New York Yankees Win World Series
by Randy Booth on Nov 4, 2009 11:51 PM EST
in News
83 comments
The New York Yankees are the 2009 World Series champions.
The Philadelphia Phillies were a great team this season, but the Yankees were the best -- all season long. So it wasn't a huge stretch of the imagination to see this happen tonight.
Congrats, Yankees, but the Red Sox will be gunning for you in 2010.
0 recs |
83 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
I must admit
Even seeing the Yankees win a World Series is a great moment. A talented team and they just killed the competition all year long.
Of course, seeing ANY team win the World Series is a nice sight. Even if they are the MFYs…
by Randy Booth on Nov 4, 2009 11:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Helped by an extreme amount of luck
And helped by that ridiculous wind tunnel to right at their new “stadium.”
by lone1c on Nov 5, 2009 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it made me want to vomit.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 7:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I must admit as well...
It only took 1/3 of a billion dollars…
I’m not impressed at all with the Yankees victory. If I had a trillion dollars and a 500 quadbillion dollar tv deal I could win the world series over the Phils. I mean… seriously? 300 plus million and they can’t sweep a World Series?
Sox did that twice this decade.
by adubson on Nov 5, 2009 7:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know your team has the second highest payroll right?
by GMan83201 on Nov 5, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I didn't a bad job of fact checking there
I admit my mistake.
by GMan83201 on Nov 5, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good man.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 6, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Phils just didn't have the arms
Trading for Lee was a great move, but Hamels was inconsistent this year and they pitched Joe Blanton in the WS. It just wasn’t to be for them.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 5, 2009 12:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Where was Happ?
He was great all year, but Manuel couldn’t give him more than two innings in the World Series? I just don’t understand that decision.
by RSNexile on Nov 5, 2009 12:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He's not a VETERAN.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 6, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It cost what.. 423 million + 1-2 billion to buy this championship?
Did it come with gift wrapping atleast? Or perhaps a “Good Job!” card?
I didn't like the old one very much. I didn't see the ball there very well. - Julio Lugo on the old Yankees Stadium.
by Charged on Nov 5, 2009 12:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
By the end of 2014
When Teixeira’s contract expires, the MFYs will have spent nearly $500 million for Rodriguez, Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett alone. To put it in perspective, the average payroll for the next five years for an average MLB team will probably be around $500M as well.
The Yankees’ “Aura and Mystique” are actually nothing more than the on-field manifestation of their inherent ability and willingness to spend freely.
by lone1c on Nov 5, 2009 12:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fuck 'em
Just goes to show you you can buy happiness.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 12:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
And just to pre-empt it:
Baw
Yes I’m mad
Etc.
We need a salary cap ASAP.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I would have been okay if the Yankees won it another way, but I cannot cheer for anyone who basically just buys themselves a championship.
Salary Cap needs to be put in place sometime within the next 5 years.
150 million? or is that too high?
I didn't like the old one very much. I didn't see the ball there very well. - Julio Lugo on the old Yankees Stadium.
by Charged on Nov 5, 2009 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
$150M would basically only effect the Yankees. It would not address the disparities between the bottom 20 payrolls and the top 10.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The cap should be $5million more than whatever the highest payroll the Red Sox could achieve for a single season
That sounds fair.
Oh, and occasionally adjusted for inflation as well.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 5, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Salary caps only help owners
They do nothing to aid competitive balance. There are other things MLB could do. Here are a few examples:
(1) There needs to be a minimum payroll for teams to qualify for luxury tax money. This won’t force owners to spend. But it will keep certain owners from pocketing the luxury tax money rather than spending it on their teams.
(2) Teams that sign Type-A FA must lose a #1 pick. That means if a team loads up like they MFY did this year, they’d lose three #1s. Those picks would be from the next couple of years. This would, at least, give the teams losing players adequate compensation.
(3) Teams without a #1 pick cannot sign a Type-A FA. This would keep teams from loading up, like the MFY did. If a team signed multiple Type-As (and didn’t lose any), they’d lose #1 picks from the next few years. This would mean they couldn’t sign Type-As for a couple of years. For example, the MFY wouldn’t be allowed to sign a Type-A this year or next year, causing them to potentially lose out on Holliday, Bay, Mauer, Pujols, etc. Teams would have to be strategic in how they signed FA.
