The Yankees are losing!

[Squeegiebo]

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.

 

 

No. I am talking about your playing games of semantics in addition to what appears to be a desire to simply argue with everyone about everything.

[detlef]

No. I am talking about your playing games of semantics in addition to what appears to be a desire to simply argue with everyone about everything.

 

You may think taking someone on their word when they refer to a team embodying EVERYHTING that is wrong in pro sports as arguing semantics, but I think that's a rather bold statement and one that's been poorly backed up.

 

As for arguiing with everyone about everyting... given that it appears every argument here has about as many people on either side and I do tend to pick my spots, I'd say it's more like I'm arguing with half the people about somethings. But I suppose that's just a matter of semantics .

[Squeegiebo]

But I suppose that's just a matter of semantics .

 

 

Precisely.

 

[darin3]

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

 

1. OK, I'll give ya that... one of the best "home-growns" around.

2. Finally broke through.

3. Old and what exactly did he do for this team again?

4. Another stud home-grown.

5. Played well in spurts.

6. Breakthrough year but was established in Japan.

7. Old, but solid.

8. Uh, ok.

 

I think the point was that the "core" group of Yankees - the A-Rod's, the Giambi's, the Sheffield's - were simply a product of a signed check, not "home grown".

 

But I see your point, too.

[Caveman_Nick]

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.

 

 

Will this fit in my sig?

 

[Squeegiebo]

Will this fit in my sig?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Cherni]

1. OK, I'll give ya that... one of the best "home-growns" around.

2. Finally broke through.

3. Old and what exactly did he do for this team again?

4. Another stud home-grown.

5. Played well in spurts.

6. Breakthrough year but was established in Japan.

7. Old, but solid.

8. Uh, ok.

 

I think the point was that the "core" group of Yankees - the A-Rod's, the Giambi's, the Sheffield's - were simply a product of a signed check, not "home grown".

 

But I see your point, too.

 

 

No actually I was replying to a post that said only 2 of the yanks were home-grown. I was just stating that while it seems EVERYONE on the yanks is a guy acquired from somewhere else, that's not accurate. That was the point I was making.

 

And the "core" group of yankees is actually Jeter, Posada, and Mariano, and even still Bernie Williams. They've been there for all the glory and lead this team. Arod/Giambi/Shef will never be considered true yankees and certainly don't hold much clout in the clubhouse. Giambi to a lesser extent than the other 2, but Arod/Sheff aren't well liked by the fans nor the team.

 

 

EDIT: And don't discount what Bernie has done for the yanks this year. After being stripped of his starting role he came through when the yanks needed him to fill in for much of the season. He played over 130 games in pinstripes this year and while his numbers weren't old school Bernie, he came through a lot for the team. If Bernie hadn't been around, they would have been a much different team.

 

2nd EDIT: It's tough to say Wong was established in Japan when he came up through the yankees farm system. He played Low A-Ball, Rookie League, AA and AAA in the farm system. He pitched for Japan but that was only after he had completed work in yankee camp.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Cherni

[Pope Flick]

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.

 

 

Tell me the names of the teams that aren't owned by billionaires. That's your "list" - the fact of the matter is Steinbrenner isn't prohibitevly richer thatn the other owners, he's willing to part with more of his moolah. The Cubs don't count, as they're owned by a corporation.

 

 

Other owners are cheap and would rather collect the Luxury Tax from Steinbrenner than spend over 50 mil.

[darin3]

No actually I was replying to a post that said only 2 of the yanks were home-grown. I was just stating that while it seems EVERYONE on the yanks is a guy acquired from somewhere else, that's not accurate. That was the point I was making.

 

And the "core" group of yankees is actually Jeter, Posada, and Mariano, and even still Bernie Williams. They've been there for all the glory and lead this team. Arod/Giambi/Shef will never be considered true yankees and certainly don't hold much clout in the clubhouse. Giambi to a lesser extent than the other 2, but Arod/Sheff aren't well liked by the fans nor the team.

EDIT: And don't discount what Bernie has done for the yanks this year. After being stripped of his starting role he came through when the yanks needed him to fill in for much of the season. He played over 130 games in pinstripes this year and while his numbers weren't old school Bernie, he came through a lot for the team. If Bernie hadn't been around, they would have been a much different team.

 

2nd EDIT: It's tough to say Wong was established in Japan when he came up through the yankees farm system. He played Low A-Ball, Rookie League, AA and AAA in the farm system. He pitched for Japan but that was only after he had completed work in yankee camp.

