain for the disparity in salary. That's not the case though.

A salary cap, a hard cap that is, will never happen. As I stated previously, a cap limit, means a cap bottom, and too many teams do not want to be forced to spend whatever that bottom is, year in, and year out. On top of that, the Union wants nothing to do with a limit on compensation. That's why a luxury tax is the only way to go. Taxing dollars after a maximum threshhold, allows owners who are willing to invest the extra dollar for a chance at a championship, the opportunity to do so, while simultanesouly extending added capital to bottom salaried teams. The NBA does this to an extent through their cap system, that has a salary cap threshhold, and a luxury tax limit after that. The Knicks for example spend well over $100 million per season on salary & tax, while other teams may spend $40-50 overall. Dolan, the owner of the Knicks doesn't care, cuz he wants to win. Mark Cuban does the same. Why penalize owners who want to invest in their team. As a Bruins fan, I could only wish that Jeremy Jacobs were that way. Prior to the cap years, he had a core groups of cup quality players, but he would never invest the extra dollars to bring in the 1, 2 or 3 players that would have made the difference. Screw that. As Mike Singletary says, I WANT WINNERS! Carl Pohlad of the Twins is a billionaire. He could easily add a marque player at the deadline, but he won't part with the cash. I can't pity those people. I can pity Tampa, Washington, Cleveland, Oakland, etc.

 

[Disco Volante]

My comment was just a jab due to my obvious dislike for the Yankees.

Instead of pocketing more money the Yankees try their best to win a championship every year, that is something I admire.

 

[Real World]

My comment was just a jab due to my obvious dislike for the Yankees.

Instead of pocketing more money the Yankees try their best to win a championship every year, that is something I admire.

I don't want to come off as some Yankee arsehole sniffer. I've always acknowledged that the funds available to the Yankees are an advantage. I just think it's a little tough to feel bad for the Sox, when there are teams like Tampa, and Oakland.

 

[BradyManny]

I don't want to come off as some Yankee arsehole sniffer. I've always acknowledged that the funds available to the Yankees are an advantage. I just think it's a little tough to feel bad for the Sox, when there are teams like Tampa, and Oakland.

It's not about the Sox, though - it's about baseball in general. And things have changed dramatically in the last 5 years or so.

If you want to argue the 2004 Sox bought the World Series, I'll listen. There's an argument there. But I think what the Yankees did this offseason has to make the victory feel a little cheaper. That's just me. You could very well take the approach of - "these are the rules, the Yankees are playing within the rules, they have the money to spend, why not spend it?"

 

[bigcountry75]

I believe that there are other teams out there that could spend just as much as the yankees if they wanted to but they choose not too....Alot of valid points are being thrown around on here but the only thing I loved this season was the Yankees building this brand new ballpark.....Spending all that money on FA's and they couldn't even sell out the stadium....They were having problems selling out the close seats because they cost too much money......I was loving it because you know steinbrenner was having fits and trying to figure out ways to get people in the seats.....Yankees still SUCK!!!!

 

[IcyPatriot]

I don't want to come off as some Yankee arsehole sniffer. I've always acknowledged that the funds available to the Yankees are an advantage. I just think it's a little tough to feel bad for the Sox, when there are teams like Tampa, and Oakland.

I've heard some of the whining and I agree with what you said here. It sucks that we're in he same division but the Sox are not a poor team. We spent money this year on players who did not have good seasons ... Ortiz, Lowell, Varitech ... so ... whatever ... the fans who are crying are sore losers ... that's all.

 

[TriplecHamp]

I've heard some of the whining and I agree with what you said here. It sucks that we're in he same division but the Sox are not a poor team. We spent money this year on players who did not have good seasons ... Ortiz, Lowell, Varitech ... so ... whatever ... the fans who are crying are sore losers ... that's all.

Quote of the Week! The same fans wernt complaining about it when the you guys had won 8 straight against us.

 

[ausbacker]

What a **** thread. Worst of the year.

Well done Yankees, clearly the best team all year, but until the idiots running baseball implement a reasonable salary cap which means all the teams can compete, it'll never be anything more than an expensive championship buying exercise for the richest teams.. much like soccer in Europe.

