The Yankees are losing!

[jaxfactor]

Way to go Jimmy Leyland and crew! Not much into watching baseball during the season but have followed the boxscores all season and have been pulling for Detroit. Does Jimmy L still

smoke in the dugout? When you're done in Detroit Jimmy, come back to Pittsburgh and try to pull off the miracle again! I truly doubt anyone could save the Pirates, but hey, we at least got the NL batting champion which was something to cheer about.

[TDFFFreak]

Baseball's salary structure represents a lot wrong in sports If the Phillies aren't in the playoffs, I just want baseball to end ASAP so we can focus on football.

[paxacha]

Playoff Teams & Payroll:

 

The Yankees are paying 100% more for their roster than ANY other team in the league!!! Their salaries are 221% higher than their opponents!!! Come on dogg!! That's a problem....

 

1. Yankees - 209,663,079

5.Mets- 101,084,000

6. Dodgers - 98,000,000

11. Cardinals - 88,000,000

14. Tigers-82,000,000

17 Padres-69,000,000

19 Twins- 63,000,000

21 A's -62,000,000

 

Come on dogg...Numbers don't lie!!!

 

 

i'm so sick of hearing this. why do people WANT steinbrenner to pocket an extra $100 million? they spend the most because they have an owner who cares more about winning than profit.

 

Revenue sharing also had a profound impact on operating income. The Yankees and the Red Sox lost $50 million and $18.5 million, respectively, before interest, income taxes and depreciation. By not using their subsidies to boost player payroll (which was the intent of revenue sharing), the Pittsburgh Pirates, Royals and Twins each earned more than $20 million.

-Forbes

 

the yankees LOST money in 2005 because they want to win. lots of teams could spend that much, but don't because they don't care. somebody explain to me what's wrong with this.

Edited October 8, 2006 by paxacha

[Ursa Majoris]

They just announced ARod will bat 8th

100M dollar playoff BUST

 

In the regular season, A-Rod had 113 runs, 35 HRs, 121 RBIs and 15 SBs. These are great stats. Yet he was actually booed by the drooling buffoons that make up what passes for fans in New York.

 

What A-Rod really needs is a move to a team where he can play with a smile on his face again. There is nothing wrong with this guy that a move will not cure. I would bet that when he moves, money will not be an issue - he has enough for several lifetimes. He will move to a potential contender where he can enjoy the game again.

[Zeke 1982]

i'm so sick of hearing this. why do people WANT steinbrenner to pocket an extra $100 million? they spend the most because they have an owner who cares more about winning than profit.

 

Revenue sharing also had a profound impact on operating income. The Yankees and the Red Sox lost $50 million and $18.5 million, respectively, before interest, income taxes and depreciation. By not using their subsidies to boost player payroll (which was the intent of revenue sharing), the Pittsburgh Pirates, Royals and Twins each earned more than $20 million.

-Forbes

 

the yankees LOST money in 2005 because they want to win. lots of teams could spend that much, but don't because they don't care. somebody explain to me what's wrong with this.

 

Please tell me the names of the teams that could spend that much? Winning should not be dependant on what you spend. That is ridiculous. It can be a factor, but not the deciding factor.

[tbimm]

Please tell me the names of the teams that could spend that much? Winning should not be dependant on what you spend. That is ridiculous. It can be a factor, but not the deciding factor.

 

The Yankees bought an early exit from the post-season so what does it matter what they spend?

[Squeegiebo]

They represent everything WRONG in professional sports!

 

 

I agree, despite what all the defenders say. They are the most talented inividual players money can buy, but they fail to win at a team game. Same thing with the professional basketball players in the Olympics. It's a travesty.

 

If MLB get their heads outta their asses and puts in a salary cap, I MIGHT start watching again. Until then, the sport is a joke.

[Jimmy Neutron]

If MLB get their heads outta their asses and puts in a salary cap, I MIGHT start watching again. Until then, the sport is a joke.

 

 

+1

[Ursa Majoris]

If MLB get their heads outta their asses and puts in a salary cap, I MIGHT start watching again. Until then, the sport is a joke.

 

I agree there should be a salary cap but a quick look at the other three AL teams in the playoffs - As, Twins and Tigers - shows that there is no substitute for good management. It beats money every time.

[paxacha]

Please tell me the names of the teams that could spend that much? Winning should not be dependant on what you spend. That is ridiculous. It can be a factor, but not the deciding factor.

 

it's obviously not. look at the knicks, or the rangers in the 90s... or the yankees, who haven't won since they had the same payroll as boston back in 2000.

