 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » damn yankees
skierdude44
June 04, 2003 at 08:37PM View BBCode
THE YANKEES ARE THE BEST TEAM HANDS DOWN THEY PLAY BY THE RULES STEINBRENNER IS NOT EVIL AND THE RED SOX SUCKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YANKEES FO LIFE! NYY BABY!!:):):):):):):):):)
Greenslash
2.cardinals rock
3.red sox are awsome too
4.disagree with this?u suk
CALM DOWN
June 05, 2003 at 02:30AM View BBCode
1. yankees suck2.cardinals rock
3.red sox are awsome too
4.disagree with this?u suk
Schef33
The cardinals suck...the Redsox cant come anywhere near a world series ring...I would rather play for the mets than the redsox...atleast they almost one a world series in the past 80 years
June 05, 2003 at 08:20PM View BBCode
OK info for people who say the yanks are bought. The home grown players make up the core of the yankees. Jeter, Williams, Rivera, Pettite, SORIANO.The cardinals suck...the Redsox cant come anywhere near a world series ring...I would rather play for the mets than the redsox...atleast they almost one a world series in the past 80 years
knoxville
the mets actually have won a world series in the last 80 years. two of them, actually.
September 06, 2003 at 03:07PM View BBCode
"The cardinals suck...the Redsox cant come anywhere near a world series ring...I would rather play for the mets than the redsox...atleast they almost one a world series in the past 80 years"the mets actually have won a world series in the last 80 years. two of them, actually.
ME
September 06, 2003 at 03:36PM View BBCode
the red sox have almost won a few world series, but ended up losing all of them since the 1910s. 1986 and the 1977(?) the year that carlton fisk had the "if it stays fair" home run in game 6 against the Reds.
FuriousGiorge
September 06, 2003 at 04:20PM View BBCode
They also went to 7 games with the Cardinals in both 1967 and 1946.
BravesLuver
September 07, 2003 at 02:26AM View BBCode
But now reality. Cubs and White Sox, the two other cursed, so to speak, teams, have a chance to both make the playoffs. Let's see those curses fall!
ME
September 07, 2003 at 07:06AM View BBCode
the Mariners and Astros also have a chance at making it, and neither of them has ever been to the world series.
happy
September 07, 2003 at 05:07PM View BBCode
well to start off, A rod is BETTER than the entire TB squad, and second, yankees are playing by the rules, just they are boring to watch, and the only people who like them rarly watch games, and just like saying the root for a team that is good. This reminds me of when i went to the Jets Redskins game, and this guy with a Bullets Jordan jersey on was with a friend with a Jets jersey, and was rooting for the jets, and then when the Redskins started taking the lead, this guy moved, and sat with another friend who was wearing a Redskins jersey, and started rooting for the redskins. I hate people like that. Skier, i think you are bandwagon, but not as bad as other people, at least you are close to the Yankees team, unlike some fans, who wear NY jerseys even though they have never been to NY. I hate the yankees because most of their fans are people who want a guarunteed WS/playoffs, and want to always be rooting for a team that is in first
skierdude44
September 07, 2003 at 06:50PM View BBCode
ok happy 1. u dont kno me say ur making irrational judgements about me. 2. how can u judge all yankee fans? have u met all of them? and 3. yea the guy who changed teams in the middle of the game is a bandwagon fan i have never changed favorite teams in my whole life.
happy
September 07, 2003 at 07:00PM View BBCode
that is the thing about baseball, you dont need to, because it is the same team every year, if you go with the Yankees, then you are almost guarunteed a good year. I said although i think you are banwagon, there are people way worse than you, and yes, i have met every yankees fan in the world.
Duff77
One day I will meet a Yankees fan who believes the salary structure in Major League Baseball is corrupt and unfair. I mean, you'd think you'd have to, right? You go to anywhere else in the country and you'll find a full range of opinions. Anywhere else, some people will say they like it the way it is, others will say there should be a salary cap--there'll be all kinds of opinions. But in my admittedly limited research, I have yet to meet one stinking Yankees fan who'll come out and say, "You know, I like winning every year, but this structure is really f'ed up."