 

[Tunescribe]

Pertinent link:

2009 MLB team payrolls | GetListy!!!

Its not a question of haves and have-nots anymore. Half the MLB spends over $80 now, and a third of it spends over $100. There are some teams that simply do not spend, but it is no longer a huge gap between the Sox & other teams. The fact of the matter is the Yankees have a $90 milli advantage over the Sox, and in another thread, I said that's akin to about 5-7 All Star players (Derek Jeter (21 Mill) + Mark Teixeira (20 mill) + CC Sabathia (15 mil) + Johnny Damon (13 mil) + Mariano Rivera (15 mil) + Robinson Cano (6 mil) to be exact).

5 years ago, MAYBE it would've been hypocritical for Sox fans to complain about Yankee spending (still, I'd argue the gap was so wide its still an unfair advantage). But NOW, the gap in spending across MLB has narrowed, and the playing field is leveling - except for ONE team, the New York Yankees.

I don't see how anyone can take MLB seriously without a salary cap. And it should be a cap low enough to be within reach of the poorest teams. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore, which I loved as a kid. It's a joke as a pro sport. I hope the Yankees win it every year until the owners realize something's got to give.

 

[Real World]

It's not about the Sox, though - it's about baseball in general. And things have changed dramatically in the last 5 years or so.

If you want to argue the 2004 Sox bought the World Series, I'll listen. There's an argument there. But I think what the Yankees did this offseason has to make the victory feel a little cheaper. That's just me. You could very well take the approach of - "these are the rules, the Yankees are playing within the rules, they have the money to spend, why not spend it?"

As I've said before in here, I root for the laundry. Whether my favorite team does it through home grown talent, aquired players, free agents, with players I like, players I hate, or by virture of the other team not having its best players, I root for the laundry. When any of these teams are playing their games, my heart doesn't pound any less because I don't like Randy Moss personally, or cuz I think it's unfair that the Yankees paid $180 million for Mark Textiera. Those things don't matter when the game is going on. That's not to say that I'm ignorant to the fact of course. The point is, nothing feels cheaper when the laundry wins. Do the Patriots titles feel cheaper post spygate? They don't for me. Did the Celtics title feel cheaper since they did it with players from other teams basically? Not for me. In a perfect world we'd all love our teams to win in a perfect fashion, but in the end, we really just want our teams to win.

 

[Real World]

I don't see how anyone can take MLB seriously without a salary cap. And it should be a cap low enough to be within reach of the poorest teams. This is why I don't watch baseball anymore, which I loved as a kid. It's a joke as a pro sport. I hope the Yankees win it every year until the owners realize something's got to give.

That's never going to happen. The union would never sign off on that. Why would the union take a pay cut, which is what such a set up would ealisly mean. That's why the luxury tax is the way it's gone.

 

[PatsFan24]

YouTube - Bill Burr Talks About Yankees World Series Win on O&A

 

[RyanP421]

You're such a weenie cry baby. Waaaaaaa, my sox can't compete, waaaaa....Yeah, I'm sure you were complaining in 2004, and in 2007 too. If the sox were a small market team, I'd agree with you. the sox are not. The Yankees have an advantage in total dollars over the sox, but it's not as severe as it is for the smaller market teams, who cannot afford to retain their own players, nevermind sign JD Drew to $70 million deals. Look at Cleveland for example. CC, and Lee were the two best pitchers in the World Series, and Victor Martinez secured Boston's spot in the playoffs. Who do you think has a beef? You, a Phillies fan, or a fan from Cleveland? Exactly.



The Yankees shared $100 million dollars with other teams in the league. The Yankees didn't pull a Pirates, and invest less, to ensure a larger profit. They spend money to make money, and every dollar they spend, is only worth about 66 cents because of revenue sharing. Furthermore, the Sox had every opportunity to sign Text, and they blew it. You have John Henry to thank for that. Again, if you were a Royals fan, or from Tampa, I'd agree with your personal disdain for the disparity in salary. That's not the case though.