 

as far as who could spend that much, it depends - assuming they're willing to lose money in the process? the cubs are one, although they misrepresent their fortune because the tribune group owns the ballpark and the media outlets, but reports them all separately. the red sox obviously can as well, and the mets are getting there too now that they have their own television station.

 

my point is, george steinbrenner is the LEAST greedy owner in sports, yet people would rather root for the team owned by a billionaire who cries poor, cuts costs to buy an extra yacht or two, and blames the yankees for ruining the playing field. they made money through brilliant financial strategies that other teams could've thought of first, and they actually spend their profits on the team. i don't get why everyone hates them.

[Zeke 1982]

it's obviously not. look at the knicks, or the rangers in the 90s... or the yankees, who haven't won since they had the same payroll as boston back in 2000.

 

as far as who could spend that much, it depends - assuming they're willing to lose money in the process? the cubs are one, although they misrepresent their fortune because the tribune group owns the ballpark and the media outlets, but reports them all separately. the red sox obviously can as well, and the mets are getting there too now that they have their own television station.

 

my point is, george steinbrenner is the LEAST greedy owner in sports, yet people would rather root for the team owned by a billionaire who cries poor, cuts costs to buy an extra yacht or two, and blames the yankees for ruining the playing field. they made money through brilliant financial strategies that other teams could've thought of first, and they actually spend their profits on the team. i don't get why everyone hates them.

 

So when you say alot of teams you mean three. Everyone hates them because they load up constantly. They make deals and moves very few teams can make. Then the entire season revolves around whether they win it all or not. I really do not hate them, I just do not respect them. I used to actually like them until the 80s. What they did in those prior 60 years was to be admired. Nothing after is worth a damn. Every title was bought not earned. Kind of like Notre Dame. It is hilarious that when you have all of these advantages and don't win.

[paxacha]

So when you say alot of teams you mean three. Everyone hates them because they load up constantly. They make deals and moves very few teams can make. Then the entire season revolves around whether they win it all or not. I really do not hate them, I just do not respect them. I used to actually like them until the 80s. What they did in those prior 60 years was to be admired. Nothing after is worth a damn. Every title was bought not earned. Kind of like Notre Dame. It is hilarious that when you have all of these advantages and don't win.

 

 

there are about a dozen teams that make at least $150 million in revenue. the teams that made the highest profit in 2005, according to forbes: orioles, indians, devil rays, brewers, reds, padres, braves, pirates. i still don't understand why people vilify teams that "load up" because they care about winning more than profit, and cheer for the teams with the greediest owners.

 

and those sixty years you admire. wasn't that before free agency? wasn't that when you could buy all the best prospects, stick em on your farm team and they couldn't go anywhere unless you sold them? all the great yankees from the 20s through the 50s were purchased before there was even such a thing as a draft. what makes those years more valid than these?

[Donutrun Jellies]

I agree there should be a salary cap but a quick look at the other three AL teams in the playoffs - As, Twins and Tigers - shows that there is no substitute for good management. It beats money every time.

 

Sooooooooo, in what is becoming an Al Davis-esque hubris filled moment, Steinbrenner responds to the failings of his $200m payroll by mulling firing a great manager?? Yep, if Pinella had been there instead of Torre, those pitchers wouldn't have given up buckets of runs and that murders' row wouldn't have gone 0 for everything?

 

Suuuuure, George. That's the ticket. Hire Lou, spend $300m, bring in DWells, Clemens, and BBonds -- just get yourself an Al Davis track suit at the same time.

 

The yankees lose to the tigers.

Edited October 8, 2006 by Donutrun Jellies

[detlef]

So when you say alot of teams you mean three. Everyone hates them because they load up constantly. They make deals and moves very few teams can make. Then the entire season revolves around whether they win it all or not. I really do not hate them, I just do not respect them. I used to actually like them until the 80s. What they did in those prior 60 years was to be admired. Nothing after is worth a damn. Every title was bought not earned. Kind of like Notre Dame. It is hilarious that when you have all of these advantages and don't win.

 

Actually, the great Yankee teams of the mid to late 90s were largely built of players that came up through the minors.

 

You know what, forget it. As I said, I don't even root for the yankees but I think it is a whole lot of bedwetting to complain about what they're doing to the game.

 

Oh, and by the way, what poor underfunded colleges are getting the shaft at the hand of Notre Dame? Once again, not a fan, but the fact that they have academic standards that nearly every other perrenial condtender can't touch, whatever advantage they get from the NBC deal is more than cancelled out. Besides which, annoying as it is, when did big time sports and TV go socialist? Aren't you a flag waving conservative?

