PDA

View Full Version : In the last 10 years


Fenway
10-26-2010, 08:19 AM
Since 2001 the following franchises have made the World Series

AL
New York
Boston
Chicago
Detroit
Tampa Bay
Anaheim
Texas

NL
Arizona
St Louis
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Colorado
Florida
Houston

14 out of 30

Several others have made the LCS Cleveland, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers,Seattle,Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta.

22 out of 30

The system isnt perfect but it is working

DumpJerry
10-26-2010, 08:26 AM
But...but.....but....the Yankees and Red Sox each spend more than all the other teams combined over the past twenty years. It's just not fair!

doublem23
10-26-2010, 08:48 AM
This is a sham argument from a fan whose team stands to lose more than almost anybody if the commissioner's office ever grew some balls and enacted real competive balance reform in the league.

Yankee and Red Sox fans love pointing out how great it is that the Marlins and Rays made it to the World Series that one time, while taking all their top talent.

Fenway
10-26-2010, 09:06 AM
What sham? 14 teams have taken the 20 available World Series slots.

doublem23
10-26-2010, 09:09 AM
What sham? 14 teams have taken the 20 available World Series slots.

Using that and that only as your measure for "how competitive" baseball is now is a sham argument.

ewokpelts
10-26-2010, 09:23 AM
i dunno. the red sox won the WS in 04 as a wild card. the current system, while flawed, has produced champions that may not have existed without the WC. the 2002 WS being all wild card teams comes to mind. without the wild card, and without the current way of life in baseball, the angels are still without a championship, and dont get bought by arte moreno who transforms them into an AL powerhouse.

Hitmen77
10-26-2010, 09:27 AM
Since 2001 the following franchises have made the World Series
.
.
.
22 out of 30

The system isnt perfect but it is working

The system is working in the NL where NYY and Bos don't play and where that league's big spenders (Cubs and Mets) have really botched things up good for themselves.

It's easy to play with the numbers to make it look like there's a good mix of pennant winners in the AL. If we're going to play that game, let's at the AL pennant winners since 2000 (with big market teams in bold):
2000: New York
2001: New York
2002: Los Angeles
2003: New York
2004: Boston
2005: Chicago
2006: Detroit*
2007: Boston
2008: Tampa Bay
2009: New York
2010: Texas

See, the hugest markets/big spenders only won 9 out of 11 times. The system works! But let's only point to 2008 and 2010 (and list Boston and New York only once each) to make our point.

* I bolded NY, Chicago, LA, and Boston. These are all huge metro areas/baseball markets. I included Detroit even though it's not one of the biggest metro areas, because Ilitch makes them one of top spenders. Boras clients (IRod, Maggs, Rogers) were a part of the mix that got them to the World Series.

Lip Man 1
10-26-2010, 09:31 AM
In a long thread I started at the end of the 2009 season I pointed out that the Yankees and Red Sox ALONE had combined to grab (if memory serves) 40% of the available playoff spots in the A.L. in the decade (2000-2009).

40% by two teams...

Sorry Fenway this system is NOT working, not working by a long shot.

Lip

Hitmen77
10-26-2010, 09:34 AM
But...but.....but....the Yankees and Red Sox each spend more than all the other teams combined over the past twenty years. It's just not fair!

Yeah, and those chumps have only won 6 pennants between them in the last decade....what are people thinking?

...and # of years that the Yankees didn't make the playoffs during that stretch = 1 (but they fixed that injustice by buying a Cy Young candidate and MVP candidate to win the WS the following year). Boston has been in the playoffs 6 of the last 8 years.

GoSox2K3
10-26-2010, 01:19 PM
Since 2001 the following franchises have made the World Series

AL
New York
Boston
Chicago
Detroit
Tampa Bay
Anaheim
Texas



That's somewhat misleading. The Yankees are only listed once....just the same as Tampa Bay even though the Yankees have won 4 pennants since 2000 and any of other AL teams listed (besides Boston) has one pennant.

If any other team had 4 pennants in a decade, people would be talking about a dynasty. If the Yankees do it, their not winning a pennant every year is touted as proof that the system works.

Boston has 2 pennants (matched only by Philadelphia during this period). They're certainly not as dominating as the Yankees. But they have been to the ALCS 4 times since 2003.

