The same thing they did in the early '90's: build a dynasty. The difference between the Yankees now and the Yankees in the past is they actually care about the draft and international free agency. So even if there was a salary cap, they would just use their extra funds to hire more/better scouts and cross-checkers and build the best farm system in the sport.
Hey, I'm just sayin'... if you're going to attempt to make fun of where someone is from, you should probably, like, know where they're from and stuff. But the reason I think you're being childish is because who "started" it is irrelevant. The market bears what it bears. You think the MLBPA has a problem with it? You think agents aren't going to get the most for their clients? The problem isn't that the Yanks spend. It's that they're the only ones who care enough to. As amjets said, the Yanks re-invest in their product (regardless of which aspect of the product it is) and generate a ton of revenue, partly thanks to a huge market, but also thanks to running a solid business. The other owners? Not so much.
Great. I missed #600. How many years do you think it'll take him to reach #700, or even break Bonds' asterisk?
So sick of the payroll argument against the NYY..... For you, MB: Pettite: Drafted Jeter: Drafted Rivera: Drafted Posada: Drafted Gardner: Drafted Cano: Drafted Hughes: Drafted Chamberlain: Drafted Robertson: Drafted Cervelli: Drafted Pena: Drafted Thames: Drafted Aceves: Drafted Alabadejo: Drafted You don't have a problem with trading value for value, do you? Pretty much everybody does it, and nobody HAS to accept any offers they don't like. Here are some examples of trades done by the NYY: Granderson: via Trade Rodriguez: via Trade Swisher: via Trade Marte: via Trade Vazquez: via Trade So the NYY have "bought" a couple key players: Sabathia, Burnett, and Teixiera. Now, the Red Sox offered Teixiera the same contract the Yanks did but with one less year. THEY set the bar, the NYY matched it and offered one more season. The LAA and SFG offered Sabathia $100+ million contracts, the NYY matched and upped. Shame on them for offering so much more than everyone else! Shame on them. The market was determined by whom? The LAA/SFG. ATL offered Burnett 4 yrs/$70 million. The NYY offered one more year, but the bar was set by who? That's right, Atlanta. I understand it's unfair that the Yanks have so much at their disposal, but they aren't the only ones who are spending and DID NOT get the ball rolling when it comes to inflated pay rolls. The LAD were the first team to ever hand out a $100 million contract (Kevin Brown). Several teams in the MLB have money to spend. Spending money is one thing (NYM), spending money wisely is another (NYY). The majority of the NYY payroll goes to their own homegrown players. Do you have an issue with that too? I want a salary cap in the MLB badly. I'm really, really sick of opposing fans bitching and whining because of how the NYY ownership invests in its product. That's capitalism, ladies and gentlemen, you have to spend money to make money. If you don't like it, get the fuck out comrade.
thanks for the rundown, Jake. You guys will have to forgive my ignorance....I'm blinded by excessive hatred for that team.
S'all good. The Yanks do spend a shitload of money, but so do the Red Sox, Mutts, Dodgers, Angels, Cubs and ChiSox. It drives me up the wall when the NYY are singled out for it. Ultimately, I would like to see a firm salary cap set in place but that would be an ugly, ugly process with the MLBPA.
That's illogical. Why wouldn't they be singled out for it? Fair or unfair, they spend by far the most money, and have for years. If the "Mutts" spent as much as the Yankees, then you'd have a valid argument against people singling out the Yankees. This is the system in place and the Yankees are playing by the rules, but if you're going to complain that they shouldn't be singled out for spending a lot of money, I don't know what to tell you. The reason there's no cap is the same reason behind most of baseball's problems: the union. People love to bash the owners, but even when the owners want something, they often can't get it done. For all the blame that Selig and the owners get for steroids, the reason testing wasn't there was the union. Plain and simple. Same for the salary cap and most of the other common complaints.
its not like yankees fans would have a problem with a salary cap. then free agents wouldnt be able to expect exorbitant amounts when negotiating contracts. and we would finally hear the end of all other fans crying that we have an unfair advantage.
I wanna see those same tears roll down your face....when Holly Mangold's Lust destroys Chad P's Rotator Cuff. that's right....i said it.
The NYY are what? $40 million ahead of the Mets? That's two quality players ($20 million/per). Is that so groundbreaking? Are the Mets impoverished over there in Flushing or wherever the fuck they play? The NYY, NYM, CHC, CHW, BOS, LAA, and LAD can absolutely be lumped into the same group when a team with real payroll beef has anything to say about it (FLA, PIT, KC, MIL, CLE).
74 million. No, they can't be lumped together. The Yankees have, by far and away, the highest payroll, and it's been this way for a while. Last year, the Yankees payroll was twice that of the Dodgers and more than twice that of the White Sox. I can understand the "we're playing by the rules, other teams could also spend high amounts" argument, but not the "wah, stop singling us out, the mutts and red sux spend as much as we do."
You've gotta give the Skanks props, they know how to spend that money, always putting a contender on the field. The other big spending teams tend to suck balls and fail.
I think you're missing the point. It's not about the actual dollars spent. It's about the ability to spend those dollars. The Red Sox are capable of spending much more than they do. The Mets are, as well. Hell, the Sox had the second-highest profit margin in baseball, behind only the Brewers. The ownership of those teams chooses not to spend it on payroll. So it is silly for Mets and Sox fans especially to single out the Yanks for spending all that money. If they really feel it puts them at a competitive disadvantage when the Yankees outspend them by $74 million, then they should be pissed at their teams' owners for not spending that $74 million, not pissed at the Yankees for spending it.
I'm not missing the point. I'm focusing on the point Jake was using, which is dollars spent. You're going with the first part, which I said I could understand. He's going with "a bunch of other teams spend about as much as the Yankees", which is false, and that's what my post was directed towards. The reason I got involved was he's upset that the Yankees get singled out for spending the most money. Not regarding what your post was about.
This is the key point. Sure, you can make the argument that the Yankees can absorb a bad contract, but generally they don't make bad deals. Giambi wasn't as good as it warranted, but wasn't terrible. Burnett hasn't been as good as his pay, but Game 2 of the World Series pretty well justified the contract. Since Kevin Brown/Randy Johnson about the only contract you can honestly call a "bust" is Pavano. The only other guys who've "busted" were role-players like Wilson Betemit, who was flipped for Nick Swisher anyway. Yes, the Yankees spend more than anyone else. Not that others can't, but that's irrelevant. It's the ROI that matters, and the Yankees do a very good job of getting returns on the talent they purchase, regardless of the price tag.
Ehhhhh... no, you're kind of missing my point. Yes, the Yanks get singled out for spending the most money. Which they do. But he's right that they shouldn't be singled out for that... because what's the logic behind that singling out? Supposedly some kind of unfair advantage. But when it's the Mets or Sox fans complaining about said advantage, it's ridiculous.