A salary cap, a hard cap that is, will never happen. As I stated previously, a cap limit, means a cap bottom, and too many teams do not want to be forced to spend whatever that bottom is, year in, and year out. On top of that, the Union wants nothing to do with a limit on compensation. That's why a luxury tax is the only way to go. Taxing dollars after a maximum threshhold, allows owners who are willing to invest the extra dollar for a chance at a championship, the opportunity to do so, while simultanesouly extending added capital to bottom salaried teams. The NBA does this to an extent through their cap system, that has a salary cap threshhold, and a luxury tax limit after that. The Knicks for example spend well over $100 million per season on salary & tax, while other teams may spend $40-50 overall. Dolan, the owner of the Knicks doesn't care, cuz he wants to win. Mark Cuban does the same. Why penalize owners who want to invest in their team. As a Bruins fan, I could only wish that Jeremy Jacobs were that way. Prior to the cap years, he had a core groups of cup quality players, but he would never invest the extra dollars to bring in the 1, 2 or 3 players that would have made the difference. Screw that. As Mike Singletary says, I WANT WINNERS! Carl Pohlad of the Twins is a billionaire. He could easily add a marque player at the deadline, but he won't part with the cash. I can't pity those people. I can pity Tampa, Washington, Cleveland, Oakland, etc.

What a bunch of garbage.

Yes or no question here. Do the Yankees have an advantage over the Red Sox as far as spending money? Hold on, let me answer that for you...

YES!!!!

Doesn't matter if the Red Sox have an advantage over another team. The point here is that the Yankees have a giant advantage over EVERY TEAM, while the Red Sox have a big advantage over SOME TEAMS.

It's not rocket science. You must have taken a class from Hal Steinbrenner on how to not understand basic logic lol.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Actually ... in place of a cap they could tweek the draft and achieve greater parity. Take away sandwhich picks for top teams ... take away 1st round picks for top teams. The top teams will still survive by going harder after the players who don't have to enter the draft. In any case ... tweaking the draft would make a huge change in parity and it won't affect salaries at all.

Top talent could still drop to later rounds by demanding more signing bonus. But if they tiered the selections and tweaked the draft the have nots would improve greatly vs the haves.

 

[Disco Volante]

I don't have a problem that the Yankees choose to spend money to win, that's something any fan would want ownership to do. As mentioned by Real World some owners such as the Twins' are just flat out cheap and aren't willing to make the financial commitment for the (assumed) best possible talent.

I have a problem with the system that allows them to do that.

Can't blame the Yankees for taking advantage of no salary cap.

 

[RyanP421]

Actually ... in place of a cap they could tweek the draft and achieve greater parity. Take away sandwhich picks for top teams ... take away 1st round picks for top teams. The top teams will still survive by going harder after the players who don't have to enter the draft. In any case ... tweaking the draft would make a huge change in parity and it won't affect salaries at all.

Top talent could still drop to later rounds by demanding more signing bonus. But if they tiered the selections and tweaked the draft the have nots would improve greatly vs the haves.

No offense, none of that sounds logical or something that would/could ever work.

MLB needs to get with the program and allow TRADING OF PICKS. It is ridiculous that they don't. This would allow teams with less money to not get screwed into having a top pick in the draft where they cant afford the top tier players....Or when smaller market teams look to trade players, they can acquire picks to rebuild, etc.

Makes too much sense not to happen, I'm not sure why MLB doesnt allow this anyway. Can anyone think of a reason why this shouldnt happen?

And YES, there SHOULD be a salary cap. Not only that, but I think there should be a salary floor as well.

Man, the MLB could really learn alot from the NFL....

There should be a draft slot system as well. None of this Strasburg requiring enormous money before they even play.

Selig sucks, I know this isnt his fault, but still.

 

[Tunescribe]

That's never going to happen. The union would never sign off on that. Why would the union take a pay cut, which is what such a set up would ealisly mean. That's why the luxury tax is the way it's gone.

Yeah, the owners and players deserve each other. It's why you have a failing sport filled with lazy rich cretins like Manny Ramirez.

Here's a novel idea: Have a hard salary cap and THEN allow further contract bonuses based on performance, payable at season's end. But I suppose that's too logical and equitable to work for MLB.

 

[scout]

It's a freakin' joke. It started back in the days of Curt Flood. Owners blackballed him and other players like him, then came along a guy name Marvin, who put it to the owners. Now, that owner can sign a free agent to a fat long-term contract, the player ends up being really, really, bad, and the team has no re-course. Cut him, and they still have to pay him. What a deal. But wait, they can sign another guy, who may also suck, because there is no salary cap. Read an article that stated the Yankees spent 2 billion in salary to get their title. Nice!