IMO, having only one AL team spend the Boston-level money (which a few other teams can come close to matching) and get the Boston-level success wouldn't be so bad. But when, on top of the Red Sox success you add the Yankees' (whose payroll makes the Red Sox look poor) success year after year after year where these 2 teams almost always have a lock on the playoffs - then I'd hardly be touting how well things are working in the American League.

palehozenychicty
10-28-2010, 08:02 PM
This is a sham argument from a fan whose team stands to lose more than almost anybody if the commissioner's office ever grew some balls and enacted real competive balance reform in the league.

Yankee and Red Sox fans love pointing out how great it is that the Marlins and Rays made it to the World Series that one time, while taking all their top talent.

Indeed. They need to split up regional sports revenue. That's the only way they can do that without going to a hard cap, which the union will never do nor should.

A. Cavatica
10-28-2010, 09:08 PM
The system is working in the NL where NYY and Bos don't play and where that league's big spenders (Cubs and Mets) have really botched things up good for themselves.

It's easy to play with the numbers to make it look like there's a good mix of pennant winners in the AL. If we're going to play that game, let's at the AL pennant winners since 2000 (with big market teams in bold):
2000: New York
2001: New York
2002: Los Angeles
2003: New York
2004: Boston
2005: Chicago
2006: Detroit*
2007: Boston
2008: Tampa Bay
2009: New York
2010: Texas

See, the hugest markets/big spenders only won 9 out of 11 times. The system works! But let's only point to 2008 and 2010 (and list Boston and New York only once each) to make our point.

* I bolded NY, Chicago, LA, and Boston. These are all huge metro areas/baseball markets. I included Detroit even though it's not one of the biggest metro areas, because Ilitch makes them one of top spenders. Boras clients (IRod, Maggs, Rogers) were a part of the mix that got them to the World Series.

Why do you not consider Dallas a big market?

Daver
10-28-2010, 09:22 PM
Indeed. They need to split up regional sports revenue. That's the only way they can do that without going to a hard cap, which the union will never do nor should.

Bill Veeck called for that back in the sixties, and the rest of the owners ostracized him because of it, bottom line is it will never happen, the MLBPA would fight it tooth and nail, and the large market teams would as well, because unlike the NFL, MLB owners care more about their own bottom line than they do about the league itself.

Frater Perdurabo
10-28-2010, 09:26 PM
If the other 29 teams were serious about bringing the Yankees to their knees, thus ushering in revenue sharing that results in true competitive balance, they all would refuse to play the Yankees for a full season, simply forfeiting all games to the Yankees.

The Yankees would be 162-0, but would have NO ONE to play and thus NO REVENUE.

Daver
10-28-2010, 09:54 PM
If the other 29 teams were serious about bringing the Yankees to their knees, thus ushering in revenue sharing that results in true competitive balance, they all would refuse to play the Yankees for a full season, simply forfeiting all games to the Yankees.

The Yankees would be 162-0, but would have NO ONE to play and thus NO REVENUE.

They can't do that, they have a signed agreement play the schedule as made by MLB.

Frater Perdurabo
10-28-2010, 09:56 PM
They can't do that, they have a signed agreement play the schedule as made by MLB.

I know it's not realistic, but what would Selig do to prevent it, confiscate the franchises from all the current owners and award them to other owners, just to placate the Yankees?

Daver
10-28-2010, 10:18 PM
I know it's not realistic, but what would Selig do to prevent it, confiscate the franchises from all the current owners and award them to other owners, just to placate the Yankees?

No, he would withhold all the shared revenue due to the teams to start, and then he would revoke their charters and put the franchises up for bid, the league owns the name rights, so the current owners would be left with nothing of value aside from the players THEY are obligated to pay with no revenue.

Frater Perdurabo
10-28-2010, 10:40 PM
No, he would withhold all the shared revenue due to the teams to start, and then he would revoke their charters and put the franchises up for bid, the league owns the name rights, so the current owners would be left with nothing of value aside from the players THEY are obligated to pay with no revenue.

I think if 29 owners demanded full revenue sharing (NFL style), Selig would capitulate to their demands in a New York minute.

DumpJerry
10-28-2010, 10:44 PM
i dunno. the red sox won the WS in 04 as a wild card. the current system, while flawed, has produced champions that may not have existed without the WC. the 2002 WS being all wild card teams comes to mind. without the wild card, and without the current way of life in baseball, the angels are still without a championship, and dont get bought by arte moreno who transforms them into an AL powerhouse.
I'm sorry, did I read this correctly? Did you call the Angels an American League powerhouse? The get to play Seattle and Oakland about 36 times a year, that is how they (usually) build up their record before getting demolished by someone in the AL East.

