PDA

View Full Version : Clemens Signs With Yanks


Lip Man 1
12-29-2002, 07:35 PM
The Sporting News radio network is reporting that Clemens and the Yanks have agreed on a one year deal. Terms were not announced but it's thought to be in the 6-8 million dollar range.

That pushes the Yanks payroll closer to an astounding 150 million dollars.

Just for the hell of it, I hope George goes out and gets one or two more good players just to rub it in the faces of idiots like Selig, Reinsdorf, Pohland and those inbreds who said the new CBA was going to solve the compiditive problem in baseball.

It'll be solved when the owners who say they can't compete get out.

Lip

gosox41
12-29-2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The Sporting News radio network is reporting that Clemens and the Yanks have agreed on a one year deal. Terms were not announced but it's thought to be in the 6-8 million dollar range.

That pushes the Yanks payroll closer to an astounding 150 million dollars.

Just for the hell of it, I hope George goes out and gets one or two more good players just to rub it in the faces of idiots like Selig, Reinsdorf, Pohland and those inbreds who said the new CBA was going to solve the compiditive problem in baseball.

It'll be solved when the owners who say they can't compete get out.

Lip

So much for the alleged "mystery" team offering $12 mill.

Bob

WhiteSoxWinner
12-30-2002, 01:21 AM
It is not a matter or owners who can't compete, it is a matter of the Yankees having WAY more money than everyone else. Outside of Cliff Floyd, who else have the Yankees been "interested" in that they haven't gotten in the last few years? Sure there might be one or two MINOR players, but when King George wants Giambi, Contreras, Godzilla, Weaver, Mussina Hernandez or anybody else, he signs them with money from his broadcast revenue. No other team in MLB will ever be able to meet the Yankees in broadcast revenue due to their market size (See my post under this thread where I proved this point http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16248)

The CBA signed this year is a sham. There needed to be a salary floor and ceiling for two very important and equally necessary reasons: a) to make teams that are cheaping out have a competitive salary, and b) prevent teams from going out and blowing away the competition in player acquisitions.

Kilroy
12-30-2002, 08:43 AM
With Big George making that TV deal to broadcast Yanks games in Japan since they signed Matsui, the payroll tax or luxury tax won't mean a damn thing to them.

MarkEdward
12-30-2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner

The CBA signed this year is a sham. There needed to be a salary floor and ceiling for two very important and equally necessary reasons: a) to make teams that are cheaping out have a competitive salary, and b) prevent teams from going out and blowing away the competition in player acquisitions.

But if a team can win a World Series with a modest payroll (Angels), why must there be changes?

duke of dorwood
12-30-2002, 12:29 PM
This is a mock. Like a little kid that tricks other kids out of their toys til he gets them all. Meanwhile, the big sleep continues on 35th street.

Paulwny
12-30-2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
But if a team can win a World Series with a modest payroll (Angels), why must there be changes?


The teams in the AL East say high.
Teams in the AL East don't have an opportunity to win a WS. The best then can hope for is to be the wild card team.
The yankmees may not always win the WS but their always in the play-offs and have the opportunity.

guillen4life13
12-30-2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
But if a team can win a World Series with a modest payroll (Angels), why must there be changes?

Friends, I think we've found him! The mysterious and until now, not findable YANKEES FAN lurking on our beloved's conversation grounds. What consequences shall this fiend encounter?

lol. Sorry, I just had to say that.

Iwritecode
12-30-2002, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
The teams in the AL East say high.
Teams in the AL East don't have an opportunity to win a WS. The best then can hope for is to be the wild card team.
The yankmees may not always win the WS but their always in the play-offs and have the opportunity.

The NL East teams have the same complaint. The Braves are the Yankees of the NL with a little lower payroll...

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 01:02 PM
Jerry Rinsdorf is intimidated by the Yankees, Cubs and just about everyone else but I'll wager five bucks Mark Cuban wouldn't be.

