PDA

View Full Version : Would it be ok for your team to 'buy' a World Series Championship?



7chuck7
04-19-2012, 07:41 AM
If your team suddenly had unlimited funds would you want them to run out and get the very best players available including minor leaguers? Would you want them to refrain from doing that in fairness to other teams?

Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

infernoscurse
04-19-2012, 07:53 AM
i enjoy fairness and parity and wish every teams fan base can experience winning a WS at least once in their lifetime

1908_Cubs
04-19-2012, 08:18 AM
At this point, I'd buy a ****ing division title happily.

bljay29
04-19-2012, 08:27 AM
I'd like my team to invest in players and be competitive year in year out

OneTuzSea
04-19-2012, 08:35 AM
I seem to be the minority, but I hate parity. It's just boring if every team is extremely close to even. No huge upsets, no great teams, just a bunch of average to above-average is dull. It's why I've lost interest in the NFL lately. While everyone is praising the fact that there's some parity in the league, it's boring to me and like you said - a coin flip.

Pinstripe pride
04-19-2012, 09:07 AM
you cant buy a world series

MotownWebGuy
04-19-2012, 10:17 AM
1)Would it be ok for your team to 'buy' a World Series Championship?

2)Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

1) Yes - already happened repeatedly in free agency times.
2) No.. virtually impossible to occur that way.
Last time I looked, we were discussing humans, not robotic players.

Even a robot would occasionally fail during a six month / 162 game season, creating non-parity by default.

GrumpyOldMan
04-19-2012, 10:37 AM
My team has won World Series in '92 and '93 based largely on high payroll and smart spending. I have no problem with it. You still have to draft/develop the majority of any team. Spending money to improve the finished product is the best way of doing things.

DodgerBlue8188
04-19-2012, 12:51 PM
No way. I don't have a problem with teams going out and getting a free agent or two that are All Stars. But I like to see talent come within. Even with new ownership in LA I hope the Dodgers put just as much time and money into international scouting and there minor league system as they do with free agents.

mtf
04-19-2012, 01:16 PM
If your team suddenly had unlimited funds would you want them to run out and get the very best players available including minor leaguers? Would you want them to refrain from doing that in fairness to other teams?

Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

Parity doesn't mean that all teams are equal and over a long enough period of time will have the same amount of success as every other team, it means that all organizations have a reasonably fair opportunity to build a winning organization. It ultimately relies on the intelligence of the management relative to their assets. A team like Tampa requires way more intelligence to contend than a team like New York does.

But to answer your question, I would probably like if "my" team won a championship by flexing an economic muscle that only 1 or 2 other teams are capable of doing, but it would definitely be a hollow accomplishment for the team and a far less interesting and entertaining experience for the fans.

utl768
04-19-2012, 01:19 PM
whatever it takes

1903
04-19-2012, 01:25 PM
Every team wins a WS with a combination of home grown talent and free agent acquisitions. If signing FAs = buying a WS then every team that has won has bought it since free agency started.

VRP723
04-19-2012, 01:27 PM
I'd kill him sister for a World Series, so yes

HrtHustleNMscle
04-19-2012, 01:27 PM
Im a Cubs fan, so I will take it however I can get it

Sox72
04-19-2012, 01:27 PM
i enjoy fairness and parity and wish every teams fan base can experience winning a WS at least once in their lifetime

I completely agree. There's nothing like it. Better than your team winning in any other sport. (In my opinion, obviously).

otatop
04-19-2012, 01:48 PM
you cant buy a world series

Maybe not a guaranteed win, but you can get pretty damn close if you have enough money to throw at the attempt. Just look at the Marlins and DBacks.

LionsFan..LOL
04-19-2012, 01:55 PM
Spend whatever it takes to win

Jamiecballer
04-19-2012, 02:05 PM
in the short-term i wouldn't complain but i would understand why other people would be unhappy and it definitely wouldn't be as gratifying.

BullySixChicago
04-19-2012, 02:07 PM
If your team suddenly had unlimited funds would you want them to run out and get the very best players available including minor leaguers? Would you want them to refrain from doing that in fairness to other teams?

Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

You cant be serious I am a Cubs fans you think I would care if we bought a championship?

Come on now the Yankees have done it for years and you think as a cub fan we care about being fair over winning a world series?

Fairness to other teams well we have not won a world series in 100 plus years lol please you really think we care if we purchased a world series?

t_money25
04-19-2012, 02:34 PM
Buying a world series is so hard to do it's not evean a feasible idea. The Yankees have tried it for more than a decade and have gotten minimal results.

Amazin' Mets
04-19-2012, 03:20 PM
You might come close, but I don't think any team can truly 'buy' a World Series.

That's one of the things I love about this game. To an extent, every team has an even chance. It's not like football where the rich clubs win everything and the smaller market teams can't get a look in.

championships
04-19-2012, 03:39 PM
Sure why not? It's what the MLB is all about anyway.

mtf
04-19-2012, 03:47 PM
Buying a world series is so hard to do it's not evean a feasible idea. The Yankees have tried it for more than a decade and have gotten minimal results.

In the past 16 years, they've got to the World Series 6 times. They won 5 of those 6. It's pretty feasible.

Obviously when you're betting on people (giving out contracts), it's a gamble, and baseball is not a sport where 1 player can win a championship for your team like in Basketball, Football (Quarterback), or Hockey (Goalie), so you need to make several of these big gambles to "buy" (increase your odds significantly) a championship.

Rangerchick
04-19-2012, 04:03 PM
Every team wins a WS with a combination of home grown talent and free agent acquisitions. If signing FAs = buying a WS then every team that has won has bought it since free agency started.

Yeah, think people bash the Yanks for their free-spending ways and high payroll while ignoring the fact they also have a ton of homegrown guys on the roster like Robertson, Nova, Gardner, Cano, etc. who are all important contributors, plus they developed prospects that were good enough to be attractive to other teams to use in trades, e.g. Kennedy, Jackson, etc.

mtf
04-19-2012, 04:05 PM
You might come close, but I don't think any team can truly 'buy' a World Series.

That's one of the things I love about this game. To an extent, every team has an even chance. It's not like football where the rich clubs win everything and the smaller market teams can't get a look in.

I thought the NFL had the most revenue sharing, due to all teams getting an equal share of television revenues (and also equal coverage for all teams) and had a salary cap, and due to this combined cap plus the ability for all the teams to spend to it, they had a pretty competitive league.

FortDetroit
04-19-2012, 04:07 PM
anyone who says they wouldnt want their team to spend is kidding themselves.

davids22
04-19-2012, 04:18 PM
You might come close, but I don't think any team can truly 'buy' a World Series.

That's one of the things I love about this game. To an extent, every team has an even chance. It's not like football where the rich clubs win everything and the smaller market teams can't get a look in.

You're joking, right?

There's a reason NFL is the most popular sport in America. PARITY. No matter what, a team is only good for a period of 4-8 years before they start to decline and another team picks it up.

Small market teams can't win in football? Uh, the GREEN BAY PACKERS? Who have the most NFL Championships? The Pittsburgh Steelers, who have the most Superbowl wins?

You say in football only the rich clubs win? The sport that has a salary cap? The sport that doesn't have the Yankees win 1/4th of every championship the sport has ever had?

Amazin' Mets
04-19-2012, 05:39 PM
I thought the NFL had the most revenue sharing, due to all teams getting an equal share of television revenues (and also equal coverage for all teams) and had a salary cap, and due to this combined cap plus the ability for all the teams to spend to it, they had a pretty competitive league.


You're joking, right?

There's a reason NFL is the most popular sport in America. PARITY. No matter what, a team is only good for a period of 4-8 years before they start to decline and another team picks it up.

Small market teams can't win in football? Uh, the GREEN BAY PACKERS? Who have the most NFL Championships? The Pittsburgh Steelers, who have the most Superbowl wins?

You say in football only the rich clubs win? The sport that has a salary cap? The sport that doesn't have the Yankees win 1/4th of every championship the sport has ever had?

Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was referring to 'soccer' and not the NFL. Sometimes I forget the majority of posters on here are American.

whitesoxfan83
04-19-2012, 05:54 PM
Even the teams that won with the lowest salaries still bought their championship...

nycsports2
04-19-2012, 05:59 PM
would it be ok for my owner wanting to win as much as i do and invest highly into his team/franchise??? **** yes! lol

Mitchell133
04-19-2012, 06:01 PM
It was ok when the Yankees did it.

LASportsFan1996
04-19-2012, 06:27 PM
Part Of Me Says Yes, Part Of Me Says No

Mell413
04-19-2012, 06:30 PM
I'm getting old so hell yes

raiderfaninTX
04-19-2012, 06:44 PM
God forbid an owner take the money his team makes and puts it back into his team

so we want our players to only care about winning

but if an owner does it, then its bad?


WTF kind of backwards logic is that.

Jeffy25
04-19-2012, 06:52 PM
At this point, I'd buy a ****ing division title happily.

lol


But to the thread.

You can't buy a world series championship, too many variables.

But in the sense that a team could go bankrupt for the purpose of winning a World Series? To each their own.

As a Cards fan, no. We have won so many times in the past and recently that I wouldn't do that.

As for parity, we have great parity as it is. Takes a lot of work to win 60% of your games, that's pretty great parity.

Jeffy25
04-19-2012, 07:07 PM
You're joking, right?

There's a reason NFL is the most popular sport in America. PARITY. No matter what, a team is only good for a period of 4-8 years before they start to decline and another team picks it up.

Small market teams can't win in football? Uh, the GREEN BAY PACKERS? Who have the most NFL Championships? The Pittsburgh Steelers, who have the most Superbowl wins?

You say in football only the rich clubs win? The sport that has a salary cap? The sport that doesn't have the Yankees win 1/4th of every championship the sport has ever had?

It also doesn't take 3-5 years in the NFL to develop players for the professional circuit. When you are a last place team, you can draft a first rounder who can greatly impact the team immediately. You don't have that in baseball. That and the NFL doesn't have the parity of the MLB.

Just as a comparison.

worst franchise record: Tampa Bay Bucs .395, Houston Texans .406, Cardinals .415, Falcons .429
Best franchise record: Chicago Bears .578, Dallas Cowboys .574, Miami Dolphins .571, Packers .564

Baseball
Worst franchise records: Rays .448, Padres .463, Mariners .467
Best franchise records: Yankees .568, Giants .538, Dodgers .524

The Rays have the worst franchise record in baseball history, and six NFL teams don't even have their winning percentage. By contrast, the Yankees have the best baseball franchise record, and three teams have a better winning percentage in franchise history, and after the Yankees it's a pretty big drop.

Best franchise record in baseball to worst: A difference of .120 winning percentage
Best franchise record in football to worst: A difference of .183 winning percentage

Btw, the NBA. Lakers .620, Bobcats .361, a difference of .259.

Which sport is harder to buy a championship? And it's the only one without a salary cap.


This goes further btw.

Over the last 30 years:
15 different Super Bowl Champions
9 different NBA finals Champions
and 20 different World Series Champions

The numbers go up when you discuss the number of different teams in the world series vs the Super Bowl and NBA Finals too.


Baseball certainly has the greatest parity. Maybe you don't want parity, and you like seeing a team like the Lakers, personally I like seeing teams go up and down. And baseball would be the sport for that.

SportsAndrew25
04-19-2012, 07:42 PM
I totally believe in spending tons of money to win a title. Nothing wrong with that. Better than taking money from big market teams, putting it in your pocket and then blaming the Yankees and Red Sox for your ****** performance on the field.

lol, please
04-19-2012, 07:43 PM
It's only cool when the Yankees do it.

BlondeBomber41
04-19-2012, 08:14 PM
The Yankees have done this many times, why are we acting like it is theoretical?

sexicano31
04-19-2012, 08:19 PM
I wouldnt care if they killed 20 babies if it meant we would win another world series or 2

smm9127
04-19-2012, 08:23 PM
The Yankees have done this many times, why are we acting like it is theoretical?

Oh knowledgeable one, tell me all the years the Yankees did this. I'm writing a book and your input would invariably make my argument stronger.

1-800-STFU
04-19-2012, 08:26 PM
Hey guys I heard the Yankees did it

Iodine
04-19-2012, 08:29 PM
I wouldnt give a **** if the Nats had Ru Paul and a collection of the biggest douchers ever or a collection of the nicest people you will meet, winning it all would make it awesome, and any fan or person inside baseball who tells you different is either lying or hellcrooner

fingerbang
04-19-2012, 08:30 PM
The Yankees kinda did. It's not as easy as it sounds. There's usually only a couple of really great free agent players. When the Yankees "bought" their championship one of their purchases was AJ Burnett, not exactly a world beater.

You still need to have some real good system players. There just isn't enough on the open market.

NYY_NYK4
04-19-2012, 11:56 PM
If you have the money, and the said player(s) are a good fit, then by all means spend away. Its the owners job to put a winning team on the field. How can you say no? Players dont come cheap. Thats what I loved about The Boss. He cared more about winning than fattening his pockets. Its the fans of teams with owners who only want to make a buck that are sour. I love the homegrown talent too but sometimes you have to spend to give yourself a better chance.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 01:08 AM
If you have the money, and the said player(s) are a good fit, then by all means spend away. Its the owners job to put a winning team on the field. How can you say no? Players dont come cheap. Thats what I loved about The Boss. He cared more about winning than fattening his pockets. Its the fans of teams with owners who only want to make a buck that are sour. I love the homegrown talent too but sometimes you have to spend to give yourself a better chance.

Not every team has the money that the Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies etc. have and somehow fans of those teams can't seem to understand why it's unfair that you can spend 2,3 sometimes 4 times more than other teams.

The Yankees are such a global entity that no matter how much they spend on players, they are still gonna bank so lets not act like "The Boss" was living in a card board box to spend that money. He was still making millions and billions.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 01:23 AM
Oh knowledgeable one, tell me all the years the Yankees did this. I'm writing a book and your input would invariably make my argument stronger.

First of all, let me rephrase what I said.... they "try" to buy a championship all the time. They aren't always successful.

Baseball isn't my first sport in terms of in depth knowledge like the NFL or NBA, but even I have seen what the Yankees do. Just off the top of my head...

Mark Teixeria
Alex Rodriguez
CC Sabathia
AJ Burnett
Gary Sheffield
Roger Clemens
Jason Giambi

That's just off the top of my head. Then when you realize they have a $200 million dollar payroll compared to other teams who aren't even at $100 million and somehow when big named free agents like Cliff Lee become available they are there to offer them huge contracts.... so it's not like when they get up there they put on the breaks. The only thing that stopped them from trying to snag up Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder was the fact they already have an overpaid clown in Teixeria there at 1st base.

Sure, they have some "homegrown" talent but that's not what has been their true bread and butter. It's been the money, the ability to throw around cash like nobodies business and bring in talent. Good for fans like you, bad for the league.

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 01:41 AM
The yankees pay a luxury tax every year. The luxury tax is designed to help out smaller market teams in terms of payroll. So how is it the yankees fault that those owners pocket that money instead of making their team better?

The Yankees arent breaking any rules. They havent been big players in the FA market the last couple years. Until there is a salary cap the Yankees will always do whatever necessary to make their team better. Again, no rules broken.

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 01:50 AM
I'll also point out, agents use the Yankees as leverage ALL the time. A free agent that wants to play for the Yankees, noone else, his agent will engage talks with other teams just to drive the price tag up, because they know the Yankees have the most money. It's been happening for years!

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:04 AM
The yankees pay a luxury tax every year. The luxury tax is designed to help out smaller market teams in terms of payroll. So how is it the yankees fault that those owners pocket that money instead of making their team better?

The Yankees arent breaking any rules. They havent been big players in the FA market the last couple years. Until there is a salary cap the Yankees will always do whatever necessary to make their team better. Again, no rules broken.

