Yankees Collapsing

[Rovers]

Hey guys, this was just a thread to poke some fun at a team that has fans that have rubbed my nose in it for years! Yer taking this trash talking way too seriously! Can the Yankees get back to .500? Sure they could.... but I hope they don't! It does seem the Crankee fans have thier drawers pulled up just wee bit too much.

[Hugh 0ne]

Everyone expects the Yankees to win, so it's worthless to be a fan in my opinion. 

806864[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

What a (the really bad word)ing moran.

[whomper]

Im a lifelong Orioles fan so to see the Yankees struggle isnt breaking my heart. They can either go on a run where they win 12 out of 16 and people calm down about their demise or they can turn into that Oriole team that had the highest payroll in baseball and went in the tank big time. It was a year or 2 after the Jeffrey Mayer Fiasco. Ripken,Anderson,Alomar,Surhoff,Belle They just went in the tank.It can happen to a big payroll talented team..Thats why they play the games..

[Balzac]

Using this analogy... what if your team owner has money to spend, just chooses not to?  Maybe spending some extra money on the car (which he has), would lead to more success, would lead to more fans, would lead to more sponsorship deals, would lead to more revenue... and then you can spend even more money on the car.  The Twins owner (for example) is one of the richest guys in the country.

 

Saying its anti-climatic is just another way to express jealousy (or respect if you want to admit it).  I found it anti-climatic to watch the Patriots win the SuperBowl again this year.  They were the clearly the better team, so they won.  Should the fans be proud?  Of course they should. 

 

So, are you saying that a Mets fan shouldn't be proud if they get to the series?  They've got the highest payroll in the NL.  And I think they have for some time.  That's why they've been so competitive year after year. 

 

The Sox shouldn't be proud if they repeat?  Take out the Yankees (since they stink so bad, obviously not a factor), and the Sox have the highest payroll.  It's not a commendable accomplishment if they win again?  Of course it is.  Will everyone else in the country be rooting against them?  Of course they will.  People hate the champs.  It's just jealousy, and they'll come up with something to complain about.

 

806901[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

A few quick responses:

 

1. If the owner chooses not to spend money, that's his business. That doesn't change the fact that certain teams have/spend a lot more that others do - it's a completely separate point. That said, Big Stein puts most owners to shame when it comes to the depth of his pockets.

 

2. Saying it's anticlimactic is a way of saying . . . that it's anticlimactic. Everyone knew going into last year that the Sox and Yankees were the teams to beat. Why? Not because they cultivated talent through their farm systems - they had the highest 2 payrolls. Makes the season a little less exciting to have these juggernaut squads stomping on the competition.

 

3. The Pats don't buy their competitiveness - in fact, they're kinda cheap. There's also a hard salary cap in the NFL, so you can't really compare the 2.

 

4. Mets should be proud b/c they haven't made it (or really been consistently competitive) in a while. They brought someone in who finally seems to know what he's doing, so there's that to be proud of as well (i.e. there's pride in finally bringing the team out of the mire of mismanagement). Then again, if they start making it to the WS every year and keepin increasing the payroll to ludicrous amounts, they've got less to be proud of.

 

5. The reason the Sox' win was so satisfying (despite the 86 year drought) was that they beat the Yankees to get there - the "Evil Empire" that runs around buying success unlike any other team. If the Yanks hadn't had such a ridiculous payroll or had missed the playoffs altogether, the victory would've been much less satisfying - ask any Sox fan. I'm not at all proud that the Sox pay what they do and totally crush the payrolls of lesser market teams, but there's an old saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." If a team wants to consistently compete with the big market teams, they have to pay what the big market teams are paying. Only exception I can think of is Oakland b/c they found an ingenious way to bring in talent that nobody else had utilized . . . now that others are "onto them," I think you'll see them fade into mediocrity again.

[Hugh 0ne]

A few quick responses:

 

1.  If the owner chooses not to spend money, that's his business.  That doesn't change the fact that certain teams have/spend a lot more that others do - it's a completely separate point.  That said, Big Stein puts most owners to shame when it comes to the depth of his pockets.     