(4) Teams with high payrolls shouldn’t have protected picks.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 7:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you force the Yankees to only pay $100 million a year instead of $200 mil I think some competitive balance has been restored, how could it not?. The Steinbrenners are already rich as hell, what do I care if they make MORE money?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 8:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely disagree
There is competitive balance in baseball, as much as in any other sport. I hate the MFY as much as anyone. But a salary cap isn’t the answer.
The MFY had to spend tons of money (well over a billion dollars) just to win once. In the 1990s, when the MFY were most successful, they didn’t greatly outspend every other team.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see the Yankees dropping around half a billion on free agents last offseason and now I see them hoisting a trophy. They bought it this year plain and simple in my eyes. Would they have gotten there without CC, Burnett or Tex? Probably not. If a team can buy a championship like they did this year (and nearly did earlier this decade) it seems like there might be an unfair advantage.
I’m looking back over the last 10 years when the difference in team payroll really began to expand going by opening day payrolls.
2009 – MFY over the Phillies – $89 mil difference.
2008 – Phillies over Rays – $55 mil difference.
2007 – SOX over Rockies – $89 mil difference.
2006 – Cards over Tigers – $6 mil difference.
2005 – White Sox over Astros – $1.5 mil difference.
2004 – SOX over Cards – $50 mil difference
2003 – Marlins over MFY – $103 mil difference
2002 – Angels over Giants – $17 mil difference
2001 – Diamonbacks over MFY – $28 mil difference
2000 – MFY over Mets – $13 mil difference
Bold indicated lower payroll team winning. Italics indicates team being in the top 3 of their league, whole thing italics means both teams were top 3 in their league.
If you go top 5, more of these teams are emphasized. But as it stands, nearly half of these teams are in the top 3 of their league. It would appear that payroll matters a little bit more in the AL than the NL (with the exception of the Rays last year who are in the process of dismantling that team now anyway). In more recent years when payroll really began to separate the higher paid team has tended to win. I don’t know exactly what you can pull from these numbers but I do get a couple things, money did not buy the Yankees happiness earlier this decade, it almost did though. A smaller market team CAN compete but only at a much lower rate than higher paying teams, Marlins, Rockies and Rays stand out here. I also think that as these numbers stand, it’s a crapshoot once you get to the playoffs.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you just gonna ignore the fact
that the difference in salary between the Yanks and Phillies this year is identical to the difference in salary between the Sox and Rockies in 2007?
by GMan83201 on Nov 5, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The difference is that the Sox are at least CLOSE to the other high payroll teams and the Rockies were one of those suddenly competitive teams like the Marlins when they beat the Yanks in 03 and are generally unusual. If we played the Phillies in the WS this year the difference would be $8 million, much closer.
It also holds to my point that there should be a salary cap. We pay too much, the Yankees pay too much, even the Astros pay too much.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not necessarily opposed to a salary cap
The problem is that how would you implement it? Just have all the high payroll teams cut guys? It’s a tricky situation.
Also, if there is a salary cap, I doubt we see deals like the ones ARod, C.C., etc. got.
by GMan83201 on Nov 5, 2009 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's the tough part
I don’t know how the other leagues do it but I would bet that all current contracts are dissolved but the player’s rights are retained by their team, they then put together the best team that they can, players that they can’t keep are then granted free agency. There would be no more $20 a year deals I think.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm trying to think back to the implementation of the NHL cap 3 or 4 years ago
It seems to me that Daniel Alfredsson signed a contract with the Sens shortly before the lockout, and it was honoured at that value. Hmmm. Perhaps some research is in order…
Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.
by Bloggy on Nov 5, 2009 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh???
“There is competitive balance in baseball, as much as in any other sport”.
Are you on drugs?
OK, bad question.
The NFL has revenue sharing and a salary cap. MLB has neither.
There is far more competitive balance in the NFL than in MLB. In MLB, it is unthinkable that cities like Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Indianapolis could compete with the teams from NY and Chicago.