Edited October 8, 2006 by detlef

[Tboogs]

I agree, despite what all the defenders say. They are the most talented inividual players money can buy, but they fail to win at a team game. Same thing with the professional basketball players in the Olympics. It's a travesty.

 

If MLB get their heads outta their asses and puts in a salary cap, I MIGHT start watching again. Until then, the sport is a joke.

 

Excellent point! How many of the current Yankees players are actually "homegrown"? I mean how many actually came up through their system...uhh...3!!! Posada/Rivera and I think Cano. They will never have "team spirit"...MLB needs a CAP! Lets level the playing field. As far as the Yankees losing $$$ because of the luxury tax...That's a joke! They get $$$ all over the place...TV/ merchandising...I dont remember who made that "inane" comment!

[Guest Cherni]

Excellent point! How many of the current Yankees players are actually "homegrown"? I mean how many actually came up through their system...uhh...3!!! Posada/Rivera and I think Cano. They will never have "team spirit"...MLB needs a CAP! Lets level the playing field. As far as the Yankees losing $$$ because of the luxury tax...That's a joke! They get $$$ all over the place...TV/ merchandising...I dont remember who made that "inane" comment!

 

 

There are plenty of homegrown yankees on the current team. And they did their best work when they had a "normal" payroll and had role-players like Chucky K, Tino, Paulie and the rest. They're up to $200+ million with no sign of slowing down. Now the yankees are like a fantasy baseball team, but I find it funny they still can't win. I agree the playing field should be leveled but for whatever reason I don't believe it's going to happen.

 

1. Derek Jeter

2. Robby Cano

3. Bernie Williams

4. Mariano Rivera

5. Melky Cabrera

6. Chien Ming Wong

7. Jorge Posada

8. Nick Green/Andy Phillips

[detlef]

OK, so I'm watching ESPN at the gym this morning and I was reminded, once again, at how lame all these cry baby arguments about the Yankees being all evil are. Frankly, there's a ton of room to trash the Yankees, but most of it has to do with mismanagement (at least in terms of on-field product). So Steinbrenner out spends everyone by a huge margin. It's not like that has bought him much of late. Well, it has bought him a perrenial contender, but that isn't enough for him.

 

In his press conference, he essentially apologized to the fans for the "collosal failure" they were for only being one of the 8 best teams in the league. The thing is, he doesn't charge the fans more than anyone else. They were 3rd highest in ticket prices which is misleading considering that they were 37% more expensive than the league average despite being in a city with a Cost of Living 72% higher than the National average. So, Yankee fans that are pissed because all that money should have assured them more titles should chill because it's not their money. It's one thing to be pissed at anything short of greatness if you're laying out your own digits (like, at say, a really fancy restaurant) but another when you're fortunate enough to root for a team owned by a guy who'll pay anything to win.

 

As for everyone else, what difference does it make? To begin with, the last few years have shown that there are some things money can't buy. Pitching, for starters. They've got to be the worst vaule on the FA market because everyone hangs on to them for dear life. Teams only let their guys go if keeping them requires overpaying.

 

If you're a fan of a smaller market team, the yankees almost make it more enjoyable. When your team does well, you get the pleasure of rooting for a scrappy batch of good guys sticking it to the Yankees of the world. When they don't it's not the end of the world because your expectations are realistic. Isn't that better than having a bullseye on your back year in and year out? Knowing that you should win it all and praying that they don't screw it up?

 

There haven't been that many teams who've simply failed to compete over the last 10 years, and it's rather safe to say it's their own fault. Rather than comparing the Royals to the Yankees, compare them to the As or the Twins. Hell, the Marlins have basically no fan support and yet have won it all twice in the last 10 years. They've got a handy little formula. Blow up your team, get a ton of prospects for the guys who just helped you win it all, and then win it all again when that batch matures. Why couldn't KC do that?

 

I'd also challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to quit side stepping the fact that the Cubs have every chance the Yankees do yet rarely manage to field even a decent team.

 

Lets put this into another perspective. I'll equate it to my industry. Lets say there's one restaurant in your market that pays way more for their food than everyone else, buying only the finest dry aged prime beef, having immaculate seafood air freighted from all over the world, buys only the finest organic produce, and the worlds best olive oils and wines, etc. Meanwhile, everyone else is just buying the basic ingredients. Here's the deal, the first place isn't even the most expensive restaurant in the market. They're close, but nobody even comes close in terms of how much they charge relative to how much they put into the product. Would you cry bloody murder at the fact that nearly every year they ranked #1 by the food critics? Would you dance in the street when somebody else managed to beat them out? Would they be vilified for taking some "unfair advantage"? I'd think not. I'd imagine most of the vitriol would be saved for those who charge more for their food despite using inferior products(the Cubs and to a lesser degree the Red Sox). Of course, the little Mexican hole in the wall that always managed to finish with the big boys (the As, if you will), would always be the people's favorite.