 

2.  Saying it's anticlimactic is a way of saying . . . that it's anticlimactic.  Everyone knew going into last year that the Sox and Yankees were the teams to beat.  Why?  Not because they cultivated talent through their farm systems - they had the highest 2 payrolls.  Makes the season a little less exciting to have these juggernaut squads stomping on the competition.

 

3.  The Pats don't buy their competitiveness - in fact, they're kinda cheap.  There's also a hard salary cap in the NFL, so you can't really compare the 2. 

 

4.  Mets should be proud b/c they haven't made it (or really been consistently competitive) in a while.  They brought someone in who finally seems to know what he's doing, so there's that to be proud of as well (i.e. there's pride in finally bringing the team out of the mire of mismanagement).  Then again, if they start making it to the WS every year and keepin increasing the payroll to ludicrous amounts, they've got less to be proud of. 

 

5.  The reason the Sox' win was so satisfying (despite the 86 year drought) was that they beat the Yankees to get there - the "Evil Empire" that runs around buying success unlike any other team.  If the Yanks hadn't had such a ridiculous payroll or had missed the playoffs altogether, the victory would've been much less satisfying - ask any Sox fan.  I'm not at all proud that the Sox pay what they do and totally crush the payrolls of lesser market teams, but there's an old saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."  If a team wants to consistently compete with the big market teams, they have to pay what the big market teams are paying.  Only exception I can think of is Oakland b/c they found an ingenious way to bring in talent that nobody else had utilized . . . now that others are "onto them," I think you'll see them fade into mediocrity again.

 

807209[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

OK, I'm not a baseball fan, so I may be off here, but A LOT of you guys, mainly Red Sox fans, are really hung up on this Evil Empire thing, which from what I understand relates DIRECTLY to Steinbrenner and his spending of money over the past several years. If that is the case, how do you accept the Yankees success pre-Steinbrenner. Also, from what I understand, aren't the Red Sox just about the second highest payroll in baseball currently? Aren't you b*tching about something that your team is doing?

 

And Balzac, I just quoted you because it seemed you made a few of the points I was questioning, it's nothing personal.

Edited May 9, 2005 by Hugh 0ne

[Ziachild007]

Hey guys, this was just a thread to poke some fun at a team that has fans that have rubbed my nose in it for years! Yer taking this trash talking way too seriously! Can the Yankees get back to .500? Sure they could.... but I hope they don't! It does seem the Crankee fans have thier drawers pulled up just wee bit too much. 

 

807010[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well let me pull them down them

[Ursa Majoris]

If the Yanks win all their games with Pavano pitching and lose all the rest, I will be very happy.

 

Thank you. Carry on.

[Balzac]

OK, I'm not a baseball fan, so I may be off here, but A LOT of you guys, mainly Red Sox fans, are really hung up on this Evil Empire thing, which from what I understand relates DIRECTLY to Steinbrenner and his spending of money over the past several years. If that is the case, how do you accept the Yankees success pre-Steinbrenner. Also, from what I understand, aren't the Red Sox just about the second highest payroll in baseball currently? Aren't you b*tching about something that your team is doing?

 

And Balzac, I just quoted you because it seemed you made a few of the points I was questioning, it's nothing personal.

 

807216[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You'll notice that I said I wasn't proud of the Sox' payroll and the "if you can't beat em, join em" line.

[LegFuJohnson]

A few quick responses:

 

1.  If the owner chooses not to spend money, that's his business.  That doesn't change the fact that certain teams have/spend a lot more that others do - it's a completely separate point.  That said, Big Stein puts most owners to shame when it comes to the depth of his pockets.     

 

2.  Saying it's anticlimactic is a way of saying . . . that it's anticlimactic.  Everyone knew going into last year that the Sox and Yankees were the teams to beat.  Why?  Not because they cultivated talent through their farm systems - they had the highest 2 payrolls.  Makes the season a little less exciting to have these juggernaut squads stomping on the competition.