No matter how you define “competitive balance”, it’s patently obvious that there is far less of it in MLB than in any other major professional sport in the US. The only other leagues I can think of that are as unbalanced are the European soccer leagues.
by RickD on Nov 7, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Only help Owners?
I’m pretty sure a salary cap would help the fans.
by DrewL on Nov 5, 2009 11:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How?
Would it lower ticket prices or concessions? Would MLB merchandise be cheaper? Do the NFL, NBA, or NHL have uniform prices in all of their stadiums and arenas?
If MLB was dumb enough to have a salary cap, Sox fans, MFY fan, Mets fans, Phillies fans, Angels fans and other fans of “big market” teams would still pay high prices for tickets and stadium concessions. Would a cap make their team better? How would a cap help them?
Check out attendance figures prior to the economic downturn. Baseball is more popular than it has ever been.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course a cap doesn't HELP these teams
The idea is that it would help the Pirates, the Orioles, the Natinals or any other team that annually sits at the bottom of the rankings. I’m a fan of baseball I would love to see more teams being able to compete year in and year out.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
I admit, this would be BAD for the Red Sox, but just as bad for every other big market team. But I’m all about equality. I would rather field a team on an even playing field and win than pay more than 27 other teams and win knowing only a couple others had the monetary ability to beat us.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 12:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It would give fans of the bottom 2/3 the league the feeling that they are actually playing the same game as the Yankees and Red Sox. Maybe Cleveland would not have to watch its players lead other teams to the World Series.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
there is randomness, but salary matters
My proposal: calculate player salaries / baseball revenues. Let’s say that is 70%. Let MLB and MLBPA fight over that %, but that is what will define, in aggregate what is going to be spent on salaries. Then split that over the 30 teams evenly. The bottom teams will need cash from the top teams to pay, so revenue sharing is the key. The owners may need to do something between themselves for changes in franchise values (e.g. Milwaukee suddenly is more valuable and Chicago is less) but that is a rich dude problem that can be solved.
Of the top 10 salaries, how many made the playoffs:
2009: 5; STL was 12, with Colorado, Minnesota as the “small” teams
2008: 6; Milwaukee and Tampa were the exceptions
2007: 5; Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona were the small teams
2006: 4; SD, Oakland, STL (11th), Minnesota
So, basically you have 50% chance of making the playoffs if you are in the top 10, but a 15% chance if you are out of the top 10. So you are 3.3x more likely if you are top 10 spender. Eliminating that difference would make the game a lot more interesting to the rest of the country. Boston is firmly in that top 10, so you are doing great and spending the money smartly. But it sucks to be a small market team.
by jayman66 on Nov 5, 2009 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This
Sums up any point I have tried to make about payroll and the competitive balance. Thank you.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think your % idea for player salaries is close to what the NFL and NBA do. But why would the player’s union ever agree to this type of change?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 6, 2009 3:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're missing the point
It’s about teams that can’t competitively compete in the free agent market.
THEIR fans deserve the opportunity to field a good team as well and don’t currently have the financial capacity to do so.
Who cares about baseball fans paying high prices for tickets? Tickets are generally cheap when bought directly from the team. Your “big market” team argument only holds water because of scalpers…
Successful teams will have more profitable scalpers than teams that are not as successful. Thanks for that enlightenment.
by DrewL on Nov 18, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of ways to get around Salary Caps
Deferred Payments, signing bonues, incentive clauses, etc. etc. Hell, make the player an minority partner of the club, and give them 10% gross of gate receipts or something.
The smallest media market for a MLB team is Cincinnati, while New York is of course the largest. While the Reds may not be raking in the money, they don’t have the same money problems as the Rays and the Rangers for example, because they have an owner has a better business sense, (Robert Castellini)
If I had to run a MLB club, the two clubs I would emulate are the A’s and especially the Twinkies. The Twinkies kind of act like a uber AAA club.
The two clubs I learned from their folly are the Marlins and the Pirates. Other Clubs, I would consider for bad management, the Diamond Backs or their over leverage in the early 21st Century. I would also put the Nats up there.