Nobody said any rules were being broken. There is no salary cap, so of course there are no rules broken by it. This thread is about what you morally think is right in terms of baseball, and it's only Yankee/Red Sox/Phillie fans that think spending 3 or 4 times more than your competitor is ok because you are in a big market and have the money.

That luxury tax gives what, a couple million at the most maybe to the other teams? Means almost nothing in terms of signing free agents.

They haven't been big players in free agency the last couple years because the guys they went after like Cliff Lee spurned them and the other big named free agents played positions that they already have big contracts in. It's not because they all of a sudden are thrifty.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:15 AM
It's actually kinda sad they are spending almost $200 million and teams like TX, Detroit spend 70+ million less and are better teams. If the Rangers had Yankee money we'd still have Cliff Lee and CJ Wilson, and we would of signed Prince Fielder to fill that big void at first base and still coulda snagged Yu Darvish.

You could add the salaries of Lee, Wilson and Fielder to the current Rangers payroll and it would still be $22 million less than what the Yankees pay and it wouldn't even be fair to the rest of the league.

Cliff Lee
CJ Wilson
Colby Lewis
Derek Holland
Yu Darvish

Ian Kinsler
Michael Young
Josh Hamilton
Prince Fielder
Adrian Beltre
Nelson Cruz
Mike Napoli
Elvis Andrus
David Murphy

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 02:25 AM
It's actually kinda sad they are spending almost $200 million and teams like TX, Detroit spend 70+ million less and are better teams. If the Rangers had Yankee money we'd still have Cliff Lee and CJ Wilson, and we would of signed Prince Fielder to fill that big void at first base and still coulda snagged Yu Darvish.

You could add the salaries of Lee, Wilson and Fielder to the current Rangers payroll and it would still be $22 million less than what the Yankees pay and it wouldn't even be fair to the rest of the league.

Cliff Lee
CJ Wilson
Colby Lewis
Derek Holland
Yu Darvish

Ian Kinsler
Michael Young
Josh Hamilton
Prince Fielder
Adrian Beltre
Nelson Cruz
Mike Napoli
Elvis Andrus
David Murphy

When teams sucked for 10+ plus years, like the Rangers and Tigers, they get excellent draft picks. It doesnt take a miracle to have a good farm system with top 10 draft picks year after year....just sayin

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 02:26 AM
But hey, come talk to me when the Rangers actually win something =) Im not great at math but I think its something like 27-0....btw the Yankees have paid just over 57 million dollars the last 3 years in luxury tax....thats not chump change

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:29 AM
When teams sucked for 10+ plus years, like the Rangers and Tigers, they get excellent draft picks. It doesnt take a genius to make a top 5 pick 10 years in a row.....

That would make sense if ANY of those players were top draft picks by the Rangers. :rolleyes:

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:30 AM
But hey, come talk to me when the Rangers actually win something =)

I'm sorry they haven't been purchasing championships for the last decade plus... oh wait, no I'm not.

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 02:38 AM
Since 2000...they Rangers have had 10 top 15 draft pics but none of those have panned out except Teixeira....I guess they do draft ****** lol. Since 1990 the Yankees have had 4 top 15 picks....so its basically down to high draft picks or money....

NYY_NYK4
04-20-2012, 02:40 AM
And wasnt it the Rangers that gave Arod 10-252 million....how'd that work out?

abe_froman
04-20-2012, 02:48 AM
i thought the myth of buying a ws was pretty well debunked

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:57 AM
And wasnt it the Rangers that gave Arod 10-252 million....how'd that work out?

Worked out horribly, because unlike the Yankees the Rangers couldn't afford that giant contract AND other big named, high priced players so the Rangers could never improve... which is why small market teams are at a big disadvantage.

You're only hurting your point here...

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 02:58 AM
Since 2000...they Rangers have had 10 top 15 draft pics but none of those have panned out except Teixeira....I guess they do draft ****** lol. Since 1990 the Yankees have had 4 top 15 picks....so its basically down to high draft picks or money....

No, it's not. When it's draft picks, it's a crap shoot. When you're signing free agents, you already know what you're getting. It's nothing alike.

Bos_Sports4Life
04-20-2012, 03:01 AM
It also doesn't take 3-5 years in the NFL to develop players for the professional circuit. When you are a last place team, you can draft a first rounder who can greatly impact the team immediately. You don't have that in baseball. That and the NFL doesn't have the parity of the MLB.

Just as a comparison.

worst franchise record: Tampa Bay Bucs .395, Houston Texans .406, Cardinals .415, Falcons .429
Best franchise record: Chicago Bears .578, Dallas Cowboys .574, Miami Dolphins .571, Packers .564

Baseball
Worst franchise records: Rays .448, Padres .463, Mariners .467
Best franchise records: Yankees .568, Giants .538, Dodgers .524

The Rays have the worst franchise record in baseball history, and six NFL teams don't even have their winning percentage. By contrast, the Yankees have the best baseball franchise record, and three teams have a better winning percentage in franchise history, and after the Yankees it's a pretty big drop.

Best franchise record in baseball to worst: A difference of .120 winning percentage
Best franchise record in football to worst: A difference of .183 winning percentage

Btw, the NBA. Lakers .620, Bobcats .361, a difference of .259.

Which sport is harder to buy a championship? And it's the only one without a salary cap.


This goes further btw.

Over the last 30 years:
15 different Super Bowl Champions
9 different NBA finals Champions
and 20 different World Series Champions

The numbers go up when you discuss the number of different teams in the world series vs the Super Bowl and NBA Finals too.


Baseball certainly has the greatest parity. Maybe you don't want parity, and you like seeing a team like the Lakers, personally I like seeing teams go up and down. And baseball would be the sport for that.

All of that means nothing when comparing parity. Just because baseball has had a larger selection of winners doesn't mean it has the largest parity..

In Baseball More money= More chances of winning. Thats without a doubt a proven fact. Has there EVER been more bottom 10 teams in payroll in the playoffs than top 10?? I HIGHLY doubt that..

Parity=Even playing field, Football has it, Baseball doesn't..

Big Zo
04-20-2012, 07:56 AM
Anyone who isn't ok with their team spending money to get better is pretty much ********.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 01:52 PM
Anyone who isn't ok with their team spending money to get better is pretty much ********.

The question was never about just a team spending money. Every team has to spend money to be successful. The question was about a theoretical situation where you have unlimited funds and could buy up any player, no problem.

Big Zo
04-20-2012, 02:48 PM
The question was never about just a team spending money. Every team has to spend money to be successful. The question was about a theoretical situation where you have unlimited funds and could buy up any player, no problem.

Again, who wouldn't want that? I hate the Yankees because they're able to do it, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining if it was my team.

Tragedy
04-20-2012, 04:00 PM
whatever it takes
This.

People can ***** and complain all they'd like that the Yankees "buy" their World Series rings.

Well guess what?

If you want to build from within and win 1 Championship in 25 years, go do that. That's great.

But if you want to win 27 World Series titles, you pay the best players. The Yanekes do that. That's why they win so much. Plain and simple.

Give me Championships. I want to win Championships. That's the name of the game. It's not about creating stars from within and winning once every 50 years. It's about winning as much as you can.

People vilify the Yankees, but they play within the systems, they play within the budget that they have, and they win constantly. They're the best run franchise in baseball history.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:02 PM
Anyone who says no is lying

mtf
04-20-2012, 04:04 PM
This.

People can ***** and complain all they'd like that the Yankees "buy" their World Series rings.

Well guess what?

If you want to build from within and win 1 Championship in 25 years, go do that. That's great.

But if you want to win 27 World Series titles, you pay the best players. The Yanekes do that. That's why they win so much. Plain and simple.

Give me Championships. I want to win Championships. That's the name of the game. It's not about creating stars from within and winning once every 50 years. It's about winning as much as you can.

People vilify the Yankees, but they play within the systems, they play within the budget that they have, and they win constantly. They're the best run franchise in baseball history.