 

3.  The Pats don't buy their competitiveness - in fact, they're kinda cheap.  There's also a hard salary cap in the NFL, so you can't really compare the 2. 

 

4.  Mets should be proud b/c they haven't made it (or really been consistently competitive) in a while.  They brought someone in who finally seems to know what he's doing, so there's that to be proud of as well (i.e. there's pride in finally bringing the team out of the mire of mismanagement).  Then again, if they start making it to the WS every year and keepin increasing the payroll to ludicrous amounts, they've got less to be proud of. 

 

5.  The reason the Sox' win was so satisfying (despite the 86 year drought) was that they beat the Yankees to get there - the "Evil Empire" that runs around buying success unlike any other team.  If the Yanks hadn't had such a ridiculous payroll or had missed the playoffs altogether, the victory would've been much less satisfying - ask any Sox fan.  I'm not at all proud that the Sox pay what they do and totally crush the payrolls of lesser market teams, but there's an old saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."  If a team wants to consistently compete with the big market teams, they have to pay what the big market teams are paying.  Only exception I can think of is Oakland b/c they found an ingenious way to bring in talent that nobody else had utilized . . . now that others are "onto them," I think you'll see them fade into mediocrity again.

 

807209[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Just some quick responses to your quick responses.

 

1. Yes, it is the owners decision to spend or not too spend. But you are saying that your team has less to be proud of because your owner wants to win also? If my teams' owner doesn't spend, I'm allowed to be happier? I'd rather have the owner that wants to win.

 

2. Saying that everyone knew the Sox and Yankees were the teams to beat, sure, that's easy to say, because it happened. The Sox and Yankees have played in the last two ALCS. But I'll bet they've had two of the highest payrolls for longer than only 2 years. Are you suggesting that the Mets and (insert team #2) are the teams to beat in the NL, simply because their payroll is higher? The Mets have been the team to beat in the NL for years? Really?

 

3. Using your race car comparison... the Pats car costs about the same as everyone elses... but they have one of the best drivers, and clearly the best crew chief and pit crews, so of course they should win, right? It's anti-climatic.

 

4. The Yankees were mired in mismanagement as well, most of the 80's and early 90's. Then they decided to stop trading away all their young talent, and let the young guys blossom. Then you get the before mentioned Jeter, Pettite, Rivera, Posada, Bernie. They had plenty of opportunities to trade those guys, they didn't, and they won 4 titles. And that shouldn't be celebrated?

 

5. I hope you aren't serious about the title wouldn't have been as satisfying if they didn't beat the Yankees. It had been 86 years. I still never got a response about the big free agents that the Yankees bought to bring them those titles. They've bought guys since (Mussina, Giambi, Sheffield) but I don't see those purchases resulting in rings.

[jackshi17]

George puts a good product on the market and they draw paying customers in record numbers.

The rest of the league should be grateful that the Yankees play in their parks as they always draw more fans for their series against the Yankees--more revenue for the opposition.

For those slows out there, here it is once again, "Baseball is a business!"

I think George makes money on the Yankees every year even with the inflated payroll similar to what Snyder does in Washington.

You have to spend money to make money--- if he chooses to that is his business.

Edited May 9, 2005 by jackshi17

[Balzac]

Just some quick responses to your quick responses.

 

1.  Yes, it is the owners decision to spend or not too spend.  But you are saying that your team has less to be proud of because your owner wants to win also?  If my teams' owner doesn't spend, I'm allowed to be happier?  I'd rather have the owner that wants to win.

 

2.  Saying that everyone knew the Sox and Yankees were the teams to beat, sure, that's easy to say, because it happened.  The Sox and Yankees have played in the last two ALCS.  But I'll bet they've had two of the highest payrolls for longer than only 2 years.  Are you suggesting that the Mets and (insert team #2) are the teams to beat in the NL, simply because their payroll is higher?  The Mets have been the team to beat in the NL for years?  Really?