My point is the same owners who throw up their hands every single season and scream "we can't compete..." are the SAME owners who do NOTHING to improve their clubs, have bad or little PR skills and find consistent excuses for their own incompetence.

Does anybody really think anything will change until these slugs are forced out of baseball?

Do the Yanks have advantages? No question about it. The biggest one though is half of MLB owned by owners who want things like revenue sharing, handed to them, and aren't willing to spend for either front office talent or players.

It's a lot easier to beat out 15 teams for a title then 30 and that's exactly the position the Yanks find themselves in.

I'd be more then willing to drop my position if just ONE TIME, owners like Reinsdorf, Mooras, Pohland, Loria, Selig etc actually TRIED to win something. Just one time TRIPLE their payrolls and see what happens. If they still stink they can always unload the players they signed (a la Florida in 98).

What pisses me off is these sheep bleat the same thing every year while convieniently doing NOTHING.

Lip

HawkDJ
12-30-2002, 01:06 PM
I don't think this was posted yet but Lip said it was estimated the contract would be $6-8 million. Well turns out its $10.1 million.

Paulwny
12-30-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
I don't think this was posted yet but Lip said it was estimated the contract would be $6-8 million. Well turns out its $10.1 million.

The yankmees owe him $10mil for this year so, Clemens is making >$20 mil.

guillen4life13
12-30-2002, 01:13 PM
I bet Roger Clemens won't do so well this upcoming season. He's a power pitcher who had a down year last year, and IMO 2001 was a fluke (he had the best run support in the majors, and his ERA, while under 4, wasn't really stellar).

WhiteSoxWinner
12-30-2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
But if a team can win a World Series with a modest payroll (Angels), why must there be changes?

OK, so let's take a look at the World Series Champions for the last ten years and payroll. I have listed the year, the winner, the runner up and where they rated in payroll.

2002 Angels 15th Overall Giants 10th Overall
2001 Diamondbacks 8th Overall Yankees 1st Overall
2000 Yankees 1st Overall NY Mets 6th Overall
1999 Yankees 1st Overall Braves 3rd Overall
1998 Yankees 2nd Overall Padres 9th Overall
1997 Marlins 4th Overall Indians 3rd Overall
1996 Yankees 1st Overall Braves 3rd Overall
1995 Braves 4th Overall Indians 7th Overall
1993 Blue Jays 1st Overall Phillies 18th Overall
1992 Blue Jays 1st Overall Braves 7th Overall

Wow! The trend I see here is that if you have a top ten payroll number, you have a REAL good shot making the World Series, and if you're in the top 5, you have a great shot at winning. The only payrolls outside the top 10 are the '93 Phillies and the '02 Angels. Two out of 20 teams had payrolls outside the top 10 and made the WS.

Making reference to the Angels winning as a sign that everything is OK and money doesn't buy championships just does not agree with the hard data. One time in ten years does not provide a lot of hope to teams outside the top ten in payroll that they have a chance come spring training.

(2002 - 2000 info from http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2000

1999 - info from
http://www16.brinkster.com/bbstats/statistics/teampayrolls.html)

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 01:30 PM
ESPN.com says that Clemens is deferring money this year. That he's going to make about eight million.

Lip

jortafan
12-30-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I bet Roger Clemens won't do so well this upcoming season. He's a power pitcher who had a down year last year, and IMO 2001 was a fluke (he had the best run support in the majors, and his ERA, while under 4, wasn't really stellar).

From the Yankees' standpoint, it doesn't matter. All that does is that he wins at least seven games this season, with win number seven preferably coming on a national Game of the Week telecast from Yankee Stadium. Steinbrenner must value having a 300-game winner in pinstripes.

All I can say is that it must be nice to root for a ballclub that can afford to pay for such nebulous concepts as a luxury. Our Sox management appears more than willing to let Frank hit any career milestones he achieves around 2005 or 2006 in someone else's uniform.

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny

Teams in the AL East don't have an opportunity to win a WS. The best then can hope for is to be the wild card team.