Daver
10-28-2010, 10:53 PM
I think if 29 owners demanded full revenue sharing (NFL style), Selig would capitulate to their demands in a New York minute.

The owners want no part of NFL style revenue sharing, it is not in their individual best interest, the majority are happy with the status quo of shared revenue on merchandise and national media contracts in return for not sharing their gate receipts and local broadcast contract revenue with the rest of the league.

Comparing the NFL to MLB is never going to be a good comparison BTW, the only things that are comparable is that they are both professional sports leagues.

Hitmen77
10-29-2010, 12:14 AM
Selig lauds baseball's competitive balance:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101028&content_id=15889676&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

He cites the fact that the same two teams haven't met in the WS back to back since '77-'78. I guess by that logic, as long as the Yankees and Red Sox (who won only 9 of 14 pennants between them between '96 and '09) face a different NL team every year, then everything is A-OK.

I'm not saying there isn't some good competitive mix going on at certain levels in MLB. But the problem remains that the AL is too top heavy with NY and Bos with the Red Sox outspending and out-resourcing the other 12 teams and the Yankees making the Red Sox look poor in comparison.

Why do you not consider Dallas a big market?

Good point. Dallas is right up there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas#Table) as one of the largest metro areas in the US. Despite their population, I wouldn't call them as huge of an MLB market as Boston (which has a lower metro population but much more baseball revenue available than in Dallas), but Texas is not exactly Tampa or Kansas City either.

asindc
10-29-2010, 08:44 AM
In a long thread I started at the end of the 2009 season I pointed out that the Yankees and Red Sox ALONE had combined to grab (if memory serves) 40% of the available playoff spots in the A.L. in the decade (2000-2009).

40% by two teams...

Sorry Fenway this system is NOT working, not working by a long shot.

Lip

Yeah, and those chumps have only won 6 pennants between them in the last decade....what are people thinking?

...and # of years that the Yankees didn't make the playoffs during that stretch = 1 (but they fixed that injustice by buying a Cy Young candidate and MVP candidate to win the WS the following year). Boston has been in the playoffs 6 of the last 8 years.

Selig lauds baseball's competitive balance:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101028&content_id=15889676&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

He cites the fact that the same two teams haven't met in the WS back to back since '77-'78. I guess by that logic, as long as the Yankees and Red Sox (who won only 9 of 14 pennants between them between '96 and '09) face a different NL team every year, then everything is A-OK.

I'm not saying there isn't some good competitive mix going on at certain levels in MLB. But the problem remains that the AL is too top heavy with NY and Bos with the Red Sox outspending and out-resourcing the other 12 teams and the Yankees making the Red Sox look poor in comparison.



Good point. Dallas is right up there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Ar eas#Table) as one of the largest metro areas in the US. Despite their population, I wouldn't call them as huge of an MLB market as Boston (which has a lower population but much more baseball revenue available than in Dallas), but Texas is not exactly Tampa or Kansas City either.

The posts above have it right. The issue isn't about who ultimately wins the pennant and World Series, it's about the fact that the Yank$' and Bo$ton's money effectively buys them a playoff spot almost every year. Raise your hand if you think the Yanks would have made the playoffs last year, let alone won the WS, if they had not signed the best available pitcher and best available hitter for more money than anyone else could or would offer? At least 26 MLB teams could not afford to sign even one of those contracts. The Yanks not only signed both of those contracts, but they also signed Burnett to a ridiculously overpriced contract 'just in case' he worked out.

The system is broken. The NFL model works very well for its owners, much less so for its players. I really don't understand why 25 of the MLB owners put up with the current system. If I'm a KC fan, for instance, I would really question ownership's commitment to winning. That's not good for the long-term viability of a franchise.

Balfanman
10-29-2010, 10:03 AM
The posts above have it right. The issue isn't about who ultimately wins the pennant and World Series, it's about the fact that the Yank$' and Bo$ton's money effectively buys them a playoff spot almost every year. Raise your hand if you think the Yanks would have made the playoffs last year, let alone won the WS, if they had not signed the best available pitcher and best available hitter for more money than anyone else could or would offer? At least 26 MLB teams could not afford to sign even one of those contracts. The Yanks not only signed both of those contracts, but they also signed Burnett to a ridiculously overpriced contract 'just in case' he worked out.