There have been several reasons to dislike the Yankees over the years, and I won't pretend the payroll doesn't have something to do with it, but no one says that they don't play within the rules. The problem is the rules themselves.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:04 PM
Again, who wouldn't want that? I hate the Yankees because they're able to do it, but I certainly wouldn't be complaining if it was my team.

People who want to see their team win the right way.

The Rangers have made two "big" free agent signings over the last several years, Yu Darvish and Adrian Beltre. Both of which weren't exactly sure things either... and yet they are 11-2 and looking better than anyone. That's the kinda team I wanna cheer for.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:09 PM
This.

People can ***** and complain all they'd like that the Yankees "buy" their World Series rings.

Well guess what?

If you want to build from within and win 1 Championship in 25 years, go do that. That's great.

But if you want to win 27 World Series titles, you pay the best players. The Yanekes do that. That's why they win so much. Plain and simple.

Give me Championships. I want to win Championships. That's the name of the game. It's not about creating stars from within and winning once every 50 years. It's about winning as much as you can.

People vilify the Yankees, but they play within the systems, they play within the budget that they have, and they win constantly. They're the best run franchise in baseball history.

That's real easy to say but the reality is other teams don't have that luxury. Not everyone has the money the New York Yankees have. Does that mean they Yankees should get a very clear competitive advantage over most teams in the league because they are a big market?

The Yankees make enough to have a 200 million dollar payroll and still bank. Meanwhile, the San Diego Padres have a 50 million dollar payroll and are probably losing money. It's not their fault that they aren't the freakin Yankees, and they shouldn't be punished for it by only being able to afford a 1/4 of what the Yankees are spending.

If it's ok with you, why don't we just go ahead and do this in other sports? We'll give the Knicks, Celtics, Bulls and Lakers a 100 million dollar cap limit and give the Grizzlies, Bobcats and Trailblazers a 25 million dollar cap? How does that sound? Totally fair right? :rolleyes:

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:11 PM
Anyone who says no is lying

I'm absolutely not lying. I don't want to win that way. Would I stop cheering for the Rangers if they all of a sudden got Yankee money and could spend whatever they wanted to? No, of course not... but if given a choice I'd rather win the way they are.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm absolutely not lying. I don't want to win that way. Would I stop cheering for the Rangers if they all of a sudden got Yankee money and could spend whatever they wanted to? No, of course not... but if given a choice I'd rather win the way they are.

Well there you go.. It's not a question of preferance, it's a simple question of whether you'd be ok with your team "buying" a championship.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:18 PM
That's real easy to say but the reality is other teams don't have that luxury. Not everyone has the money the New York Yankees have. Does that mean they Yankees should get a very clear competitive advantage over most teams in the league because they are a big market?

The Yankees make enough to have a 200 million dollar payroll and still bank. Meanwhile, the San Diego Padres have a 50 million dollar payroll and are probably losing money. It's not their fault that they aren't the freakin Yankees, and they shouldn't be punished for it by only being able to afford a 1/4 of what the Yankees are spending.

If it's ok with you, why don't we just go ahead and do this in other sports? We'll give the Knicks, Celtics, Bulls and Lakers a 100 million dollar cap limit and give the Grizzlies, Bobcats and Trailblazers a 25 million dollar cap? How does that sound? Totally fair right? :rolleyes:

So what should the Yankees do with all the money they make? Put it all in the Steinbrenner's pockets? No. It's an absolute travesty that some teams don't do everything in their power to put a winning product on the field, and you want to short-change the Yankees for doing just that?

And there are different ways to win in baseball. It's obviously not all about the team that spends the most money (just ask the Rays)

mtf
04-20-2012, 04:21 PM
Well there you go.. It's not a question of preferance, it's a simple question of whether you'd be ok with your team "buying" a championship.

Actually, the question the OP posed was a matter of preference. He asked "if your team could, would you want them to", not "would you be happy with a championship regardless of the unfair advantage they exploited to obtain it". His answer was valid.

As for everyone saying "If you claim you don't want your team to do this, you're lying", some people believe a championship is devalued if it's obtained in a clearly unfair manner. Obviously, you're not going to be upset about it, but it's not going to be as entertaining (for some people) knowing how unfair of an advantage one team has.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:23 PM
Well there you go.. It's not a question of preferance, it's a simple question of whether you'd be ok with your team "buying" a championship.

Well if the question really is "Would you abandon your team and stop cheering for them all together if they just tried to buy championships" then obviously nobody is gonna say yes but I chose to go a little more in depth with the question so that it was actually a question worth discussing. No real fan is gonna abandon their team.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:24 PM
Actually, the question the OP posed was a matter of preference. He asked "if your team could, would you want them to", not "would you be happy with a championship regardless of the unfair advantage they exploited to obtain it". His answer was valid.

I didn't read the first post, I'm just going by the question that is the title "Would it be ok for your team to 'buy' a World Series Championship", to which I say if anyone says no they're lying, with the added caveat, or ********.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:25 PM
Well if the question really is "Would you abandon your team and stop cheering for them all together if they just tried to buy championships" then obviously nobody is gonna say yes but I chose to go a little more in depth with the question so that it was actually a question worth discussing. No real fan is gonna abandon their team.

So you would prefer your team lose rather than win by spending more money?

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:27 PM
So what should the Yankees do with all the money they make? Put it all in the Steinbrenner's pockets? No. It's an absolute travesty that some teams don't do everything in their power to put a winning product on the field, and you want to short-change the Yankees for doing just that?

And there are different ways to win in baseball. It's obviously not all about the team that spends the most money (just ask the Rays)

Nobody is saying the Yankees are doing anything wrong. It's the system that is messed up. It's a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It's a system where teams suck, get high draft picks, those high draft picks develop and turn into stars, and then the very team that drafted them can't afford to resign them so they leave for bigger markets and bigger money. In the NFL and NBA they have a cap and rules designed to keep this from happening. They don't work 100% of the time (Lebron) but they at least give the small market teams a fighting chance.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:30 PM
Nobody is saying the Yankees are doing anything wrong. It's the system that is messed up. It's a system where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

It's a system where teams suck, get high draft picks, those high draft picks develop and turn into stars, and then the very team that drafted them can't afford to resign them so they leave for bigger markets and bigger money. In the NFL and NBA they have a cap and rules designed to keep this from happening. They don't work 100% of the time (Lebron) but they at least give the small market teams a fighting chance.

If you ask me, the NFL has the best system to set up parity. And maybe in theory the NBA does, but there's no way you can sit there and tell me that more parity exists in the NBA than in MLB

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:31 PM
So you would prefer your team lose rather than win by spending more money?

Who said that? You spend money when you need to spend money sure, but within reason. The Rangers extended Ian Kinsler and Derek Holland, replaced CJ Wilson with Yu Darvish, and I fully expect them to eventually extend Josh Hamilton and Mike Napoli. You can win and spend responsibly.

Why do you think the Yankees have Mark Teixeria right now? Because when he was a Ranger the Rangers simply didn't have enough money to meet his contract demands so he was traded.

Why do you think Alex Rodriguez is a Yankee right now? Because when he was a Ranger they learned his contract was crippling for what they could afford and couldn't put any talent around him... therefore he was traded.

Why do you thinK CC Sabathia is a Yankee right now? Because the Brewers simply didn't have the money to match what the Yankees could offer.

If you think that's just teams being cheap, you're lying to yourself.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:34 PM
If you ask me, the NFL has the best system to set up parity. And maybe in theory the NBA does, but there's no way you can sit there and tell me that more parity exists in the NBA than in MLB

Parity isn't the discussion we are having, it's about money. The OKC Thunder are a small market team that will contend for the next decade because they made the right decisions in the draft. Because of a salary cap and the rules the NBA has in place they won't have to worry about the New York Knicks or Los Angeles Lakers coming in and stealing Kevin Durant or Russell Westbrook from them.