And Wild Card teams don't have an opportunity to win the World Series because...?

kermittheefrog
12-31-2002, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
And Wild Card teams don't have an opportunity to win the World Series because...?

The only way we'll ever see a wild card win the series is if they have some sort of secret weapon. Some sort of thing, maybe an animal, that makes them mystically rise above the competition when you'd least expect it. That'll never happen

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner


Wow! The trend I see here is that if you have a top ten payroll number, you have a REAL good shot making the World Series, and if you're in the top 5, you have a great shot at winning. The only payrolls outside the top 10 are the '93 Phillies and the '02 Angels. Two out of 20 teams had payrolls outside the top 10 and made the WS.

I never said spending does not help a team win. It helps some (Yankees, Braves) and hurts others (Orioles, Dodgers, Mets). If there's something drastically wrong with the system (like the person I was responding to stated), no mid- or low-level payroll team should ever be competing.

How's this for a theory: winning causes high payrolls (kudos to Voros McCracken).

Making reference to the Angels winning as a sign that everything is OK and money doesn't buy championships just does not agree with the hard data. One time in ten years does not provide a lot of hope to teams outside the top ten in payroll that they have a chance come spring training.

Like those poor Angels, Twins, and Athletics.

Nellie_Fox
12-31-2002, 02:17 AM
Compiditive?

WhiteSoxWinner
12-31-2002, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Like those poor Angels, Twins, and Athletics.

Hmmmm, I didn't see the Twins or the Athletics in my list. Let me check again...

Nope, not among the WS winners or runners up in the last ten championships. Sure, the Angels won one. One entry from the sub-ten payroll league as a world champion in TEN YEARS!!! The point of the season is to win a championship, not make the post season. I still stand by my facts. I challenge you to show me with supportable data how teams with lower payroll are able to consistently win the big prize in this era of payroll discrepancy.

Apparently to you, just making the post season justifies greatness or success. Why don't people talk about a Braves dynasty as much as the Yankees dynasty? I mean heck, the Braves took the division 11 times in a row. Because they only won ONE WS. Same goes for the Indians. They made the playoff six times in seven years, but no one talks about them as a dynasty because they never won a WS. Let's talk outside of baseball. The Buffalo Bills went to 4 straight Superbowls, but no one talks about the great Bills dynasty or great Bills teams because they never won the big prize. It isn't about who made the post season, it is about winning the championship. Making the post season is only the first step.

Originally posted by MarkEdward
How's this for a theory: winning causes high payrolls

If you could support this with data showing that teams won before their payroll increased, I'd believe you. Seriously, do you or Voros have any stats to back this up? Besides, this doesn't make any sense based on this quote from your own post:

Originally posted by MarkEdward
I never said spending does not help a team win.

My point is you need a high payroll to win the WS. I point to exhibit A, the 1997 Florida Marlins to prove my point. They won because they spent a ton of money, bringing them into the top 5 payroll range that brings with it a VERY good chance to take it all. They also never finished higher than third in their division and had sub .500 records, until they spent the money, also debunking the theory of winning causes high payrolls.

I am not saying you can't spend money foolishly (i.e. the Orioles, Mets and Cubs), but if you want to take home the WS, you have to spend a lot of money to do so in this era, which the Yankees do quite frequently.

Originally posted by MarkEdward
If there's something drastically wrong with the system (like the person I was responding to stated), no mid- or low-level payroll team should ever be competing.


Guess what? They're not. Not for the World Series. To quote my own post from earlier, "The only payrolls outside the top 10 are the '93 Phillies and the '02 Angels. Two out of 20 teams had payrolls outside the top 10 and made the WS."

TornLabrum
12-31-2002, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
The only way we'll ever see a wild card win the series is if they have some sort of secret weapon. Some sort of thing, maybe an animal, that makes them mystically rise above the competition when you'd least expect it. That'll never happen

Good one, Kermit! But shouldn't you have used teal for that?

kermittheefrog
12-31-2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Good one, Kermit! But shouldn't you have used teal for that?