No matter if the club is run well or badly, MLB is a very labor intensive business, where payoff from player development is slim, or a hit and miss affair. It sort of reminds me of the recording industry, which has an awful profit margin for the amount of investment for musical acts.
by superferret on Nov 5, 2009 8:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kind of
ironic to hear Red Sox fans complain about pay roll, Kansas City is laughing at you.
by bleachercreatures on Nov 5, 2009 2:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Of course you're not complaining about payroll
You just won bought a world championship.
It’s something that needs to be done, and I am willing to take our payroll to a 100m limit if that means that we can all play on a level playing field.
I didn't like the old one very much. I didn't see the ball there very well. - Julio Lugo on the old Yankees Stadium.
by Charged on Nov 5, 2009 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No, they're agreeing with us.
A significant difference.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 3:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
never understand this point
Apparently only fans of the small-market teams are supposed to notice a flaw in the system?
Can you understand the difference between wanting to see a level playing field and wanting a team to do as well as possible, given the current system?
Do you understand that the Yankees’ 2009 payroll was 30% higher than the next highest team (the Mets), and 67% higher than the payroll of the Red Sox?
by RickD on Nov 7, 2009 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll congratulate the Yankees for winning the 2009 World Series
For this week, but come next Wednesday, I’ll go back to wanting them destroyed and groveling for the 2010 season.
Ignore the $200 Trillion payroll, and Coors Field East hitting stats inflation. The Yankees won, because they gelled at the right time, right before the All Star break, and had too many weapons to used. Look how many late inning and walk off comebacks?!? They also had helped from Mets second baseman, etc.
The MFY are beatable. If any team in this era should know, there is no way to rest on one’s laurels.
If the Sox want to beat the MFY in 2010, they got to do something about the batting order, or pray the MFY don’t resign Matsui. The hitters that scare me the most are Matsui and Cano. Teixiera’s numbers are warped from Coors Park East, and having A-Rod batting behind him. Jeter is a headache because of his OBP.
One can look if the MFY keep much the same for 2010, they may have some of their players facing some time on the disable list
by superferret on Nov 5, 2009 4:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Curious minds want to know:
does it feel worse to win a WS (27 times in 100 years) when you buy the best talent in the game compared to winning the WS once or twice per 100 years doing it the old fashioned way???
by NG on Nov 5, 2009 7:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
to be totally honest
it doesn’t feel worse, just different.
i took much more pride in the Giants’ SB XLII win because a) it was unexpected and b) they were going to get full credit for it. as a Knicks’ fan, i’m worried that if LeBron James gets signed next summer and they throw more millions at another top-level free agent (Amare, Bosh, Nash, Gay…) then people will discredit their title as well.
from a Yanks’ fan standpoint, i think this win felt different than the others (outside of ‘96) because it finally puts the demons of ’04 to bed. sure, that year collapse will always be remembered, but it’s nice to move on from it.
good luck in the offseason. at least you have something to look forward to this winter (Celtics) instead of a 20-25 win team led by an Italian kid and Al Harrington.
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Nov 5, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the reply!
I guess I should rephrase my question just a bit.
How should Red Sox fans, both fair weather and die-hard alike, feel if the Sox were to buy 27 WS championships in the next 100 years instead of earning 2 per 100 years the old fashion way on the budget or semi-budget plan???
by NG on Nov 5, 2009 8:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
would the "semi-budget" plan
entail paying $51.1 million just to talk to Daisuke Matsuzaka? would that be the “old-fashioned” way? whatever helps you sleep at night i guess.
look, obviously the Yankees payroll is ridiculous and i’m not going to defend it. but if you’re asking a serious question and not just trying to give a sarcastic, back-handed compliment, i think that 2 championships in 90 years can be just as meaningful as 27. i’m sure Cubs fans would love to win just one title, regardless of whether they had to spend $200 million to do so or did it the “old-fashioned” way.
considering the Yankees didn’t even have the highest payroll in baseball during their late 90’s dynasty, i don’t know how you would say that they “bought” those titles.
winning is the goal each year. that’s why you’re a fan of the team. it never feels dirty to win, even after spending the GDP of most countries on three players over the winter.
by SBakerTheTouchdownMaker on Nov 5, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Yankees have had the highest payroll in baseball every season since 1994 except for 1998, when they spent $200K less than the top team. But I would agree, that they did not “buy” those championships in the same way as this one. The real divergence in payroll was around 2003 when they started pushing the $200M mark and the other large-market teams stayed around $120M.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They can say what they want
But the Celtics are the best franchise in the history of major USA professional sports! That aside, I think that the Yankees got exactly what they paid for, for the first time in a long time. When the Yankees win a World Series I think their should be an asterisk next to their name in the record book. Paying $50 million dollars more than the next closest team in my eyes is the same as a player pumping themselves full of HGH. How is that competitive or fair?