Now in all fairness, THE YANKEES DON'T SUCK. There are plenty of teams that have tried to buy a World Series and haven't pulled it off (NY Mets, anyone)? Hell, we tried it here in Baltimore and couldn't make it happen. When the push comes to the shove, you've still got to get it done on the field. The Yankees do that and they deserve credit for it.
At the same time, the system inherently tilts toward teams that have money. It's true that some teams have money and don't know what to do with it--while others don't have much and make the best of it--but even so, it's not a level playing field. Sure, the Cardinals and Cubbies and a few other teams are putting together good teams without a lot of cash. It's certainly possible. But no one in their right mind can deny that it's harder for small market teams to put solid clubs together. The Yankees just have more options than anybody else.
And it just seems to me that all-in-all, baseball isn't really fun unless every team has an equal opportunity to put a good team together. And you can't honestly tell me the Royals have an equal opportunity to the Yankees. Now personally, I say the Yanks have a pretty good orginization. Even if you insitutited revenue sharing and salary caps, they might still win every year. But hey, if they can draft, develop, sign, and trade for the right players, more power to 'em. That's what they did for more of the 20th century. That doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why Yankees fans whine so much whenever anyone suggests they ought to have the same tools to build their club as everyone else does.
September 08, 2003 at 04:26AM View BBCode
One day it will happen...One day I will meet a Yankees fan who believes the salary structure in Major League Baseball is corrupt and unfair. I mean, you'd think you'd have to, right? You go to anywhere else in the country and you'll find a full range of opinions. Anywhere else, some people will say they like it the way it is, others will say there should be a salary cap--there'll be all kinds of opinions. But in my admittedly limited research, I have yet to meet one stinking Yankees fan who'll come out and say, "You know, I like winning every year, but this structure is really f'ed up."
Now in all fairness, THE YANKEES DON'T SUCK. There are plenty of teams that have tried to buy a World Series and haven't pulled it off (NY Mets, anyone)? Hell, we tried it here in Baltimore and couldn't make it happen. When the push comes to the shove, you've still got to get it done on the field. The Yankees do that and they deserve credit for it.
At the same time, the system inherently tilts toward teams that have money. It's true that some teams have money and don't know what to do with it--while others don't have much and make the best of it--but even so, it's not a level playing field. Sure, the Cardinals and Cubbies and a few other teams are putting together good teams without a lot of cash. It's certainly possible. But no one in their right mind can deny that it's harder for small market teams to put solid clubs together. The Yankees just have more options than anybody else.
And it just seems to me that all-in-all, baseball isn't really fun unless every team has an equal opportunity to put a good team together. And you can't honestly tell me the Royals have an equal opportunity to the Yankees. Now personally, I say the Yanks have a pretty good orginization. Even if you insitutited revenue sharing and salary caps, they might still win every year. But hey, if they can draft, develop, sign, and trade for the right players, more power to 'em. That's what they did for more of the 20th century. That doesn't bother me. I just don't understand why Yankees fans whine so much whenever anyone suggests they ought to have the same tools to build their club as everyone else does.
FuriousGiorge
Even with a perfectly level playing field, fans should not expect every team to be able to compete every year. I'm sure most people realize this, but some of the less-thoughtful fans seem to think that the NFL system of worst to first can or should be the way of MLB too. In a perfect world, with a perfect league, every team would go through a full winning cycle every few years or so, with a build-up, a few winning seasons, a let-down and a rebuild. Rebuilding is not a bad thing, but the continuous rebuilding of teams like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee is. Again, it comes down to whether you think that process is more a function of having no money, or more a function of having dunces running the team.