I'm not a big fan of teal, it takes some of the fun out of sarcasm for me. Plus I'm too lazy to make the extra left clicks that are necessary.

As for the argument about payroll:

The Yankees are a mighty financial exception. No matter what you do, barring nationalized revenue sharing (which is a bad idea) the Yankees have more spending power than anyone else. Even if you put on a salary cap they can spend 4x the money anyone else is spending on scouting and it will pay off big. Frankly I think everyone needs to quit whining about the Yankees because as much as George wants them to, they won't always win. The Yankees had one of the best teams of all time in the last dynasty and that won't always happen. It takes a lot of luck in addition to skill to build a team like the late 90's Yankees. Quit bitching about them winning, it was a great team and no one is going to consistently field a team that amazing no matter how much money they have. It's safe to say the Yankees will almost always be competitive but that doesn't mean they'll win the world series every year.

Now as far as the rest of the field is concerned. Financial differences between the remaining teams aren't that large. If you put the right front office in there, you win games, fans come and you can spend money based on new rvenue from new fan interest. The Braves and Indians were pathetic franchises in the late 80s, in the last several years they were model "large market" franchises. And if you listen to this bull**** idea that revenue sharing helps balance competition then it should be even easier for bottom rung teams to rebuild like the Braves and tribe did. There is no monetary gap that smart decisions can't make up for.

Paulwny
12-31-2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
And Wild Card teams don't have an opportunity to win the World Series because...?

Because, due to the unbalanced sched. the AL East teams play more games against the yankmees then the other div; thereby lessening their chances of being a wild card team.

TornLabrum
12-31-2002, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Because, due to the unbalanced sched. the AL East teams play more games against the yankmees then the other div; thereby lessening their chances of being a wild card team.

Is it me, or is this discussion becoming more surrealistic by the hour?

kermittheefrog
12-31-2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Because, due to the unbalanced sched. the AL East teams play more games against the yankmees then the other div; thereby lessening their chances of being a wild card team.

And you know how the Yankees had the best record in the regular season the last couple years.

Give me a break, it's much tougher playing in the AL West. The AL West is unquestionably the toughest division in baseball and the Angels STILL came in first for the wild card. Your argument is pretty flaky at this point.

Paulwny
12-31-2002, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
And you know how the Yankees had the best record in the regular season the last couple years.

Give me a break, it's much tougher playing in the AL West. The AL West is unquestionably the toughest division in baseball and the Angels STILL came in first for the wild card. Your argument is pretty flaky at this point.

You're right, end of the year insanity.

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
Hmmmm, I didn't see the Twins or the Athletics in my list. Let me check again...

Nope, not among the WS winners or runners up in the last ten championships. Sure, the Angels won one. One entry from the sub-ten payroll league as a world champion in TEN YEARS!!! The point of the season is to win a championship, not make the post season. I still stand by my facts. I challenge you to show me with supportable data how teams with lower payroll are able to consistently win the big prize in this era of payroll discrepancy.

First, I don't believe World Series championships are a good measurement of competitive balance. By your standards, the only competitive teams in MLB last year were the Angels and Giants.

Second, if we go back a bit further, the 1991 Twins had the 16th largest payroll in baseball. The 1991 Braves had the 20th largest payroll. The 1990 Reds had the 20th largest payroll, who beat Oakland in the World Series (10th largest payroll).

Once again, I don't use World Series wins as a measure of competitive balance.


Apparently to you, just making the post season justifies greatness or success.

Certainly. I'd take great pride in being better than 22 other teams.

Why don't people talk about a Braves dynasty as much as the Yankees dynasty? I mean heck, the Braves took the division 11 times in a row. Because they only won ONE WS. Same goes for the Indians. They made the playoff six times in seven years, but no one talks about them as a dynasty because they never won a WS.

1. Many (including me) find the Braves' dynasty a bigger accomplishment than the Yankees' dynasty. Jay Mariotti-types of the world find the Yankee dynasty more dominant.