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on Nov 5, 2009 8:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty sure it's more like $70 million
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Nov 5, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh please, you outspent the Cardinals by 50 million
and the Rockies by 89. Are you going to put an asterisk on those seasons? Do you not have a bigger payroll than 25 other teams in MLB? Stop whining like you’re a small market team. You’re a giant too, just not as giant as the Yankees.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 5, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody is as giant as the Yankees.
But that’s beside the point. Why can large-market teams not also demand a salary cap? I want a fair league.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Steinbrenner was the only owner to vote for one
during the last CBA. Your anger should be directed towardsowners like the Pohlads who could buy and sell the Steinbrenners and John Henry, take their revenue sharing profits and don’t re-invest it back into the team. That’s the real travesty, that most owners are content with a losing club if they’re making a few million every year.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 5, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Steinbrenner is a good politician
Who knew that it wouldn’t pass and that he could make a little bit of a stir by voting for one.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is not to say I appreciate the owners
Just that I don’t think Stein is exactly championing the cause.
by USG on Nov 5, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Totally agree
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Henry has publicly discussed his favor for increased revenue sharing to even the playing field.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on Nov 5, 2009 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the Sox can't throw stones at the Yankees House
PEDs were endemic in MLB for some time, much like amphetamines was a big problem in the 60s and 70s. I don’t blame the MFYs, as much as MLB office, and the Players’ Union, who ignored the issue…
by superferret on Nov 5, 2009 8:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Selig did something before Fehr gave in to WADA standards... or something close to WADA standards
WADA= World Anti Doping Agency, Selig did WADA standards for minor league players, which didn’t need Players Union’s consent.
Selig is far from innocent in this imbroglio. Actually he may had encouraged it during the 1990s…
Oh, Bob DePuy? he was Bud Selig’s personal lawyer… Selig reign of error will not looked upon well in perspective.wwww
by superferret on Nov 5, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is like waking up with an ugly broad
you know it happened, but don’t want to have the reality looking at you the next morning. Take this shit down.
VARITEK MUST GO
Brandon Webb in 2010
by gizmosandy on Nov 5, 2009 9:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES, SANDY.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 6, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Money
Look i hate the Yankees as much as the next guy, but from a business standpoint, they are probably the best business in baseball. They take a lot of risks sure, and many times even though they spend the most money they dont win. But we cant argue with them winning, they have won many more championships than any other team. They use all of the money they possibly can to buy players. By getting these players they make more money from fans either A. just simply coming to more games or B. going out and buying merchandise from that player. I think the Sox need to start using more of the money we have to throw around and stop worrying about signing players for too much.
by cnubsbl16 on Nov 5, 2009 10:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think the Sox' model is just fine
Let’s look at the MFY going forward: They have an aging team. Their four best players in the WS were 35+ years old: Jeter, Damon, Matsui, and Rivera. Two of the four may not be back next year. The MFY are also straddled with some high-priced, long-term contracts that will probably look pretty bad in the coming years: Sabathia, Burnett, Teixeira, and A-Rod. This off-season, they’ll have to decide whether or not to bring Shemp or Judas back. Next year, they’ll have to decide about Jeter, Posada, and Rivera. They need better contributions for their young players: Hughes, Chamberlain, etc.—or else their payroll will continue to grow.