I don't give a damn about parity. If your front office makes bad draft picks and spends their money unwisely (Detroit Pistons now for example with Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva) then go ahead and suck. It's about all teams having equal resources.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:39 PM
Parity isn't the discussion we are having, it's about money. The OKC Thunder are a small market team that will contend for the next decade because they made the right decisions in the draft. Because of a salary cap and the rules the NBA has in place they won't have to worry about the New York Knicks or Los Angeles Lakers coming in and stealing Kevin Durant or Russell Westbrook from them.

I don't give a damn about parity. If your front office makes bad draft picks and spends their money unwisely (Detroit Pistons now for example with Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva) then go ahead and suck. It's about all teams having equal resources.

But you just can't have that in baseball.. How can you limit a team that makes BY FAR more money than anyone else, and it's not even remotely close. And say what you want about "teams haveing equal resources" in the NBA, but that flat out does not work. It's great in theory, but despite that they still have the least amount of parity of any professional sports league (that matters).

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:42 PM
Who said that? You spend money when you need to spend money sure, but within reason. The Rangers extended Ian Kinsler and Derek Holland, replaced CJ Wilson with Yu Darvish, and I fully expect them to eventually extend Josh Hamilton and Mike Napoli. You can win and spend responsibly.

Why do you think the Yankees have Mark Teixeria right now? Because when he was a Ranger the Rangers simply didn't have enough money to meet his contract demands so he was traded.

Why do you think Alex Rodriguez is a Yankee right now? Because when he was a Ranger they learned his contract was crippling for what they could afford and couldn't put any talent around him... therefore he was traded.

Why do you thinK CC Sabathia is a Yankee right now? Because the Brewers simply didn't have the money to match what the Yankees could offer.

If you think that's just teams being cheap, you're lying to yourself.

I asked you a simple question and you go on this diatribe. I'll ask it again, would you rather your team consistently lose, or would you rather them "buy" a championship.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:50 PM
But you just can't have that in baseball.. How can you limit a team that makes BY FAR more money than anyone else, and it's not even remotely close. And say what you want about "teams haveing equal resources" in the NBA, but that flat out does not work. It's great in theory, but despite that they still have the least amount of parity of any professional sports league (that matters).

Because the NBA is a purely star driven league. You get a couple of big stars, maybe even one, and your team is gonna contend. Just like in the NFL, if you get a big time QB who can throw for 300+ yards a game and dominate a defense, you're gonna be in most games.

There is less parity in the NBA than any other league because once you get a Kobe, you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Duncan you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Dirk you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Durant you're always gonna be good... assuming you have somewhat decent parts around them. The Bobcats are awful, but if they land a star in this years draft they can be contending for titles in the next few years. Just the way basketball is.

Baseball isn't the same way. You can have a few stars who play great but if your pitching sucks it doesn't matter if you have Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Miguel Cabrera, Matt Kemp and Ryan Braun on your team, you're still gonna struggle.

As far as what to do with that extra money... they could lower ticket prices, they could give it to charity, they could use it for whatever the hell they want. Just because they have more money doesn't mean they should be able to outbid everyone for any free agent they feel like signing.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 04:53 PM
I asked you a simple question and you go on this diatribe. I'll ask it again, would you rather your team consistently lose, or would you rather them "buy" a championship.

I'm not gonna answer a question when you're only asking the two extremes. It's like asking would I rather be a homeless drug addict or a rich guy who made all his money robbing people of their life savings. Of course if I HAD to choose I'd choose option B because nobody wants to be a homeless drug addict but that's a dumb question.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 04:56 PM
Because the NBA is a purely star driven league. You get a couple of big stars, maybe even one, and your team is gonna contend. Just like in the NFL, if you get a big time QB who can throw for 300+ yards a game and dominate a defense, you're gonna be in most games.

There is less parity in the NBA than any other league because once you get a Kobe, you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Duncan you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Dirk you're always gonna be good. Once you get a Durant you're always gonna be good... assuming you have somewhat decent parts around them. The Bobcats are awful, but if they land a star in this years draft they can be contending for titles in the next few years. Just the way basketball is.

Baseball isn't the same way. You can have a few stars who play great but if your pitching sucks it doesn't matter if you have Albert Pujols, Josh Hamilton, Miguel Cabrera, Matt Kemp and Ryan Braun on your team, you're still gonna struggle.

As far as what to do with that extra money... they could lower ticket prices, they could give it to charity, they could use it for whatever the hell they want. Just because they have more money doesn't mean they should be able to outbid everyone for any free agent they feel like signing.

You have it so twisted.. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's an absolute TRAVESTY that there are teams that don't spend as much, whether it be on free agents, the draft, coaches, front office, whatever, to put the best possible product on the field. Which is exactly what you want the Yankees to do. You want them to not use every advantage they have over the competition to gain a competetive edge. Just read that a few times and think about it. Really? That's one of the fundamental principles of life, forget sports management. You use anything, ANYTHING (within reason I suppose), to gain an advantage over your peers, the competition, whatever.

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 05:00 PM
I'm not gonna answer a question when you're only asking the two extremes. It's like asking would I rather be a homeless drug addict or a rich guy who made all his money robbing people of their life savings. Of course if I HAD to choose I'd choose option B because nobody wants to be a homeless drug addict but that's a dumb question.

It's really not that difficult, and you're acting like the scenario isn't feasible. There are professional sports teams that have gone 20+ years without even sniffing the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again. Would you rather consistently lose, or would you rather your team "buy" a championship?

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 05:02 PM
You have it so twisted.. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's an absolute TRAVESTY that there are teams that don't spend as much, whether it be on free agents, the draft, coaches, front office, whatever, to put the best possible product on the field. Which is exactly what you want the Yankees to do. You want them to not use every advantage they have over the competition to gain a competetive edge. Just read that a few times and think about it. Really? That's one of the fundamental principles of life, forget sports management. You use anything, ANYTHING (within reason I suppose), to gain an advantage over your peers, the competition, whatever.

No, you clearly have a twisted way of looking at it.

First of all, you act like the Yankees did something to earn this competitive advantage. They didn't, it's just because they are the Yankees and they are in New York City. It's not that those other teams don't want to spend more money and put a better team on the field, it's that they CAN'T. They don't have the money! You seem totally ignorant to that fact.

Second, for the hundredth time, I never said I expected the Yankees to stop spending money. It's within the rules, nobody said they are doing anything wrong by spending the money. It's the system that is messed up, a system where rich teams have unlimited resources and poor teams are always fighting and scrapping for respectability.

I'd say put a $150 million dollar cap on the league and let it go from there. Use revenue sharing to help spread the wealth to other teams in the league who aren't in giant markets so that they can have money to spend and let the best teams and the best front offices win.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 05:04 PM
It's really not that difficult, and you're acting like the scenario isn't feasible. There are professional sports teams that have gone 20+ years without even sniffing the playoffs.

So, I'll ask again. Would you rather consistently lose, or would you rather your team "buy" a championship?

Name a sports team in the modern era that has gonna 20+ years without even sniffing the playoffs.

TRIUMPHATOR
04-20-2012, 05:11 PM
But you just can't have that in baseball.. How can you limit a team that makes BY FAR more money than anyone else, and it's not even remotely close. And say what you want about "teams haveing equal resources" in the NBA, but that flat out does not work. It's great in theory, but despite that they still have the least amount of parity of any professional sports league (that matters).

How can you limit a team? Most of you guys seem to believe that your teams work in a bubble. What you don't realize is that if its not for all the teams, your team doesn't make BY FAR more money. This isn't business 101 where you try to eliminate the competition, without a healthy league there will be no league. This isn't McDonalds trying to eliminate BK or Wendy's to keep all profits to itself. This is a league where all teams need to have an equal playing field so that all teams are successful.

Laugh all you want; Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cardinals, and Cubs fans (to name some). Without; K.C, Pirates, Mariners, Reds, and Padres fans, you don't make as much. And with the accelerated change in salary structure, some of the smaller market teams will not be able to keep up (yes the Reds just signed Votto but can they surround him?).