2. Nobody appreciates the Indians' run because they've played in a crappy division since 1994.

On winning causes high payrolls:
If you could support this with data showing that teams won before their payroll increased, I'd believe you.

Teams making a run at the playoffs make trades at the deadline. The players they acquire usually make more than the prospects the competing team trades. So, by winning, their payroll rises.

Aside from that, championship teams consist of good players. Good players make more money than bad players. So, yes, high-payroll teams will usually play better than low-payroll team (although that's not always the case). I won't argue that point. I'm saying that it's not impossible for a low-payroll team to win.


Guess what? They're not. Not for the World Series. To quote my own post from earlier, "The only payrolls outside the top 10 are the '93 Phillies and the '02 Angels. Two out of 20 teams had payrolls outside the top 10 and made the WS."

Then I guess the only competitive teams in 2002 were the Angels and Giants.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-31-2002, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Certainly. I'd take great pride in being better than 22 other teams.

I be darned. We finally found someone who is buying into KW's theory of building a "competitive" team, but not a WS winner. I guess to you, getting to the post season once in a while or few times in a row is satisfying. For the vast majority of us here, I think we'd rather have a WS.

Originally posted by MarkEdward
1. Many (including me) find the Braves' dynasty a bigger accomplishment than the Yankees' dynasty. Jay Mariotti-types of the world find the Yankee dynasty more dominant.

Hmmm, so it takes more skill to win the division than the World Series? Each time you win a WS, you have to be one of the top 4 teams in your league, and then beat three straight quality opponents. Sure you have to play some tough teams to win the division, but you get your share of cream puffs, too.

By the way, this would make a good poll. Would Sox fans rather be like the Yankees or the Braves? Four WS titles in the span of 5 years or one title and 11 division titles?

Originally posted by MarkEdward
2. Nobody appreciates the Indians' run because they've played in a crappy division since 1994.

We play in the same division, so even if we won 11 in a row, nobody would appreciate us either, so I guess we have to win the WS to get respect, right?

WhiteSoxWinner
12-31-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Second, if we go back a bit further, the 1991 Twins had the 16th largest payroll in baseball. The 1991 Braves had the 20th largest payroll. The 1990 Reds had the 20th largest payroll, who beat Oakland in the World Series (10th largest payroll).

I purposely stopped at 1992 because that is when payrolls started to spiral upward out of control. Remember, we started this thread saying that the Yankees are outspending everyone and it takes a lot of spending to win. This is a more recent phenomena (the last ten years) thus why I said we needed a Salary Cap/Floor in the latest CBA. Look at the stats from 1986 to current (the only years I have data at this time):

Year High Sal Low Sa Dif % Greater
2002 $125,928 $34,380 $91,548 266.3%
2001 $112,287 $24,130 $88,157 365.3%
2000 $92,938 $15,654 $77,284 493.7%
1999 $91,990 $14,650 $77,340 527.9%
1998 $71,860 $8,317 $63,543 764.0%
1997 $65,500 $11,599 $53,901 464.7%
1996 $61,512 $11,701 $49,811 425.7%
1995 $58,165 $13,097 $45,068 344.1%
1994 $44,512 $13,774 $30,738 223.2%
1993 $51,935 $12,842 $39,093 304.4%
1992 $49,427 $9,323 $40,104 430.1%
1991 $36,333 $11,156 $25,177 225.7%
1990 $23,092 $7,982 $15,110 189.3%
1989 $21,464 $7,627 $13,837 181.4%
1988 $20,837 $4,896 $15,941 325.6%
1987 $16,581 $4,519 $12,062 266.9%
1986 $17,618 $6,777 $10,841 160.0%

Between 1986 and 1991, only once was the top salary more than 3 times greater than the lowest. Since 1992, it has been less than 3 times greater only twice. There was, in effect, a ceiling prior to 1992, but since 1992, payrolls have just gotten out of control. The top teams are spending much more than the bottom.

Another note, the lowest salary in 2002 in MLB was $20 million higher than two years earlier. It looks like lower teams are spending more, but they can't keep up with the increase the top teams are able to implement.