[Squeegiebo]

Good heavens, that's a long ramble.

 

This all started with someone saying that they represent what is wrong with professional sport.

 

Watching the post-game interviews, none of them really seemed too upset that they lost. The reason they lost was given by someone (ARod? Jeter?) was that they just got outplayed in every facet of the game.

 

What is getting outplayed? It's not having inferior talent. It's not bad calls. Being outplayed by another team means that that other team wanted it more. That they had more heart.

 

That is what is wrong with professional sport: that a collection of the players with the most skill and ability don't form a team.

 

As much as this sickens me to say, the finest example I can think of of the opposite (the anti-Yankees, if you will) would be that first Pats superbowl team. Those guys played their hearts out and did whatever necessary for the benefit of the team. It wasn't about ego. Crap - they even switched it up and refused to have starters announced individually at the superbowl and came in as a team.

 

What professional sport needs are fewer Yankees and more Patriots.

 

I am now going to go throw up.

[Puddy]

OK, so I'm watching ESPN at the gym this morning and I was reminded, once again, at how lame all these cry baby arguments about the Yankees being all evil are. Frankly, there's a ton of room to trash the Yankees, but most of it has to do with mismanagement (at least in terms of on-field product). So Steinbrenner out spends everyone by a huge margin. It's not like that has bought him much of late. Well, it has bought him a perrenial contender, but that isn't enough for him.

 

In his press conference, he essentially apologized to the fans for the "collosal failure" they were for only being one of the 8 best teams in the league. The thing is, he doesn't charge the fans more than anyone else. They were 3rd highest in ticket prices which is misleading considering that they were 37% more expensive than the league average despite being in a city with a Cost of Living 72% higher than the National average. So, Yankee fans that are pissed because all that money should have assured them more titles should chill because it's not their money. It's one thing to be pissed at anything short of greatness if you're laying out your own digits (like, at say, a really fancy restaurant) but another when you're fortunate enough to root for a team owned by a guy who'll pay anything to win.

 

As for everyone else, what difference does it make? To begin with, the last few years have shown that there are some things money can't buy. Pitching, for starters. They've got to be the worst vaule on the FA market because everyone hangs on to them for dear life. Teams only let their guys go if keeping them requires overpaying.

 

If you're a fan of a smaller market team, the yankees almost make it more enjoyable. When your team does well, you get the pleasure of rooting for a scrappy batch of good guys sticking it to the Yankees of the world. When they don't it's not the end of the world because your expectations are realistic. Isn't that better than having a bullseye on your back year in and year out? Knowing that you should win it all and praying that they don't screw it up?

 

There haven't been that many teams who've simply failed to compete over the last 10 years, and it's rather safe to say it's their own fault. Rather than comparing the Royals to the Yankees, compare them to the As or the Twins. Hell, the Marlins have basically no fan support and yet have won it all twice in the last 10 years. They've got a handy little formula. Blow up your team, get a ton of prospects for the guys who just helped you win it all, and then win it all again when that batch matures. Why couldn't KC do that?

 

I'd also challenge ANY ONE OF YOU to quit side stepping the fact that the Cubs have every chance the Yankees do yet rarely manage to field even a decent team.

 

Lets put this into another perspective. I'll equate it to my industry. Lets say there's one restaurant in your market that pays way more for their food than everyone else, buying only the finest dry aged prime beef, having immaculate seafood air freighted from all over the world, buys only the finest organic produce, and the worlds best olive oils and wines, etc. Meanwhile, everyone else is just buying the basic ingredients. Here's the deal, the first place isn't even the most expensive restaurant in the market. They're close, but nobody even comes close in terms of how much they charge relative to how much they put into the product. Would you cry bloody murder at the fact that nearly every year they ranked #1 by the food critics? Would you dance in the street when somebody else managed to beat them out? Would they be vilified for taking some "unfair advantage"? I'd think not. I'd imagine most of the vitriol would be saved for those who charge more for their food despite using inferior products(the Cubs and to a lesser degree the Red Sox). Of course, the little Mexican hole in the wall that always managed to finish with the big boys (the As, if you will), would always be the people's favorite.

 

 

That's a lot of thinking while running on the treadmill.

[Czarina]

Welcome to the light side, Squeege.

[detlef]

Good heavens, that's a long ramble.

 

This all started with someone saying that they represent what is wrong with professional sport.