The system is broken. The NFL model works very well for its owners, much less so for its players. I really don't understand why 25 of the MLB owners put up with the current system. If I'm a KC fan, for instance, I would really question ownership's commitment to winning. That's not good for the long-term viability of a franchise.

And as White Sox fans we are fortunate that we are not in the East. I can't even imagine being an Orioles, Blue Jay, or Rays fan. It would be so disheartening knowing that even if you played your cards perfectly, you might have a realistic shot at the playoffs 2 or 3 out of every 10 years or so.

Tanpa is getting to the point now where their stars are getting expensive, thay can't hold onto Crawford now, nor the next star thay have who's eligible for free agency. Then Toronto or Baltimore will take a turn for a couple years at maybe having a shot.

russ99
10-29-2010, 10:21 AM
The other thing that's not mentioned is that most of the teams who make the attempt to compete are a break-even proposition. The only way these teams make a profit is if they make the playoffs. The Giants are a perfect example.

If the system is gamed to give the Yankees and Red Sox (and Mets, Cubs, Dodgers in the NL) more chances to make the playoffs, that directly affects the potential of the other teams in the league to do well.

Is it then more of an incentive to ownership to break even (or bring in a small profit) than to compete??

Balfanman
10-29-2010, 10:26 AM
The other thing that's not mentioned is that most of the teams who make the attempt to compete are a break-even proposition. The only way these teams make a profit is if they make the playoffs. The Giants are a perfect example.

If the system is gamed to give the Yankees and Red Sox (and Mets, Cubs, Dodgers in the NL) more chances to make the playoffs, that directly affects the potential of the other teams in the league to do well.

Is it then more of an incentive to ownership to break even (or bring in a small profit) than to compete??

While I do agree with you, I think most every owner makes more than just a small profit or they wouldn't be in the business. They are businessmen first and formost and know how to make big money.

Lip Man 1
10-29-2010, 11:38 AM
Revenue sharing has guaranteed some of the worst franchises some incredible profits every season aka Pirates and Marlins for example.

You wonder if some owners feel that it's worth more to get the guaranteed money for failure than to take the risk, pay the price and try to actually "compete".

Lip

SI1020
10-29-2010, 11:51 AM
Revenue sharing has guaranteed some of the worst franchises some incredible profits every season aka Pirates and Marlins for example.

You wonder if some owners feel that it's worth more to get the guaranteed money for failure than to take the risk, pay the price and try to actually "compete".

Lip Like the Pirates operate.

Hitmen77
10-29-2010, 12:06 PM
The system is broken. The NFL model works very well for its owners, much less so for its players. I really don't understand why 25 of the MLB owners put up with the current system. If I'm a KC fan, for instance, I would really question ownership's commitment to winning. That's not good for the long-term viability of a franchise.

As long as the owners are making money, most of them are probably satisfied with the status quo. You're right that this isn't good for the long-term viability of some franchise, but I think owners are just looking at their short term bottom line.

Revenue sharing has guaranteed some of the worst franchises some incredible profits every season aka Pirates and Marlins for example.

You wonder if some owners feel that it's worth more to get the guaranteed money for failure than to take the risk, pay the price and try to actually "compete".
Lip

That's part of the problem too. It isn't simply a matter of squeezing more money from the Yankees, etc. and sharing them with the Pirates and Marlins since some of those bottom teams are making a nice profit and aren't going to plug any more shared revenue into payroll, scouting, etc.

Something needs to be done, but simply going to an NFL revenue sharing model isn't the answer.

GoSox2K3
10-29-2010, 03:35 PM
AL pennant winners since 2000 (with big market teams in bold):
2000: New York
2001: New York
2002: Los Angeles
2003: New York
2004: Boston
2005: Chicago
2006: Detroit*
2007: Boston
2008: Tampa Bay
2009: New York
2010: Texas


Hey, if you go back to 1998, it looks even worse. Years since 1998 were Boston or NY weren't pennant winners: '02, '05, '06, '08, '10. That's it. Only 5 times in 13 seasons....and Detroit (one of those 5) is totally in bed with Scott Boras. Plus LA and Chicago are huge markets (even for their 2nd banana teams) and Dallas is pretty big too. .....So, in summary, the AL has good competitive balance because Tampa Bay won the pennant in '08!

Since the current playoff format began in 1995, here are the seasons where neither the Yanks or BoSox were in the ALCS: '95, '97, '02, '05, '06. Only 5 times in 16 seasons....and the last time was 5 seasons ago. The number of years neither of these teams were in the ALDS ever: Zero.