 

3.  Using your race car comparison... the Pats car costs about the same as everyone elses... but they have one of the best drivers, and clearly the best crew chief and pit crews, so of course they should win, right?  It's anti-climatic.

 

4.  The Yankees were mired in mismanagement as well, most of the 80's and early 90's.  Then they decided to stop trading away all their young talent, and let the young guys blossom.  Then you get the before mentioned Jeter, Pettite, Rivera, Posada, Bernie.  They had plenty of opportunities to trade those guys, they didn't, and they won 4 titles.  And that shouldn't be celebrated?

 

5.  I hope you aren't serious about the title wouldn't have been as satisfying if they didn't beat the Yankees.  It had been 86 years.  I still never got a response about the big free agents that the Yankees bought to bring them those titles.  They've bought guys since (Mussina, Giambi, Sheffield) but I don't see those purchases resulting in rings.

 

807302[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I'm very serious about it being less satisfying. All that means is that it was more satisfying because Sox beat the Yanks - that shouldn't be hard to believe. I didn't say it wouldn't be satisfying at all or that it would be materially less satisfying - just less satisfying.

 

You're missing my point on some of these comments (some of which I don't have the time to address). Anyway, teams' payrolls fluctuate up and down from year to year with some teams spiking for a while and then dropping off again. What I'm talking about are teams that CONSISTENTLY have payrolls near the top that CONSISTENTLY succeed for a period of time (the Mets don't fit this mold - the Sox and Yankees do). There are aberrations all over the place where teams that have high payrolls suck and teams that have low payrolls succeed - it happens, but it doesn't affect my point at all. My point is that, for the most part, teams that enjoy a great deal of success while ALWAYS having the highest payroll (or close to it)have to attribute a lot of their success to said payroll. The Yanks owe it to their payroll and so do the Sox. Peeps can be proud all they want - my point is simply that it's not very hard (i.e. I don't see much to be proud of) to put together a successul team when you're spending way more than most other teams are.

 

I don't recall you asking a question about the "big free agents" (though I'm sure I could find it if I simply scrolled up) but I also don't recall saying that the Yanks' payroll was attributable to big name FAs, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. They spend a lot of money re-signing their own players as well . . . something that most ML teams don't have the money to do. This is no different than going out and getting big name FAs - the bottom line is that they still had the highest payroll in MLB for every one of those championships except for one.

[Balzac]

The rest of the league should be grateful that the Yankees play in their parks as they always draw more fans for their series against the Yankees--more revenue for the opposition.

 

807480[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I agree with everything else you said, but the above quote typifies why people hate the Yankees.

[AtomicCEO]

What a (the really bad word)ing moran.

 

807019[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Good comeback. I see your point. Thanks.

[Hugh 0ne]

Good comeback.  I see your point.  Thanks.

 

807535[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You really thought your comment about rooting for team that is expected to win being useless deserved a comeback? I hope your kidding. Your a pretty smart guy, normally, but that was about the dumbest statement you've made that I've read. What points would you like me to make? Stop blaming Steinbrenner and the Yankees for being succesful, especially when you root for a team that has done the exact same things that you hate the Yankees for.

 

Go re-read your statement, if you still want to discuss it, I'll be here. Maybe you can provide a little more insight this time. Thanks in advance.

[Hugh 0ne]

I agree with everything else you said, but the above quote typifies why people hate the Yankees.

 

807494[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

OK, perhaps "grateful" wasn't quite the right word, but you really can't argue with his concept.

[Rovers]

Hey, the Yankees just suck. I'll be back later if they lose tonight. if not, then tomorrow!

[whomper]

Hey, the Yankees just suck. I'll be back later if they lose tonight. if not, then tomorrow! 

 

807695[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Thats some fine fishing youve done here Rovers..Youve caught so much you need to catch and release from here on out..

[Hugh 0ne]

Hey, the Yankees just suck. I'll be back later if they lose tonight. if not, then tomorrow! 

 

807695[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

See ya tomorrow.