MarkEdward
01-01-2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner


I be darned. We finally found someone who is buying into KW's theory of building a "competitive" team, but not a WS winner. I guess to you, getting to the post season once in a while or few times in a row is satisfying. For the vast majority of us here, I think we'd rather have a WS.

Well, I'd be pretty darn happy making the playoffs 11 straight times (a little more than "once in a while"). And the Braves did win a title within their 11 playoff runs, so it hasn't gone totally fruitless.

Hmmm, so it takes more skill to win the division than the World Series?

I believe it's more difficult to win 11 straight division titles than to win six division titles and two wild cards, if that's what you mean.

Again, I think the playoffs are based on chance.

Each time you win a WS, you have to be one of the top 4 teams in your league, and then beat three straight quality opponents. Sure you have to play some tough teams to win the division, but you get your share of cream puffs, too.

Also, you only need to beat those quality opponents three or four times to advance in the playoffs.





We play in the same division, so even if we won 11 in a row, nobody would appreciate us either, so I guess we have to win the WS to get respect, right?

The Indians' run is nowhere close to the Braves' dynasty. We'd get a lot of respect if we won 11 straight division titles.



Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner

Another note, the lowest salary in 2002 in MLB was $20 million higher than two years earlier. It looks like lower teams are spending more, but they can't keep up with the increase the top teams are able to implement.

Like those Angels, Athletics, and Twins. They just can't keep up!

Money helps, but smart teams can still win.

WhiteSoxWinner
01-01-2003, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
1. Many (including me) find the Braves' dynasty a bigger accomplishment than the Yankees' dynasty. Jay Mariotti-types of the world find the Yankee dynasty more dominant.

Well, I guess the board must be populated with Jay Mariotti's because the poll I put up has resulted (thus far) with 16 votes for 4 WS titles and ZERO for 11 division titles with one WS. Say whatever you want about how great it is to win a division, but the goal at the end of the day is to win championships.

Might want to be careful who you refer to as a Jay Mariotti type here on the board. He is not real popular.

kermittheefrog
01-02-2003, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
Well, I guess the board must be populated with Jay Mariotti's because the poll I put up has resulted (thus far) with 16 votes for 4 WS titles and ZERO for 11 division titles with one WS. Say whatever you want about how great it is to win a division, but the goal at the end of the day is to win championships.

Might want to be careful who you refer to as a Jay Mariotti type here on the board. He is not real popular.

It's a stupid poll. Any fool would take the four World Series. There is no way of building a team that you know will win the series. Really no way of building a team that you know will win your own division either. I'm not even sure what you too are arguing about here. It seems like WhiteSoxWinner is saying he wants Kenny to somehow do more than field a competitive team. I don't understand what he's asking for outside of some blind moronic WS gaurentee.

Dadawg_77
01-02-2003, 10:08 AM
WhiteSoxWinner,

If you arguing what it takes to be competitive, then you need to include every team that makes the playoffs. If you are arguing what is takes to win a World Series, then you are right it most likely will be more expensive then just making the playoffs. But there is a under ridding reason why that is, which I think some people are missing. Look at the A's, they will be in the Hunt every year because of their pitching. None of those three has been a UFA, which means they are young. The Yankees pitching staff is mostly guys acquired thought FA singings and trades for veterans. Since they are veteran with more then 6 years in the majors, they cost more. So while the A's and Yankees have about equally good staffs, the Yankees have veterans, who have a higher probability of preforming under pressure then the A's young guns. Now, if the A's keep their staff and SS and 3B intact after they reach the six years in the majors, they will win a World Series or two. If the A's dismantled the current staff but keep picking up quality young arms they will be in the race, but will have a harder time winning the whole damn show.

Honestly, if the A's keep themselves together (which is up in the air) I would rather be their fan, then a yankee's fan. Reason being, that moment when the A's finally get over the hump will be better then five Yankee World Series. Does anyone rember what it felt like to watch the Pistons walk off the court in 91? That is still one of the coolest sports moments for me, because the team I rooted for finally overcame the arch rival evil bad boys. Then again is has been 80+ years for the Sox so anything damn title win will do.

