 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Why are Yankees' fans so willfully loving and kind?
sycophantman
Why are Yankees' fans so willfully loving and kind?
February 17, 2004 at 03:02PM View BBCode
Really, will someone tell me?:P
ME
February 17, 2004 at 05:41PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
because they are willing to pay a luxury tax which no other team will touch and give money to all the poorer teams.
sycophantman
"Why isn't that homeless man rich yet? I DID put a twenty in his guitar case?!"
Laughable...
February 17, 2004 at 07:46PM View BBCode
Yeah, that must be it..."Why isn't that homeless man rich yet? I DID put a twenty in his guitar case?!"
Laughable...
skierdude44
February 17, 2004 at 09:12PM View BBCode
guys it is really getting old. there have to be about 50 threads that basically say the same thing, and that is "wahhh... the yankees cheated. they got i arod. i wanted arod." c'mon guys i thought we we all just a bit more mature than 4 year olds.
Muzzie
What I think the main problem is that it isn't Arod not being a part of their teams but that one team essentially has a monopoly on getting any player they want to the exclusion of all other teams. Admittedly they do not have every single player of quality, but they can only field so many players and can't get around those pesky contracts :)
A monopoly is not good for anything that is supposed to thrive on competition, which is the heart of what professional sports are about. Yes, certainly some teams will be better than others year to year and favored. When however, you have a team, because of its history and market, able to outspend every other team, to the point of being able to buy an all star roster, dump them, and reload it again, it becomes problematic for that competition that is supposed to be the heart of the matter.
Yes I am a BoSox fan, at least casually but I'm not trying to Yankee bash. What I am suggesting is that Yankee fans not just waive the pinstripe flags and celebrate this, but wonder what it is going to do to baseball as a whole. If the only team anyone is willing to watch is the Yankees, they won't have anyone to play against. I don't know how you feel about it, but exhibition games aren't all that exciting...especially when there isn't a regular season to follow.
February 17, 2004 at 09:20PM View BBCode
Perhaps there is a bit of sour grapes involved...but that doesn't really get to the heart of the matter.What I think the main problem is that it isn't Arod not being a part of their teams but that one team essentially has a monopoly on getting any player they want to the exclusion of all other teams. Admittedly they do not have every single player of quality, but they can only field so many players and can't get around those pesky contracts :)
A monopoly is not good for anything that is supposed to thrive on competition, which is the heart of what professional sports are about. Yes, certainly some teams will be better than others year to year and favored. When however, you have a team, because of its history and market, able to outspend every other team, to the point of being able to buy an all star roster, dump them, and reload it again, it becomes problematic for that competition that is supposed to be the heart of the matter.
Yes I am a BoSox fan, at least casually but I'm not trying to Yankee bash. What I am suggesting is that Yankee fans not just waive the pinstripe flags and celebrate this, but wonder what it is going to do to baseball as a whole. If the only team anyone is willing to watch is the Yankees, they won't have anyone to play against. I don't know how you feel about it, but exhibition games aren't all that exciting...especially when there isn't a regular season to follow.
skierdude44
February 17, 2004 at 09:26PM View BBCode
i find it funny that how on one post people can say this isnt fair, the yanks have all the good players and on another they say, well the yanks really arent that good, they hav no pitching and no 2b.
sycophantman
They didn't cheat, but the system is flawed
They don't have a great owner, they have an irresponsible owner
We aren't whining like children, we're trying to tell the truth to others who, like children, refuse to hear it...
February 17, 2004 at 10:32PM View BBCode
Look, I'm about spent with talking about the YankeesThey didn't cheat, but the system is flawed
They don't have a great owner, they have an irresponsible owner
We aren't whining like children, we're trying to tell the truth to others who, like children, refuse to hear it...
sycophantman
But please, PLEASE, don't gloat...
Your team didn't accomplish anything amazing, they did what the system in place demands that they do, the story would be if they didn't make a huge and unfair deal for a player.
But in the end, it's only a game, I'm ready to move on...:)
February 17, 2004 at 10:34PM View BBCode
But again, I have about hit my limit on Yankee bashing, what good does it do?But please, PLEASE, don't gloat...
Your team didn't accomplish anything amazing, they did what the system in place demands that they do, the story would be if they didn't make a huge and unfair deal for a player.
But in the end, it's only a game, I'm ready to move on...:)
Duff77
And I do agree that it's too easy, and not really fair, to simply bash the Yankees. The Yankees are really just a lightening rod for the greater issue, which is that most of the money, and most of the great talent, is consolidated among a few powerhouse teams. And I don't think it's fair to put horns on George Stienbrenner just for being an owner of one of those teams. To call him "irresponsible" is to suggest that he alone has the duty to bring fairness to baseball. And I mean, c'mon--he's just working within the system he's got, trying to put a competitive team on the field. That's what he's supposed to do. It's the system we've got to be worried about. There's too much focus on the Yankees and too little on the real problem.