[LegFuJohnson]

See, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the Yanks have had the highest payroll most of those title years. I'm disagreeing with the amount of advantage that it gives you. It gives you some, I can't deny it. But it was as big as some would claim, then it would be inconceivable to not win with a $200 million payroll, and obviously it happens. The Marlins couldn't possibly win the series, yet they do. The Twins would be lucky to win a division once... now its three years and counting (and were picked by many to win the whole thing this year... those that didn't pick the Marlins, that is). To simply dismiss the accomplishments as "buying the title" is to simply ignore the facts.

 

5 different champions in 5 years. The baseball playing field could not be much more level than that.

 

"There are aberrations all over the place where teams that have high payrolls suck and teams that have low payrolls succeed" By definition, can aberrations happen all over the place? Isn't is possible that they aren't aberrations?

 

 

 

And those that wish to ignore the serious commentary, go ahead, it wasn't meant for you.

[AtomicCEO]

You really thought your comment about rooting for team that is expected to win being useless deserved a comeback? I hope your kidding. Your a pretty smart guy, normally, but that was about the dumbest statement you've made that I've read. What points would you like me to make? Stop blaming Steinbrenner and the Yankees for being succesful, especially when you root for a team that has done the exact same things that you hate the Yankees for.

 

Go re-read your statement, if you still want to discuss it, I'll be here. Maybe you can provide a little more insight this time. Thanks in advance.

 

807564[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Did I blame Steinbrenner anywhere? Did I complain about anything the Yankees did?

 

- The fact is, they have by far the biggest payroll in baseball, and they have for decades.

- The fact is, the ability to spend money like this makes them the Vegas odds-on favorite to win every year.

 

Have I said anything untrue yet? Have I made any wildly innaccurate or biased statements? No... then I'll continue.

 

When you root for the obvious favorite, you have less to gain and more to lose. It's the truth. Lets say you decided to publicly arm-wrestle a 12 year old girl. If you win, duh... it's a 12 year old girl. If you lose... you are the biggest f'n loser in the world, pal.

 

Now, the Yankees spend 50% more on payroll than the Red Sox: 208 Million to 123 Million. They spent 85 million more than the next highest team... That 85 million dollar difference is still more than 21 teams in the league spent in total. They have the Red Sox salary... and then a whole other team or two's payroll.

 

I'm not complaining about this. God bless them for having money. Like I said... without a seemingly insurmountable foe, I probably wouldn't be such a huge fan of the Sox.

 

But... Duh... the Yankees should be winning. They should be treating 90% of the teams in this league like that 12 year old girl.

 

And that 12 year old girl is kicking their ass... and it is hilarious!!! :eek:

[whomper]

When you root for the obvious favorite, you have less to gain and more to lose.  It's the truth.  Lets say you decided to publicly arm-wrestle a 12 year old girl.  If you win, duh... it's a 12 year old girl.  If you lose... you are the biggest f'n loser in the world, pal.

 

 

 

808182[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I never thought that story would follow me here but once again I have to say I didnt hear anyone say go and she just threw my arm down really fast.. I begged BEGGED for a rematch but she just got carried off on the crowds shoulders and I never saw her again..

[Rovers]

Now pitching for the New York Yankees.... Chein Ming-Wang....? Wasnt there a song or a band er sumpthing.... wang chung.....is this the same guy?

[jackshi17]

Now pitching for the New York Yankees.... Chein Ming-Wang....? Wasnt there a song or a band er sumpthing.... wang chung.....is this the same guy?

 

809093[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Have to agre with you here he is not a "household name" like Kazuhisa Ishii, Dae-Sung Kim or Jae Seo but give him two more starts and then we'll see.

[Rovers]

Well, I took my shots when I could. dam, 5 in a row? can Tino share some of that fountain of youth stuff he's drinkin?

[AtomicCEO]

Dang... a walkoff homer wins it for the Sox on Tuesday. Then, a walkoff homer wins it for the Sox on Wednesday.

 

That was a dang exciting series against Oakland. Rock on.