Look no further then Toronto, they spent in 92 & 93 and won but then couldn't keep up. Where once there was 50,000 people a game its a good night if its 25,000. Thats why it shouldn't be about how much you make but how much everyone makes.

tcav701
04-20-2012, 05:19 PM
But you just can't have that in baseball.. How can you limit a team that makes BY FAR more money than anyone else, and it's not even remotely close. And say what you want about "teams haveing equal resources" in the NBA, but that flat out does not work. It's great in theory, but despite that they still have the least amount of parity of any professional sports league (that matters).

The Yankees make more money because they have been able to outspend other teams.

Teams in New York, Boston, LA, etc. are higher income cities (especially for luxury items and disposable income) with larger populations.

Fans from other cities become fans of these teams and buy their jerseys because their home team can't compete.

Yes, small market teams that make smart personnel decisions can compete but even then their starts are auditioning for NY/BOS/LA. Large market teams can cover their mistakes by another pricey FA.

I am a Red Sox fan, but I am also a realist. There is no possible way teams in PIT and FLA can compete financially with larger markets.

So what do you do?

Large market teams will complain about picking up lesser markets tabs but they belong to the same league. How would the Yankees feel if the Pirates wanted to build a stadium in Brooklyn? They would NEVER allow it.

So as a Yankee fan, do you really think it's fair to monopolize baseball?

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 05:20 PM
Name a sports team in the modern era that has gonna 20+ years without even sniffing the playoffs.

The Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos. They made the playoffs once, in the strike-shortened 1981 season.

Now, can you answer the question?

BrianWestKins
04-20-2012, 05:23 PM
The Yankees make more money because they have been able to outspend other teams.

Teams in New York, Boston, LA, etc. are higher income cities (especially for luxury items and disposable income) with larger populations.

Fans from other cities become fans of these teams and buy their jerseys because their home team can't compete.

Yes, small market teams that make smart personnel decisions can compete but even then their starts are auditioning for NY/BOS/LA. Large market teams can cover their mistakes by another pricey FA.

I am a Red Sox fan, but I am also a realist. There is no possible way teams in PIT and FLA can compete financially with larger markets.

So what do you do?

Large market teams will complain about picking up lesser markets tabs but they belong to the same league. How would the Yankees feel if the Pirates wanted to build a stadium in Brooklyn? They would NEVER allow it.

So as a Yankee fan, do you really think it's fair to monopolize baseball?

How are they monopolizing baseball? I'm not sure if you realize this, but there are two teams in New York. And obviously smaller market teams can't financially compete with larger market teams, but how to you address that? You tell the Yankees to only spend 100 million out of the 300+ million they make? Yea, let's put more money into the owner's pockets

DodgerB24
04-20-2012, 05:25 PM
Yes.

tcav701
04-20-2012, 05:27 PM
How are they monopolizing baseball? I'm not sure if you realize this, but there are two teams in New York. And obviously smaller market teams can't financially compete with larger market teams, but how to you address that? You tell the Yankees to only spend 100 million out of the 300+ million they make? Yea, let's put more money into the owner's pockets

the Yankees make as much as they do because they win, plain and simple.

IF the Yankees had back to back losing seasons they would take a huge hit in income. Other teams cannot generate revenue because they cannot be competitive.

So what you do is create an equal playing field. When other teams can compete, their fan base will increase and revenue will follow.

It's not a perfect solution but it's clearly better than turning a blind eye.

The NFL has a cap AND shares revenue. I'm pretty sure they are the gold standard of american sports.

Machinehead
04-20-2012, 06:08 PM
No I hate when teams buy WS. Yankees do it all the time and it makes me sick. It takes away the fairness of the game. It's better to earn wins then to buy them

Jeffy25
04-20-2012, 06:44 PM
"The Yankees do it all the time"

how many rings do they have this decade?

Other than 09, the last time they won a world series their payroll was under 100 million

Big Zo
04-20-2012, 07:07 PM
People who want to see their team win the right way.

The Rangers have made two "big" free agent signings over the last several years, Yu Darvish and Adrian Beltre. Both of which weren't exactly sure things either... and yet they are 11-2 and looking better than anyone. That's the kinda team I wanna cheer for.

I don't see any Rangers championships in their 40+ year history. That whole "Doing it the right way" thing is BS. If my team had those resources and didn't use them, i'd be pissed. So yeah, if doing it the right way means waiting a lifetime to win a championship, i'd rather do it the wrong way.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 07:34 PM
I don't see any Rangers championships in their 40+ year history. That whole "Doing it the right way" thing is BS. If my team had those resources and didn't use them, i'd be pissed. So yeah, if doing it the right way means waiting a lifetime to win a championship, i'd rather do it the wrong way.

Understandable coming from a Miami Heat fan.

Just like in the NBA, one Dallas Mavericks championship with Dirk leading his team will mean more than 3 with Lebron bailing on his to go to Miami and group up with 2 other stars. I'll be more proud of our run last year than I'd ever be as a Heat fan with the way they did it. Same way with the Rangers, I want them to win the right way.

mariner4life
04-20-2012, 07:37 PM
"The Yankees do it all the time"

how many rings do they have this decade?

Other than 09, the last time they won a world series their payroll was under 100 million

I like how you conveniently left out the fact that the under 100 million payroll was the highest in baseball at the time.

Big Zo
04-20-2012, 07:41 PM
Understandable coming from a Miami Heat fan.

Just like in the NBA, one Dallas Mavericks championship with Dirk leading his team will mean more than 3 with Lebron bailing on his to go to Miami and group up with 2 other stars. I'll be more proud of our run last year than I'd ever be as a Heat fan with the way they did it. Same way with the Rangers, I want them to win the right way.

Whatever floats your boat, but I still find it idiotic. Oh, and what the Heat pulled off was done in a league with a salary cap, so you can't compare.

Giraffes Rule
04-20-2012, 07:45 PM
**** yeah I'd want the Astros to do that! They've only been terrible for what, less than 5 years? I can only imagine being a Pirates or Nationals fan. Do what you have to to put the best team on the field that you can.

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 08:01 PM
Whatever floats your boat, but I still find it idiotic. Oh, and what the Heat pulled off was done in a league with a salary cap, so you can't compare.

I can still compare. It was a plan, a conspiracy that they pretty much planned out as buddies. It's a different situation, but it's still putting together a team the wrong way. It's why Lebron will never get the respect that guys like Kobe and Michael Jordan get.

Keeping this MLB related, I'll take a team being put together the right way over spending two, three, four times more than anyone else. No question.

Jeffy25
04-20-2012, 08:05 PM
I like how you conveniently left out the fact that the under 100 million payroll was the highest in baseball at the time.

Not convenient.

How many free agents that they 'bought' were on those teams?

Not very many. They were great with Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Bernie Williams


These were their best players other than Clemens (who they traded for)

they 'bought' David Cone and Paul O'Neill, and they weren't very expensive or very good.


The post was 'the Yankees buy them all the time'. If the Yankees buy championships all the time, then they are really really bad at it.

Big Zo
04-20-2012, 08:48 PM
I can still compare. It was a plan, a conspiracy that they pretty much planned out as buddies. It's a different situation, but it's still putting together a team the wrong way. It's why Lebron will never get the respect that guys like Kobe and Michael Jordan get.

Keeping this MLB related, I'll take a team being put together the right way over spending two, three, four times more than anyone else. No question.

Doo dah.

Yankees90.
04-20-2012, 10:33 PM
How did i know this would eventually turn into a Yankees thread? Ok in all honesty, if your team is making 450+ million every year, have the biggest fan base in baseball, and are amongst the richest sports teams in the WORLD, wtf do you expect them to do with all that money? Pocket it, and win the "right" way. What makes signing players through International FA, Drafts, and developing them through your system the "right" way and spending the enormous amount of money teams like the Yanks, Sox, Phils etc. make, the "wrong" way? Thats your opinion, and not based on facts so you cant just say its the right way because your team can't afford to keep up financially with the larger market teams. This is a business, and as a business its your responsibility to put the best product on that field for your customers. The Yankees are the only team in baseball that are almost guaranteed to make it to the playoffs every year, which gives them the best chance to win a World Series every year. That makes for good business. Besides, if you look at the Yankees roster, there is a pretty decent amount of homegrown talent. As high as the Yankees payroll is, you got to understand most of it is tied up to 3 players: Teixeira, A-Rod, Sabathia. Those 3 combined make roughly 75 million a year. That a huge chunk of the payroll.