September 08, 2003 at 04:39AM View BBCode
You make a strong argument, I must say. I am one of those non-Yankee fans who doesn't have a huge problem with the salary structure, but there is no denying that teams with money have an inherent advantage. The debate basically rests on whether a person thinks that advantage outweighs the advantage of wise decision making, or vice versa.Even with a perfectly level playing field, fans should not expect every team to be able to compete every year. I'm sure most people realize this, but some of the less-thoughtful fans seem to think that the NFL system of worst to first can or should be the way of MLB too. In a perfect world, with a perfect league, every team would go through a full winning cycle every few years or so, with a build-up, a few winning seasons, a let-down and a rebuild. Rebuilding is not a bad thing, but the continuous rebuilding of teams like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee is. Again, it comes down to whether you think that process is more a function of having no money, or more a function of having dunces running the team.
Duff77
And honestly, I think all of us owners here in SD would get a might pissy if all of the sudden there was one team in our league that could sign anybody it wanted to. I think we'd all agree that would take all the fun out of it.
September 08, 2003 at 05:03AM View BBCode
It's both. You can be a small-market team with no money and put a great club together. If you can get some good, cheap young players, some solid, middle-priced veterans, and maybe one or two stars, you can do it without big bucks. Look at Oakland and Seattle. These are both pretty good teams that keep losing people to free agency. Meanwhile you've got the Rangers and Tigers--two clubs that HAVE (at least previously) spent money and gone no where. Sure, managment has a lot to do with it. All I say is that if you're the Yankees, you don't have to be anywhere near as creative. They have this luxury: If they want a player, and the player wants to play there, they get him. The Tigers just can't do that, and that's not fair.And honestly, I think all of us owners here in SD would get a might pissy if all of the sudden there was one team in our league that could sign anybody it wanted to. I think we'd all agree that would take all the fun out of it.
happy
September 08, 2003 at 06:54PM View BBCode
Ok, lets take Oakland, who has no money, and they still have a very good team, now lets give them the money of the Yankees, and they have the same team. Ok, now you take Oakland, and you can buy something like 3 superstars to add to your team, now Oakland is twice as good as the Yankees. Yankees have DECENT general management, so they sometimes win the WS, Mets have Horrible management, so they make it to the ws sometimes. Oakland has AMAZING management, and they go out in the first round of the playoffs.
happy
September 08, 2003 at 06:55PM View BBCode
also, lets have a hypothetical situation here, what if the Expos had the money to resign their players? now they have the same team PLUS Bartolo Colon AND Pedro Martinez among other players
happy
September 08, 2003 at 06:57PM View BBCode
other players including Larry Walker, Moises Alou, Cliff Floyd, Rondell White. I dont know who else, but those players just came to mind
Schef33
September 08, 2003 at 09:18PM View BBCode
I would like to see the expos make the playoffs...maybe people would start attending some games...then they could resign players like Vlad.
skierdude44
September 08, 2003 at 10:48PM View BBCode
i have said b4 that baseball needs a salary cap. but the yankees do play by the rules so ppl on here b4 calling george evil and all that are just spittin a bunch of crap. now mayb this is moronic but this is how it works in the video games. u put together a good young team with minor league prospects and some good mid level priced veterans and a star or two. then u put together 2 or more winning seasons and ur fan interest grows and u gain more revenue. now u have more money to resign those prospects and now fully developed guys who were once good young players and now r superstars. u still have some money to go out and get wut u need. its fairly simple. greedy owners also hurt teams. the yankees r a good example. they were pretty bad in the 80's and had some extremely horrible years atleast by yankee standards. now they have all the money in the world. how did they do it. well their core of players and the most important to the team rite now came thru the system. pettitte, rivera, williams, soriano, jeter, johnson, and posada. mattingly wuz a guy who brought fan interest back to the yanks. also yea nyc is a HUGE market. but their r so many other things to do there. they have to compete with the mets, the theatres, the museums, the clubs, the stores, the history, the 2 hockey teams, the 2 football teams, the basketball teams and everything else to do in nj. so yea its the biggest market but it is also the most split.