 

1. OK, I think the poster you were referring to was implying that the "meat" of the Yanks' lineup was "brought in", so to speak.

 

2. When I said "core", I was also implying that the "meat" of the line-up (again, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheff, Matsui, Unit, etc.) were, for lack of better terms, bought.

 

3. I understand Bernie's presence is huge. And like you said, his numbers were not old school Bernie. Side note, re: Bernie: he's the only Yankee that I like in any way. In fact, I like the guy a lot. Class act.

 

4. Hmm, well then the lame-ass announcers on Fox were dead wrong then.

 

Edit: Oh hey, you need my email address again?

Edited October 10, 2006 by darin3

[Guest Cherni]

1. OK, I think the poster you were referring to was implying that the "meat" of the Yanks' lineup was "brought in", so to speak.

 

2. When I said "core", I was also implying that the "meat" of the line-up (again, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheff, Matsui, Unit, etc.) were, for lack of better terms, bought.

 

3. I understand Bernie's presence is huge. And like you said, his numbers were not old school Bernie. Side note, re: Bernie: he's the only Yankee that I like in any way. In fact, I like the guy a lot. Class act.

 

4. Hmm, well then the lame-ass announcers on Fox were dead wrong then.

 

Edit: Oh hey, you need my email address again?

 

 

It's all good either way. The bottom line is that I'm loving that $200 million can't buy a ring. Check your e-mail you should have a confirmation, just sent it.

[paxacha]

Tell me the names of the teams that aren't owned by billionaires. That's your "list" - the fact of the matter is Steinbrenner isn't prohibitevly richer thatn the other owners, he's willing to part with more of his moolah. The Cubs don't count, as they're owned by a corporation.

Other owners are cheap and would rather collect the Luxury Tax from Steinbrenner than spend over 50 mil.

 

 

exactly. i don't think it makes any sense, but i think the sentiment is, "the yankees are wrong because they have the most money to spend". as i pointed out earlier, the teams that make the biggest profit are the ones with the lowest payrolls.

 

why is it a criticism that they spend so much money, even though they sometimes take a loss in doing so? isn't that what a sports fan should WANT - billionaires buying teams because they love the sport and want to win championships, and not because they want to maximize profits? if you're going to criticize the yankees, then tell me what team you root for and let's look at what they do with their revenue.

[darin3]

It's all good either way. The bottom line is that I'm loving that $200 million can't buy a ring. Check your e-mail you should have a confirmation, just sent it.

 

Now there's something we can totally agree on. And thanks.

[Squeegiebo]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, nearly every game is lost because of being outplayed.

 

 

Don't tell that to Seattle fans.

[chiefjay]

Don't tell that to Seattle fans.

 

 

He said nearly every game.

Edited October 10, 2006 by chiefjay

[jackshi17]

He said nearly every game.

 

 

 

"Semantics"

[TimC]

I remember back in 1862 when I posted this same thread title...good time, good times indeed.

[spain]

I remember back in 1862 when I posted this same thread title...good time, good times indeed.

 

[detlef]

exactly. i don't think it makes any sense, but i think the sentiment is, "the yankees are wrong because they have the most money to spend". as i pointed out earlier, the teams that make the biggest profit are the ones with the lowest payrolls.

 

why is it a criticism that they spend so much money, even though they sometimes take a loss in doing so? isn't that what a sports fan should WANT - billionaires buying teams because they love the sport and want to win championships, and not because they want to maximize profits? if you're going to criticize the yankees, then tell me what team you root for and let's look at what they do with their revenue.

 

Amen to this and what Pope wrote, though I'm not inclined to give the Cubs a free pass because they're owned by a Corp. That ownership should be seen as the devil. They've got a ton of loyal fans, whom they charge more for tickets than anyone but the Red Sox yet rarely put together a decent product on the field. THAT, gentle reader is what is wrong with pro sports.

 

Though the other side of this argument has failed to bring much to it besides emoticons (go ahead, that's your cue to start an endless stream of replies with nothing but), I'm going to, once again, actually address the topic at hand.

 

Just so I have this straight, the argument (besides round yellow dude showing his backside) is as follows:

 

1) Steinbrenner spends more than everyone else and that's not fair

2) The Yankees are a team that relies on Free Agents

3) The Yankees are a talented team whose sum of parts is greater than the whole

Am I missing something?

 

So...

 

1) Is there anyone out there who still wants to defend owners who'd rather pocket profits rather than spend that money on another player? We can revisit this once someone does.