Oh well, ill take 27 championships and a playoff appearance every year, over zero titles because we did it the "right way".

BlondeBomber41
04-20-2012, 11:28 PM
How did i know this would eventually turn into a Yankees thread? Ok in all honesty, if your team is making 450+ million every year, have the biggest fan base in baseball, and are amongst the richest sports teams in the WORLD, wtf do you expect them to do with all that money? Pocket it, and win the "right" way. What makes signing players through International FA, Drafts, and developing them through your system the "right" way and spending the enormous amount of money teams like the Yanks, Sox, Phils etc. make, the "wrong" way? Thats your opinion, and not based on facts so you cant just say its the right way because your team can't afford to keep up financially with the larger market teams. This is a business, and as a business its your responsibility to put the best product on that field for your customers. The Yankees are the only team in baseball that are almost guaranteed to make it to the playoffs every year, which gives them the best chance to win a World Series every year. That makes for good business. Besides, if you look at the Yankees roster, there is a pretty decent amount of homegrown talent. As high as the Yankees payroll is, you got to understand most of it is tied up to 3 players: Teixeira, A-Rod, Sabathia. Those 3 combined make roughly 75 million a year. That a huge chunk of the payroll.

Oh well, ill take 27 championships and a playoff appearance every year, over zero titles because we did it the "right way".

Spoken like a true Yankees fan. When all of the unfair BS benefits you it's easy to sit here and say this I'm sure. Lets give the Yankees a fourth of what everyone else has to spend for a decade and we'll see how fast your change your mind on how fair it is.

The simple fact that not a single Yankee fan can ever say "Yeah it's unfair to the rest of the league but oh well" or something to that effect is what is so sad. You all try to argue that because you have the money it should be ok to spend 4 times what some other teams can afford. It's like the Daniel Tosh joke of putting poker in the olympics and countries can only come to the table with what their country is worth. "Costa Rica's all in with 15 coconuts".....

You kinda made me laugh when you said Tex, A-Rod and Sabathia make up $75 million. ignoring Jeters $16 million, Riveras $15, Sorianos $12, Canos $14, Swisher/Granderson/Kuroda at $10 million a piece.... lets not sit here and act like it's three guys and a bunch of minimum salaried players.

I'm sure you think the Knicks should be able to spend $50 million more than the Grizzlies because they make the money right? Or the Giants should be able to spend $50 million more than the Jaguars because they make it?

scottythegreat1
04-21-2012, 12:29 AM
It wouldnt be a bad idea to give teams that havent made it to the playoffs in over 10 years a chance to make it here and there. If you give fans of some teams a reason to come out by putting a winning product on the field, theyll come.

Unfortunately, not every market will have fans that come out, others will. I remember when Detroit and Texas were averaging 20,000 a game, now theyre filling their stadium after they started to win and make it beyond the first round. There are quite a few teams that havent made it to the playoffs in quite awhile, but at least there are teams that are making it here and there.

As for buying a World series, not really, playoff spots are bought all the time, have been in many sports, the team with a lot of money seems to make it much more often than not. Sports would be boring if you knew ahead of time who would be winning the world series. The age of dynasties isnt really there anymore, its a lot harder to win a championship 3 years in a row or greater.

nessythegreat
04-21-2012, 02:56 AM
I would never want my team to "buy" a championship. Where would the excitement and joy come from being a fan of a team like that? As a fan what would you be more proud of.. the 2010 Giants or the 2009 Yankees?(the Giants got there with homegrown players and complementary signees, where the Yankees pretty much bought the 09 free agent class) If I was a yankee fan, I wouldve felt that the win would be badly cheapened and not proud of my franchise.

Jeffy25
04-21-2012, 06:06 AM
Spoken like a true Yankees fan. When all of the unfair BS benefits you it's easy to sit here and say this I'm sure. Lets give the Yankees a fourth of what everyone else has to spend for a decade and we'll see how fast your change your mind on how fair it is.

The simple fact that not a single Yankee fan can ever say "Yeah it's unfair to the rest of the league but oh well" or something to that effect is what is so sad. You all try to argue that because you have the money it should be ok to spend 4 times what some other teams can afford. It's like the Daniel Tosh joke of putting poker in the olympics and countries can only come to the table with what their country is worth. "Costa Rica's all in with 15 coconuts".....

You kinda made me laugh when you said Tex, A-Rod and Sabathia make up $75 million. ignoring Jeters $16 million, Riveras $15, Sorianos $12, Canos $14, Swisher/Granderson/Kuroda at $10 million a piece.... lets not sit here and act like it's three guys and a bunch of minimum salaried players.

I'm sure you think the Knicks should be able to spend $50 million more than the Grizzlies because they make the money right? Or the Giants should be able to spend $50 million more than the Jaguars because they make it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with his post, and I fully agree with him.

This is more just blind Yankee hatred than it is anything.

And then the Yankees fans are spewing 'BS' for thinking the way their teams are assembled is okay?

GasMan
04-21-2012, 07:12 AM
No, it's not. When it's draft picks, it's a crap shoot. When you're signing free agents, you already know what you're getting. It's nothing alike.

Like Adam Dunn

Jamiecballer
04-21-2012, 09:06 AM
Not convenient.

How many free agents that they 'bought' were on those teams?

Not very many. They were great with Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Bernie Williams


These were their best players other than Clemens (who they traded for)

they 'bought' David Cone and Paul O'Neill, and they weren't very expensive or very good.


The post was 'the Yankees buy them all the time'. If the Yankees buy championships all the time, then they are really really bad at it.


whether they are buying up all the available free agents or never having to make the tough choices about who to keep and who to let walk (a scenario the majority of teams face) makes no difference to me. it's still playing with a stacked deck.

mtf
04-21-2012, 09:38 AM
If you ask me, the NFL has the best system to set up parity. And maybe in theory the NBA does, but there's no way you can sit there and tell me that more parity exists in the NBA than in MLB

Basketball, no matter how they structure it, will NEVER be brought in line in terms of parity. It's the nature of the sport that your team is basically your best 2-3 players.

Tragedy
04-21-2012, 10:20 AM
That's real easy to say but the reality is other teams don't have that luxury. Not everyone has the money the New York Yankees have. Does that mean they Yankees should get a very clear competitive advantage over most teams in the league because they are a big market?

The Yankees make enough to have a 200 million dollar payroll and still bank. Meanwhile, the San Diego Padres have a 50 million dollar payroll and are probably losing money. It's not their fault that they aren't the freakin Yankees, and they shouldn't be punished for it by only being able to afford a 1/4 of what the Yankees are spending.

If it's ok with you, why don't we just go ahead and do this in other sports? We'll give the Knicks, Celtics, Bulls and Lakers a 100 million dollar cap limit and give the Grizzlies, Bobcats and Trailblazers a 25 million dollar cap? How does that sound? Totally fair right? :rolleyes:
The Twins have one of the richest owners in baseball. He might even be the richest.

So, why isn't their payroll larger? More teams than people believe have the money to spend.

Reaper7
04-21-2012, 11:23 AM
Why wouldnt it be okay? teams try doing it every year

scottythegreat1
04-21-2012, 11:32 AM
The Twins have one of the richest owners in baseball. He might even be the richest.

So, why isn't their payroll larger? More teams than people believe have the money to spend.

At least theyre spending it now. I think the hardest nut to crack on being a rich owner is the Toronto Blue Jays would actually have the second richest owner (after Nintendo) in Rogers Communications.