In other words, the MFY have as many question marks as any other team. And their business model—throwing tons of money around on long-term contracts—only works for them, and won’t work forever.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yea but when they have to get rid of aging players like Damon…..all of his money is freed up to buy another stud
by cnubsbl16 on Nov 5, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who they’ll have to overpay and sign to a long-term contract. It’s not a good model.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To put it in persepective: 2009 Payrolls
(I purposely skipped over some teams trying to only show teams of interests so when it goes like 4-6 I didn’t forget 5 just skipped it)
1) MFY: $201,449,289
2) NY Mets: 135,773,988
3) Cubs: 135,050,000
4) Boston Red Sox: 122,696,000
6) LAA : 113,709,000
7) Philly: 113,004,048
9) LAD: 100,458,101
18) Colorado: 75,201,000
24) Minnesota: 65,299,267
Sodomize Intolerance
by sonicdeathmonkey on Nov 5, 2009 10:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
2010?
What work do you think Boston needs to do in 2010?
Personally I think the Sox need a good shortstop, the position has been a black hole since 2004. I mean sure signing a Brandon Webb or getting a Felix Hernandez would be nice but as a whole it was the inconsistent offense that kind of let us down this year not so much the pitching (save Papelbon in game 3 of the ALDS). I have no problem with Varitek as the backup catcher if they can keep V-Mart as the starter. Also got to figure out what to do with Lowell and Ortiz, they don’t have long for this world.
Sodomize Intolerance
by sonicdeathmonkey on Nov 5, 2009 10:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bloggy does not congratulate the MFY
Because Bloggy is petty.
Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.
by Bloggy on Nov 5, 2009 11:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why be petty, Bloggy?
If a team spends close to $2 billion in nine years they’re entitled to win at least once.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 11:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for helping me to the High Road, Druggie.
OTM makes me a better person.
Goddamn that DeMarlo Hale.
by Bloggy on Nov 5, 2009 11:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Screw the MFY
VARITEK MUST GO
Brandon Webb in 2010
Jason Bay is not WERTH it
by gizmosandy on Nov 5, 2009 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 5, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm torn.
On the one hand, my heart is broken, my mouth is foaming, and I want to drive to NYC and beat Toilet 2.0 into the ground. The Sox could totally have made and won this series.
On the other hand, sales of my books should go through the roof, as the bandwagon becomes a band-airliner.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
by 0157H7 on Nov 5, 2009 12:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
You’re going to have to schedule that book signing tour…
by Randy Booth on Nov 5, 2009 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Best part of all this is discovering all the Yankee fans I know.
Could have sworn they were Rays fans, but I was mistaken.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Nov 6, 2009 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares
So they win………..Next season please!!
by Saintsfan4life on Nov 5, 2009 1:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yankee victory rings hollow
What’s with all the overspending in New York? If you can buy it there, you can buy it anywhere. Check out my blog post for more
http://blogs.journalism.cuny.edu/interactive2010/2009/11/06/bloomberg-and-yankees-buy-victories/
by jonathanbalthaser on Nov 6, 2009 1:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You have to be kidding
The Yankees make alot of money, and they spend it, like they should, on players. The Red Sox do the same thing, and if the Red Sox could out-earn the Yankees, they would, and they would out-spend them. It’s just business.
And whoever said competitive balance is good today is correct. It’s better than it’s ever been, in baseball, anyway. If they want even more balance, they can just shorten the regular season by 10 days or so and add another wild card team.
The Yankees starting infield has 3 “homegrown” players (Cano, Jeter, Posada). The outfield has one (Cabrera), and two key pitchers are home grown. That’s 6 significant players home grown. The Red Sox have about the same number—Youkilis, Pedroia, Lowrie I guess, Ellsbury, Lester, and Papelbon. I guess you can count Varitek, although he was acquired via trade with Seattle.
Finally, the Yankee payroll is less than last season. The Yankees “strength” is also their Achilles heel, as the way they attract the big free agents is typically offering contract LENGTHS which exceed other offers. So, they get more good free agents, but also end up holding them deeper into their decline phases than other teams do, AND they overpay in the process. Things are self-correcting, to a degree.
Stop whining. The Yankees and the Red Sox do the SAME thing, year after year. And the Red Sox have gotten the best of the Yankees, for the most part, this decade. The Yankees will almost definitely not repeat, as they have serious aging issues, and lack either minor league replacements or decent FA candidates to make up for it. 2011 will be even worse. The Yankees minor league teams are very strong in pitching; position players are much weaker.
by 86general on Nov 9, 2009 1:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