 

2) There are a ton of teams in every sport guilty of this same thing. Yes Squeeg, your Steelers are very much an example of one who hasn't and that's a great story. But baseball's been this way for a long time. I mean, nobody hates on the Red Sox but essentially every player who made a difference in their title run was not "home-grown". Manny, Damon, Ortiz, Schilling, Pedro... Also keep in mind that traded for players shouldn't count so go ahead and cross of A-Rod (the poster child for your arguments). The Yanks had to trade Soriano for him and one could argue that they may not have gotten the better end of that deal.

 

3) Either that or they were simply poorly assembled and look just like pretty much every other team on the wrong side of the dynasty curve. In the mid 90s, it was hard to find much not to at least respect about the Yankees. They had a core of great players that came up through the ranks and the FAs were role players who raised their game on the biggest stage. I mean, who wants to accuse Scott Brosius of being a hired gun? Once you're up there for a while, it seems like every team is willing to do drastic things to stay on top. In the NFL, it means you mortgage your future salary cap # like the Niners and Cowboys did.

 

Well, there's no cap in MLB, so Steinbrenner kept on collecting bats. As I mentioned before, it's much harder to buy quality pitching and that, more than any lack of team chemistry (which tends to be something that outsiders make a big deal of and players themselves often discount) was the biggest issue with the Yanks of late. I mean, if you want to look at teams with high payroll that don't do jack, don't point at a team that can at least parlay that into being one of the odds on favorites to win it all. You needn't even leave Manhattan to see both the Knicks and Rangers (more so a few years ago with the Rangers) who outspend everyone and are absolutely horrible.

 

So, Squeeg, am I arguing semantics here? Or am I simply poluting a baseless yankee bash with inconvenient truths?

Edited October 10, 2006 by detlef

[chiefjay]

I remember back in 1862 when I posted this same thread title...good time, good times indeed.

 

 

Shouldn't this be sky, RR, or Rovers post.

[spain]

Shouldn't this be sky, RR, or Rovers post.

 

Yes, those old codgers were around back then. But they were on the side of the evil Northern Aggressors!

[TimC]

I remember losing a sig bet back then to Hugh One...I think it was "The Union burned mah house, killed mah livestock and drank all my moonshine, but I'll get reparation checks for the next 200 years to support myself." Or something like that.

 

I also welched on the bet to send him 2 chickens and a cow, but they killed those too....he didn't believe me.

[Pope Flick]

Amen to this and what Pope wrote, though I'm not inclined to give the Cubs a free pass because they're owned by a Corp. That ownership should be seen as the devil. They've got a ton of loyal fans, whom they charge more for tickets than anyone but the Red Sox yet rarely put together a decent product on the field. THAT, gentle reader is what is wrong with pro sports.

 

 

 

Time out, sparky. I'm a Cubs fan first and foremost and when you're talking about an individual owner vs a corporation that owns a baseball team and looks at it as a line item in a larger corporate budget, that is truly comparing apples and oranges. As it is, the Cubs had the 5th or 6th highest payorll, so they're NOT one of the cheaper teams.

 

Also, you can't blame Tribune for charging high prices for games that continually sell out. That's not what's wrong with the sport, that's what is wrong with our (Cubs) fan base.

 

MLB and it's cap-free structure is what is wrong with pro sports. Every team is a fiefdom. NBA, NFL, NHL even MLS have it figgered out. MLB does not. The yankees are a symptom, not the cause.

 

Selig and his cronies have messed up the sport. Screaming Yankees this, Yankees that is missing the forest for looking at the trees. I know we agree on that. Same with pointing fingers at Bonds. Steropid were illegal, but not against baseball rules until 2002. There again, Bonds is a symptom of the larger disease.

[detlef]

Time out, sparky. I'm a Cubs fan first and foremost and when you're talking about an individual owner vs a corporation that owns a baseball team and looks at it as a line item in a larger corporate budget, that is truly comparing apples and oranges. As it is, the Cubs had the 5th or 6th highest payorll, so they're NOT one of the cheaper teams.

 

Also, you can't blame Tribune for charging high prices for games that continually sell out. That's not what's wrong with the sport, that's what is wrong with our (Cubs) fan base.

 

Well, the fact remains that they consitantly fail their fan base by rarely even contending. That they have to be more chained to the bottom line only explains part of the issue. Certainly the fact that they have apparently gullable fans may diminish the urgency to make improvements from a business standpoint but I think the prevailing opinion from sports fans is that ownership and fans enter into a contract. The fans pony up their money and the ownership does what it can to compete.