Think about it......To Rogers Communications, The Blue Jays is essentially a tax write off and a free advertising venue for them. They OWN the stadium they play in (and bought it for 25 million when it cost 560 million to build), they OWN Sportsnet who does ALL the television broadcasts for the team, they get to advertise their cellphone, television, and broadcast services for free during the games and not have to pay a TV contract to show the game.

Unfortunately, Rogers only cares about making money on the team, they make a few million a year on the team every year, they havent lost money. Theyre truly disgraceful owners. Think about this for a second, during SPRING TRAINING, they showed 4 Blue Jays games and at least a DOZEN YANKEES or RED SOX games. They decided it would be cheaper to let YES broadcast the Yankees then to essentially advertise THEIR OWN TEAM.

Dont get me wrong, they wanted to move the team 10 years ago before Rogers stepped in and bought the team and turned a huge money pit into a profitable venture. They still need to show me that they want this team to win a World Series title.

Toronto has become the laughing stock of sports in North America, none of our professional sports teams have made the playoffs in ANY sport in at least 5 years..and its a lot easier to make it into Hockey and Basketball playoffs than it is for Baseball and they cant do it.

Reaper7
04-21-2012, 11:37 AM
Did not know that about the Blue Jays Owner, Im not even a blue Jays fan and that frustrates me

iam brett favre
04-21-2012, 12:40 PM
If you had the ability to, and didn't, it would be a disservice to everyone involved with the team.
That's why I always laugh at the people who hate the Yankees for "buying" a world series. Why wouldn't you spend the money that they have if you can?

BlondeBomber41
04-21-2012, 01:03 PM
For the bazillionth time, nobody thinks the Yankees are bad for spending the money. It's the system that allows it to happen that we hate. In the NFL and NBA you aren't allowed to spend more money on free agents because you are a bigger market, and you shouldn't be able to in MLB either.

Big Zo
04-21-2012, 01:36 PM
For the bazillionth time, nobody thinks the Yankees are bad for spending the money. It's the system that allows it to happen that we hate. In the NFL and NBA you aren't allowed to spend more money on free agents because you are a bigger market, and you shouldn't be able to in MLB either.

Your whole argument this whole time has been about: "Would you do it if you could?", not "MLB needs a salary cap."

BlondeBomber41
04-21-2012, 03:35 PM
For the bazillionth time, nobody thinks the Yankees are bad for spending the money. It's the system that allows it to happen that we hate. In the NFL and NBA you aren't allowed to spend more money on free agents because you are a bigger market, and you shouldn't be able to in MLB either.

Your whole argument this whole time has been about: "Would you do it if you could?", not "MLB needs a salary cap."

No, you are wrong. Just because I wouldn't want my team doing it doesn't mean I was saying the Yankees were some evil organization for doing it. No I would not want my team to do it but I never said the Yankees were cheating. It's the system that needs to be fixed.

Jeffy25
04-21-2012, 04:08 PM
Did not know that about the Blue Jays Owner, Im not even a blue Jays fan and that frustrates me

It's frustrating that a corporation makes good business decisions?

"Ace"ves
04-21-2012, 04:58 PM
If your team suddenly had unlimited funds would you want them to run out and get the very best players available including minor leaguers? Would you want them to refrain from doing that in fairness to other teams?

Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

That would not be buying a world series...

first of all, one does not buy the best minor leaguers, most minor league prospects are given to the teams with the worst records/compensation for type-A offered arbitration. Often this is the opposite effect, for the team without money (as money is a competitive advantage for the MOST part).

If a team wins with a payroll of $200M compared to one that won for $50 million, then obviously team 1 just overpaid to win and team 2 made some great financial decisions and it was a bargain.

However, just because money is an advantage, doesn't mean it's not deserved. Teams such as the yankees who have the highest payrolls year in and out, also have the highest ticket prices and merchandise. The excessive profit allows them to run an insane payroll. So the fans who pay the price for entertainment are often given better quality entertainment... that's fair

PhillyFaninLA
04-21-2012, 05:07 PM
If your team suddenly had unlimited funds would you want them to run out and get the very best players available including minor leaguers? Would you want them to refrain from doing that in fairness to other teams?

Do you believe in perfect equal parity where who wins is basically a coin toss?

I don't care how the Phillies get good (as long as its within the rules). Whether its drafting, developing, or buying players as long as they win I'm good.

In principle I believe in perfect equal parity as you stated but hey if the Phillies are winning I can tweak my principles a bit.

Fukudome
04-21-2012, 05:15 PM
I would be okay with the Cubs doing just about anything for a World Series at this point.

NateyB24
04-21-2012, 05:18 PM
It's frustrating that a corporation makes good business decisions?

I think when you own any kind of sports franchise you should see it as a toy not a business.

sportscrazy34
04-21-2012, 09:50 PM
Hmm and owner spending a ton of money on the best players or a owner that buys houses on the beach.

Yep buy me a world series any day.

mariner4life
04-21-2012, 10:30 PM
That would not be buying a world series...

first of all, one does not buy the best minor leaguers, most minor league prospects are given to the teams with the worst records/compensation for type-A offered arbitration. Often this is the opposite effect, for the team without money (as money is a competitive advantage for the MOST part).

If a team wins with a payroll of $200M compared to one that won for $50 million, then obviously team 1 just overpaid to win and team 2 made some great financial decisions and it was a bargain.

However, just because money is an advantage, doesn't mean it's not deserved. Teams such as the yankees who have the highest payrolls year in and out, also have the highest ticket prices and merchandise. The excessive profit allows them to run an insane payroll. So the fans who pay the price for entertainment are often given better quality entertainment... that's fair

This isn't political. If this was purely a business I would agree with you. If a donut store owner wants to spend like crazy and crush all of his competitors and get crazy rich I'm all for it! Baseball is not just a business its also a sport so actually its not fair.

Uncle Sam
04-21-2012, 10:34 PM
You cant " buy " a championship. If you re-phrased and asked me, " Would you be mad if your team spent a lot more money than everyone else and won a championship? ", I would say that itd be more special if a larger amount of our players were home grown or acquired via trade, but id still be elated.

mariner4life
04-21-2012, 10:35 PM
Not convenient.

How many free agents that they 'bought' were on those teams?

Not very many. They were great with Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Bernie Williams


These were their best players other than Clemens (who they traded for)

they 'bought' David Cone and Paul O'Neill, and they weren't very expensive or very good.


The post was 'the Yankees buy them all the time'. If the Yankees buy championships all the time, then they are really really bad at it.

It sounded like you were saying that when the yankees won in 2000 that they did it with a lower payroll. Sorry if I misunderstood

GasMan
04-21-2012, 11:02 PM
I think when you own any kind of sports franchise you should see it as a toy not a business.

That sounds like a good way to not own a team for very long.

Uncle Sam
04-21-2012, 11:23 PM
I think when you own any kind of sports franchise you should see it as a toy not a business.

Theres certainly a sentimental attatchment for some owners, but you have to go into an ownership siutuation trying to make money. Its kind of like anything else, you put what you have to into your product to make money.

Jeffy25
04-22-2012, 06:37 AM
I think when you own any kind of sports franchise you should see it as a toy not a business.

I somewhat agree.

A lot of people depend on you keeping that business solvent and prosperous too.

mtf
04-22-2012, 09:43 AM
"The Yankees do it all the time"

how many rings do they have this decade?

Do we need to have the discussion about rings not being representative of parity again?

ichitownclowni
04-22-2012, 09:58 AM
I would not want my team to go out and buy every position out their and get a whole new team basically.

Jeffy25
04-22-2012, 04:57 PM
Do we need to have the discussion about rings not being representative of parity again?

Who was talking about parity?

The title of the thread is literally.....a World Series Championship.

If it's so easy to just 'buy' a WS championship, how come nobody can do it?

NateyB24
04-22-2012, 05:34 PM
Who was talking about parity?

The title of the thread is literally.....a World Series Championship.

If it's so easy to just 'buy' a WS championship, how come nobody can do it?

i agree that it doesn't guarantee you a WS but it sure does increase the odds though if you spend that money wisely.