 

Watching the post-game interviews, none of them really seemed too upset that they lost. The reason they lost was given by someone (ARod? Jeter?) was that they just got outplayed in every facet of the game.

 

What is getting outplayed? It's not having inferior talent. It's not bad calls. Being outplayed by another team means that that other team wanted it more. That they had more heart.

 

That is what is wrong with professional sport: that a collection of the players with the most skill and ability don't form a team.

 

As much as this sickens me to say, the finest example I can think of of the opposite (the anti-Yankees, if you will) would be that first Pats superbowl team. Those guys played their hearts out and did whatever necessary for the benefit of the team. It wasn't about ego. Crap - they even switched it up and refused to have starters announced individually at the superbowl and came in as a team.

 

What professional sport needs are fewer Yankees and more Patriots.

 

I am now going to go throw up.

 

FWIW, the OP claimed they represented EVERYTHING wrong with pro sports. I think they simply represent both the good and the bad. I'm going to let you in on a little secret, nearly every game is lost because of being outplayed. Somebody always has to be on the wrong end of it. If you listen to guys who know their baseball, they've been saying for the last few years that the Yankees haven't even been the best team on paper. Their pitching is really suspect. It just so happened that their bats didn't show up this time either which is not unheard of especially against the kind of pitching that Detroit was doing. So Steinbrenner is guilty of not spending his money wisely, their pitching staff is guilty of either being old and broken down or not really that great to begin with, and their batters are guilty of going cold in a short series. Sure A-Rod is a serial choker, but Jeter has been far too clutch for far too long to take any crap from anyone.

 

Somehow, this simply doesn't add up to EVERYTHING that is wrong especially in light of all the other garbage you read about with pro sports.

 

If I was you, I'd worry more about the fact that Pits D and running game are no longer good enough to hide the fact that Big Ben is average at best.

[Squeegiebo]

FWIW, the OP claimed they represented EVERYTHING wrong with pro sports. I think they simply represent both the good and the bad. I'm going to let you in on a little secret, nearly every game is lost because of being outplayed. Somebody always has to be on the wrong end of it. If you listen to guys who know their baseball, they've been saying for the last few years that the Yankees haven't even been the best team on paper. Their pitching is really suspect. It just so happened that their bats didn't show up this time either which is not unheard of especially against the kind of pitching that Detroit was doing. So Steinbrenner is guilty of not spending his money wisely, their pitching staff is guilty of either being old and broken down or not really that great to begin with, and their batters are guilty of going cold in a short series. Sure A-Rod is a serial choker, but Jeter has been far too clutch for far too long to take any crap from anyone.

 

Somehow, this simply doesn't add up to EVERYTHING that is wrong especially in light of all the other garbage you read about with pro sports.

 

If I was you, I'd worry more about the fact that Pits D and running game are no longer good enough to hide the fact that Big Ben is average at best.

 

 

Now you're doing your Az impersonation. Just what we need around here: another Az.

 

But that shot about the Steelers and Ben - even Az doesn't try to bolster his argument with weak cit like that.

[detlef]

Now you're doing your Az impersonation. Just what we need around here: another Az.

 

But that shot about the Steelers and Ben - even Az doesn't try to bolster his argument with weak cit like that.

 

If your accusing me of simply playing devil's advocate, that is not how it is at all. Just because I'm not a fan of the Yankees doesn't mean that I have to fall in line with all the reason you guys whine about them.

 

I'll let this go as soon as somebody does better than recycle the same baseless arguments.

 

And don't get me started on Big Ben, I read a pretty alarming article that managed to quantify his lameness not long ago that was rather eyeopening.

[Sam]

If your accusing me of simply playing devil's advocate, that is not how it is at all. Just because I'm not a fan of the Yankees doesn't mean that I have to fall in line with all the reason you guys whine about them.

 

I'll let this go as soon as somebody does better than recycle the same baseless arguments.

 

And don't get me started on Big Ben, I read a pretty alarming article that managed to quantify his lameness not long ago that was rather eyeopening.

 

 

 

Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to read it. Thanks.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Sam

[detlef]

Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to read it. Thanks.

 

That could be tough because I think the link was buried in some Bill Simmons article. What I recall was, this guy managed to create a formula that quantified a quarterback's ability to make good decisions, inclination to throw picks at bad times, etc. I understand this all seems fishy, but I remember thinking it was rather interesting and illustrative. Big Ben ranked among the worst of active QBs. I think largely on the strength of the fact he rarely faced potentially bad situations but made bad throws proportionally often when he did. Contrast that to some poor sap who's routinely playing catch-up and is constantly having to make plays.

 

Perhaps I'll find it at some point.

Edited October 9, 2006 by detlef