 

I was listening to the radio and the guy from Baseball America was discussing what was next for A-Rod. In a perfectly rational tone, he said that the Cubs were a great fit. He gives the Cubs a shiny thing that they can dangle in front of their fans so they can pretend they care, the Cubs give him a relaxed atmosphere where winning is a welcome surprise and the press is basically owned by the team. The host that had him on started to chuckle and the guy insisted that he was not joking.

 

I suppose you can blame the fans for not revolting and insisting that they do more than throw them a bone now and then. That they should refuse to buy tickets if the Cubs hire an incoherent Manager that destroys pitchers and is completely unaware of game strategy (I'm a Giants fan, so I know all to well). But does that really let the ownership off the hook?

[Pope Flick]

Well, the fact remains that they consitantly fail their fan base by rarely even contending. That they have to be more chained to the bottom line only explains part of the issue. Certainly the fact that they have apparently gullable fans may diminish the urgency to make improvements from a business standpoint but I think the prevailing opinion from sports fans is that ownership and fans enter into a contract. The fans pony up their money and the ownership does what it can to compete.

 

I was listening to the radio and the guy from Baseball America was discussing what was next for A-Rod. In a perfectly rational tone, he said that the Cubs were a great fit. He gives the Cubs a shiny thing that they can dangle in front of their fans so they can pretend they care, the Cubs give him a relaxed atmosphere where winning is a welcome surprise and the press is basically owned by the team. The host that had him on started to chuckle and the guy insisted that he was not joking.

 

I suppose you can blame the fans for not revolting and insisting that they do more than throw them a bone now and then. That they should refuse to buy tickets if the Cubs hire an incoherent Manager that destroys pitchers and is completely unaware of game strategy (I'm a Giants fan, so I know all to well). But does that really let the ownership off the hook?

 

 

I hear what you're saying about Dusty, but no one was complaining in 2003. Winning is the cure-all.

 

I'm not sure about this whole 'contract' thing. It is a business. If your resatraunt was sold out to the table every single night you were opened and a few people insist you start carrying live lobster or they wouldn't eat there again would you do it if you knew that NOT carrying live lobster would result in you still being sold out to the table each and every night? You probably wouldn't.

 

And, unfortunately the A-Rod thing makes a lot of sense. Since the Trib bought the Cubs, they've ALWAYS had a marquee player: Sandberg, Dawson, Sosa to anchor the gate. They need a SS and he'd be on a team that would be "his" for better or wrose. It makes a LOT of sense, but I don't think the Cubs have the arms to make that deal. They'd be better off going after Soriano as a FA, because they need a left fielder with pop which he has all over the place.

[detlef]

I hear what you're saying about Dusty, but no one was complaining in 2003. Winning is the cure-all.

 

I'm not sure about this whole 'contract' thing. It is a business. If your resatraunt was sold out to the table every single night you were opened and a few people insist you start carrying live lobster or they wouldn't eat there again would you do it if you knew that NOT carrying live lobster would result in you still being sold out to the table each and every night? You probably wouldn't.

 

And, unfortunately the A-Rod thing makes a lot of sense. Since the Trib bought the Cubs, they've ALWAYS had a marquee player: Sandberg, Dawson, Sosa to anchor the gate. They need a SS and he'd be on a team that would be "his" for better or wrose. It makes a LOT of sense, but I don't think the Cubs have the arms to make that deal. They'd be better off going after Soriano as a FA, because they need a left fielder with pop which he has all over the place.

I thought about bringing it back to my biz as there are a ton of examples of doing exactly what the Cubs do and didn't. It's a completely fair argument given the business sense model. But again, I was defending the Yankees from the standpoint of "What is wrong with sports" and, for whatever reason, people who would otherwise defend businesses for doing what is right for themselves tend to leave logic at the door when it comes to pro sports. To some degree that seems fair because of the landscape of the industry.

 

To bring it back to my industry, I would not fault a place that was happy in their spot and making a good living. Heaven knows there are plenty of culinary martyr that barely scratch out a decent living. However, as in my restaurant example I gave earlier, they'd better be ready to made an example of when someone starting talking smack about someone who truly did put a ton of $$ into their product.

 

That, actually brings up a thought i had while driving home yesterday about the yanks. Because of the fact that they are unable to accept a rebuilding faze, they will always be a motivate buyer, so they're doomed to get bad value. That seems to be exactly what has happened the last few years.