February 18, 2004 at 05:41AM View BBCode
Yeah, that's a fair statement: We hate the gloating, Yankees fans. You're privilaged and you're incredibly happy about it. That's just irritating in any situation...And I do agree that it's too easy, and not really fair, to simply bash the Yankees. The Yankees are really just a lightening rod for the greater issue, which is that most of the money, and most of the great talent, is consolidated among a few powerhouse teams. And I don't think it's fair to put horns on George Stienbrenner just for being an owner of one of those teams. To call him "irresponsible" is to suggest that he alone has the duty to bring fairness to baseball. And I mean, c'mon--he's just working within the system he's got, trying to put a competitive team on the field. That's what he's supposed to do. It's the system we've got to be worried about. There's too much focus on the Yankees and too little on the real problem.
sycophantman
Sadly, the other owners have no backbone to, once and for all, face down the piggish players union. So instead they hope to quietly bring down player contracts and claim poverty. I think that the owners are losing money, but not as much as they say. Either way, their great plan is ruined by owners like Steinbrenner and Hicks who refuse to play along. They are pretty selfish for not playing along, but in the end the owners should just bite the bullet and put a stop to the players union. A salary cap is needed, very badly, and only by finally winning a struggle versus the union can it be achieved...
February 18, 2004 at 02:51PM View BBCode
Steinbrenner isn't really the problem, no, but he's part of it.Sadly, the other owners have no backbone to, once and for all, face down the piggish players union. So instead they hope to quietly bring down player contracts and claim poverty. I think that the owners are losing money, but not as much as they say. Either way, their great plan is ruined by owners like Steinbrenner and Hicks who refuse to play along. They are pretty selfish for not playing along, but in the end the owners should just bite the bullet and put a stop to the players union. A salary cap is needed, very badly, and only by finally winning a struggle versus the union can it be achieved...
Smocko
It is a Problem.....
February 18, 2004 at 03:54PM View BBCode
........however Baseball is damn hard to fix. We even have the same problem in SimDynasty, and all the new leagues with interesting rules haven't been able to fix it. Somebody who has the right young talent and makes the right trades can easily wind up with a 120 win machine, or at least a team guarenteed to make the playoffs, like the Braves of the last decade or the 2004 Yankees and Red Sox.
Duff77
February 19, 2004 at 01:32AM View BBCode
Building a dynasty isn't really a problem. I don't mind seeing the Yankees win for ten years in a row. What bothers me is that for all practical purposes, only a few teams have that ability. Sure, you can get the occasional uprising, like we got from the Marlins, or the Angels, or the Diamondbacks (in fact, those are quite regular occurances among the small and middle market teams), but sustained success has really proven to be for the richest teams only. To me, that's a problem. I'd like to see every team on a level playing field. And if one of those teams is a smart enough organizer of talent and money, let them win for 10 years. I don't have a problem with that.
ME
Anyways, I favor a 100% luxury tax for anything over $100M, and a 150% tax for anything over $150M. That taxes the Red Sox's $125M and a few teams other than the Yankees. There have always been big market and small market teams. I don't want to get rid of that. The luxury tax money would be redistributed to every other team equally (not only to the poor teams).
February 19, 2004 at 01:41AM View BBCode
Braves? They are above average payroll but never anything like the Yankees. Athletics, that's Billy Beane. Put those two teams together for their playoff runs and you have 15 playoff apperances and ONE world series. The upstart teams (marlins, angels) and the yankees are the ones who won world series. The diamondbacks were a high-payroll team with a lot of veterans, not a fluke team (they made the playoffs the previous year). The first Marlins taem was purchased like the Diamondbacks, a lot of expensive free agents. The last two years are the only true fluke teams.Anyways, I favor a 100% luxury tax for anything over $100M, and a 150% tax for anything over $150M. That taxes the Red Sox's $125M and a few teams other than the Yankees. There have always been big market and small market teams. I don't want to get rid of that. The luxury tax money would be redistributed to every other team equally (not only to the poor teams).
skierdude44
February 19, 2004 at 01:56AM View BBCode
baseball is flawed in their system but like duff said solely blaming steinbrenner is just wrong. if u look at most of the100M+ players on the yanks, most of those contracts were issued by other teams, something the yanks had no control over. steinbrenner is just trying to win, u cant blame him for that. if i recall all the owners were part of that last collective bargaining agreement not just steinbrenner, and no steinbrenner didnt hypnotize all of them do agree to it. there are plenty of owners that have the money to put back into the team but they chose not to. that is not steinbrenner's fault. and no he is not irresponsible, he signs good players and tries to win, that is the point of sports so i dont see how u can put all that blame on him, and there is no way u can blame the inflated salaries SOLELY on him.
Duff77
My point being, simply, that the game has changed drastically in the last two decades, and in my opinion, very much for the worse.
February 19, 2004 at 05:12AM View BBCode
Me...you're wrong. Sure, there have always been large and small markets, but prior to free agency it didn't matter nearly as much. And when free agency began, player salaries were so low that every team had an equal opportunity to sign star players. During the 80's and early 90's, the playing field was much more level... Evidenced by the Twins winning World Series in '87 and '91, the Blue Jays winning in '92 and '93, the Phillies getting to World Series in '93, the Tigers in '84, the Brewers getting close in '82 and '83, the Royals in '85. For awhile there, almost anybody with a good GM had a shot. But as the salaries doubled every other year, it absolutely changed everything. Nobody talked about small markets and big markets in the late 1980's. It just wasn't an issue when I started watching baseball. In fact, if my memory serves, I didn't start hearing about it constantly until after 1994.My point being, simply, that the game has changed drastically in the last two decades, and in my opinion, very much for the worse.
Pages: 1