WhiteSoxWinner
01-02-2003, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
It's a stupid poll. Any fool would take the four World Series. There is no way of building a team that you know will win the series. Really no way of building a team that you know will win your own division either. I'm not even sure what you too are arguing about here. It seems like WhiteSoxWinner is saying he wants Kenny to somehow do more than field a competitive team. I don't understand what he's asking for outside of some blind moronic WS gaurentee.

It helps when you read the whole thread rather than the last two or three posts. My point is that the Yankees outspend everyone by a large amount and thus minimize (but do not crush entirely) the legitimate chances of other teams to win a WS, and thus we need a salary cap/floor in order to restore the chances of getting to the ultimate goal more reasonable. I showed that the last ten WS were played between teams with a top ten payroll with the exception of the Angels and Phillies.

I then showed that since 1992, payrolls have sky rocketed to the point causing a greater spread between the top and bottom, again minimizing the chances that teams like KC, MIN, DET, and OAK can win the WS.

I was merely replying to MarkEdward's insinuation that making the playoffs is just as good winning a WS...

Originally posted by MarkEdward
Certainly. I'd take great pride in being better than 22 other teams.

I think most people on this board want a WS, as indicated by the poll. Just making the playoffs is a good start, but it isn't the goal. The more WS you win, the more times you reach the goal. My poll has shown that no matter how many times you make the playoffs, even something difficult to do such as winning the division 11 times in a row, people want WS titles, not division titles.

In summation, I was arguing that we needed a salary cap/floor. I was told baseball is just fine so long as teams can make the playoffs, regardless if they have a legitimate shot at the WS. I have shown that money goes a long way toward enhancing the chances of winning a WS title. The poll was a tangent that the conversation went toward.

PS - I agree that there is no way to KNOW that you are building a team that can win the WS, but when you can spend enough EVERY YEAR to have Giambi, Clemens, Mussina, and Jeter et al, and be able to go after the free agent de jour, your chances improve immensely. That is again why the CBA as negotiated sucks and baseball needs a salary cap/floor in order to level the payroll paying field.

WhiteSoxWinner
01-02-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
WhiteSoxWinner,

If you arguing what it takes to be competitive, then you need to include every team that makes the playoffs. If you are arguing what is takes to win a World Series, then you are right it most likely will be more expensive then just making the playoffs. But there is a under ridding reason why that is, which I think some people are missing. Look at the A's, they will be in the Hunt every year because of their pitching. None of those three has been a UFA, which means they are young. The Yankees pitching staff is mostly guys acquired thought FA singings and trades for veterans. Since they are veteran with more then 6 years in the majors, they cost more. So while the A's and Yankees have about equally good staffs, the Yankees have veterans, who have a higher probability of preforming under pressure then the A's young guns. Now, if the A's keep their staff and SS and 3B intact after they reach the six years in the majors, they will win a World Series or two. If the A's dismantled the current staff but keep picking up quality young arms they will be in the race, but will have a harder time winning the whole damn show.

Honestly, if the A's keep themselves together (which is up in the air) I would rather be their fan, then a yankee's fan. Reason being, that moment when the A's finally get over the hump will be better then five Yankee World Series. Does anyone rember what it felt like to watch the Pistons walk off the court in 91? That is still one of the coolest sports moments for me, because the team I rooted for finally overcame the arch rival evil bad boys. Then again is has been 80+ years for the Sox so anything damn title win will do.

That's my point, Dawg. When the A's pitchers do become free agents, if the A's don't trade them first because they can't afford to resign them, then the Yankees will target them, and use their vast financial resources to sign them, just like Giambi, Mussina...

If there was a salary cap/floor, the Yankees would not be able to go out and get every player they target, because eventually, they will max out. In this age of overspending, it is doubtful that the A's (or any other low and mid payroll teams) will be able to keep their players and build toward a WS.