Railsplitter
10-30-2010, 10:31 AM
The Yankees and Red Sox aren't competitive because they are spending money. The Yankees and Red Sox are competitive because they are spending it on good players, not big names and plauers prone to injury.

Fenway
10-30-2010, 10:34 AM
BUT

Including this year NINE different teams will have won the World Series in the past 10 seasons.

NINE

(only Boston has won more than one)

Show me another ten year period where that has happened. You can't do it.

Brian26
10-30-2010, 10:42 AM
BUT

Including this year NINE different teams will have won the World Series in the past 10 seasons.

NINE

(only Boston has won more than one)

Show me another ten year period where that has happened. You can't do it.

1. 1978 Yankees
2. 1979 Pittsburgh
3. 1980 Philly
4. 1981 Dodgers
5. 1982 Cardinals
6. 1983 Orioles
7. 1984 Tigers
8. 1985 Royals
9. 1986 Mets
10. 1987 Twins

Just gave you a ten year period with ten different winners.

Fenway
10-30-2010, 10:58 AM
1. 1978 Yankees
2. 1979 Pittsburgh
3. 1980 Philly
4. 1981 Dodgers
5. 1982 Cardinals
6. 1983 Orioles
7. 1984 Tigers
8. 1985 Royals
9. 1986 Mets
10. 1987 Twins

Just gave you a ten year period with ten different winners.

:tongue:

GoSox2K3
10-30-2010, 03:29 PM
The Yankees and Red Sox aren't competitive because they are spending money. The Yankees and Red Sox are competitive because they are spending it on good players, not big names and plauers prone to injury.

:rolling:
A-Rod, CC Sabathia, and Teixeira aren't spending big money on big names? I guess AJ Burnett's bad contract gets ignored in this statement too. Okay, if you say so.....

Your statement is more true for the Red Sox who could be more like the Mets and Cubs if they didn't make smart moves. But the reality is that both the Yanks and BoSox can spend more to overcome bad contracts that would handcuff other teams.

The only year in the current playoff alignment that the Yankees didn't make the playoffs was 2008....and they corrected this injustice by spending big money (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3790141) on the two biggest names (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28155485/) out there. They might very well do the same thing this winter with Cliff Lee. But never mind that, you can believe what ever you want.:smokin:

I'm actually surprised that the Dodgers aren't up in Yankees, Red Sox, Mets territory in payroll. You'd think they'd have the resources with their huge attendance and being in the 2nd largest TV market.

Fenway
10-30-2010, 03:56 PM
I'm actually surprised that the Dodgers aren't up in Yankees, Red Sox, Mets territory in payroll. You'd think they'd have the resources with their huge attendance and being in the 2nd largest TV market.

Well ya see

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/daily-pitch/2010/06/10/mccourtsx-large.jpg

asindc
10-30-2010, 04:52 PM
:rolling:
A-Rod, CC Sabathia, and Teixeira aren't spending big money on big names? I guess AJ Burnett's bad contract gets ignored in this statement too. Okay, if you say so.....

Your statement is more true for the Red Sox who could be more like the Mets and Cubs if they didn't make smart moves. But the reality is that both the Yanks and BoSox can spend more to overcome bad contracts that would handcuff other teams.

The only year in the current playoff alignment that the Yankees didn't make the playoffs was 2008....and they corrected this injustice by spending big money (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3790141) on the two biggest names (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28155485/) out there. They might very well do the same thing this winter with Cliff Lee. But never mind that, you can believe what ever you want.:smokin:

I'm actually surprised that the Dodgers aren't up in Yankees, Red Sox, Mets territory in payroll. You'd think they'd have the resources with their huge attendance and being in the 2nd largest TV market.

And you didn't even mention Javy Vazquez and his anchor (for any other team) contract.

Hitmen77
10-31-2010, 12:39 AM
BUT

Including this year NINE different teams will have won the World Series in the past 10 seasons.

NINE

(only Boston has won more than one)

Show me another ten year period where that has happened. You can't do it.

That's an indicator of good competition in the NL more than anything. No matter how rich and powerful, the Yanks and Red Sox can't keep a top NL team from going to the World Series every year. One of the great things about baseball (IMO) is that, in any given series, it's not quite as certain that the favorite is going to win. This isn't the NFL where the 80s-90s era NFC was certain to pound the AFC every year.

Still, among the last 10 World Series champions (2000-09), four of the ten are the Yankees and Red Sox. If not for upset wins by Arizona and Florida, it could have been 6 of 10. It doesn't have to be 10 of 10 wins from the two richest teams before people see that there's a competitive balance problem.

As far as teams that have advanced to the ALCS in the last 13 seasons, only 3 times weren't the Yankees or Red Sox there. They've been in 10 of the last 13 ALCSs......WOW! And 3 of those 10 were years that they both made it to the ALCS. So, it's almost a given every year that NYY and/or Bos is going to roll past the ALDS and get to the league championship series. Just because another top AL team was able to stop them at the ALCS twice in all those ALCS appearances going back to 1998 doesn't mean things are just fine.

TDog
10-31-2010, 12:44 AM
1. 1978 Yankees
2. 1979 Pittsburgh
3. 1980 Philly
4. 1981 Dodgers
5. 1982 Cardinals
6. 1983 Orioles
7. 1984 Tigers
8. 1985 Royals
9. 1986 Mets
10. 1987 Twins

Just gave you a ten year period with ten different winners.

You beat me to it.

That includes the collusion years, of course.

WhiteSox5187
10-31-2010, 01:37 AM
:rolling:
A-Rod, CC Sabathia, and Teixeira aren't spending big money on big names? I guess AJ Burnett's bad contract gets ignored in this statement too. Okay, if you say so.....

Your statement is more true for the Red Sox who could be more like the Mets and Cubs if they didn't make smart moves. But the reality is that both the Yanks and BoSox can spend more to overcome bad contracts that would handcuff other teams.

The only year in the current playoff alignment that the Yankees didn't make the playoffs was 2008....and they corrected this injustice by spending big money (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3790141) on the two biggest names (http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28155485/) out there. They might very well do the same thing this winter with Cliff Lee. But never mind that, you can believe what ever you want.:smokin:

I'm actually surprised that the Dodgers aren't up in Yankees, Red Sox, Mets territory in payroll. You'd think they'd have the resources with their huge attendance and being in the 2nd largest TV market.

I think what his point was it isn't enough to just spend money, but you have to spend money wisely. The Cubs spent a ton of money and they nearly lost 90 games in one of the worst divisions in baseball. Obviously though, it doesn't take a genius to see that the likes of A-Rod, Texiera and Sabathia are incredibly talented players.

cards press box
10-31-2010, 02:12 AM
If the other 29 teams were serious about bringing the Yankees to their knees, thus ushering in revenue sharing that results in true competitive balance, they all would refuse to play the Yankees for a full season, simply forfeiting all games to the Yankees.

The Yankees would be 162-0, but would have NO ONE to play and thus NO REVENUE.

This would be a dream come true.

Nellie_Fox
10-31-2010, 02:31 AM
If the other 29 teams were serious about bringing the Yankees to their knees, thus ushering in revenue sharing that results in true competitive balance, they all would refuse to play the Yankees for a full season, simply forfeiting all games to the Yankees.

The Yankees would be 162-0, but would have NO ONE to play and thus NO REVENUE.

They can't do that, they have a signed agreement play the schedule as made by MLB.And a court would not just impose a financial penalty for non-compliance with their franchise contract, but would order specific compliance.

GoSox2K3
10-31-2010, 04:42 PM
Your statement is more true for the Red Sox who could be more like the Mets and Cubs if they didn't make smart moves. But the reality is that both the Yanks and BoSox can spend more to overcome bad contracts that would handcuff other teams.
I think what his point was it isn't enough to just spend money, but you have to spend money wisely. The Cubs spent a ton of money and they nearly lost 90 games in one of the worst divisions in baseball. Obviously though, it doesn't take a genius to see that the likes of A-Rod, Texiera and Sabathia are incredibly talented players.

...and that's why I said his statement is more true for the Red Sox because they could be more like the Cubs or Mets if they spent stupidly.

But that's simply not so for the Yankees. They can spend stupidly and still throw more money at elite players. You really can't compare the Yankees to the Cubs or Mets. Just the difference between the Yankees total payroll and the Cubs/Mets range is like another competitive team's entire payroll.

Even the Red Sox were $20-30 million above the Cubs and Mets 2010 payroll. So, they're not exactly the same either. The Red Sox have been smart but they too can overcome bad contracts......and they can spend money on free agents AND pour money into their farm/scouting system.