Duff77
No matter how you slice it, it's not a level playing field. That's all there is to it. We need revenue sharing--just like the NFL. To hell with a salary cap. If the Rangers want to bankrupt themselves in that kind of environment, let them. If you have revenue sharing, the cap will take care of itself.
But I don't know why people keep taking about this. It won't happen--not at least until the game totally collapses. It just figures that in this economy--where we're witnessing the death of every labor union that fights for the middle-class mothers and fathers who make this country great--the Major League Baseball Players Association is going strong. What a stunning obituary for the labor movementā??that in the end, the only union that survives is one which serves no other purpose than to make baseball players rich.
It's a dead issue. It'll never happen.
September 09, 2003 at 04:12AM View BBCode
Granted, the mere fact that you operate your business in New York does not mean it will make money. You do have to build a team and you do have to attract people to your product. However much I hate the Yankees, they deserve some degree of credit for doing that. But the size of the market makes it impossible for smaller teams to accomplish what the Yankees have. All the marketing strategies in the world aren't going to allow the Pirates to make the kind of money the Yankees do. Eight million people live in New York. What, like...500,000 live in greater metropolitan Pittsburgh? Give me a break. Even if there was some kind of baseball revolution in Pittsburgh that caused the teamsā?? popularity to peak, they still couldn't put together the kind of cash the Yankees have.No matter how you slice it, it's not a level playing field. That's all there is to it. We need revenue sharing--just like the NFL. To hell with a salary cap. If the Rangers want to bankrupt themselves in that kind of environment, let them. If you have revenue sharing, the cap will take care of itself.
But I don't know why people keep taking about this. It won't happen--not at least until the game totally collapses. It just figures that in this economy--where we're witnessing the death of every labor union that fights for the middle-class mothers and fathers who make this country great--the Major League Baseball Players Association is going strong. What a stunning obituary for the labor movementā??that in the end, the only union that survives is one which serves no other purpose than to make baseball players rich.
It's a dead issue. It'll never happen.
ME
September 09, 2003 at 04:59PM View BBCode
i would like to see a luxury tax that would be pretty high but lower than now and be meaningful like the NBA's is. something like $100,000,000 limit with 100% on anything over, that would mean the big-market teams especially the yankees would have to spend a lot less and salaries would go down so small market teams would have a better chance of resigning players. i dont think anything will happen until bud selig leaves though.
HollywoodOz
The naysayers will say there isn't the talent to fill a new league, but I've had just as much fun watching AA players knock the ball out of the park as major leaguers.
A competitor to the MLB would fix a whole lot of these problems.
September 09, 2003 at 06:08PM View BBCode
I would like to see an alternative league formed. People scoff whenever a new league begins, but inevitably the new league either collapses into bankruptcy (no loss for fans) or becomes part of the new league (big win for fans) and forces a change of the guard.The naysayers will say there isn't the talent to fill a new league, but I've had just as much fun watching AA players knock the ball out of the park as major leaguers.
A competitor to the MLB would fix a whole lot of these problems.
FuriousGiorge
As far as NFL-style revenue sharing, look, this is an idea that just doesn't make sense. I've pointed this out before, but the NFL and MLB operate on two very different business models. The NFL has a huge national TV deal which covers every team's games. There is no such thing as local TV broadcasts for NFL games. Therefore the entire league is covered by this package, so no owner has to go out and cobble together his own TV package. The only thing an owner can change is the revenue from merchandise and stadium revenues, but just the TV revenue alone is enough to make most owners fat and happy.
In the MLB, teams have to actually go and seek out TV and radio contracts. Those owners who are blessed with the ability or the luck to put together lucrative TV deals, like the Yankees or the Cubs, see more revenue than those franchises that aren't. Again, it is up to the individual teams to foster demand for their product, and those that do this well are rewarded with more income. If you institute league-wide, big-time revenue sharing, you eliminate the impetus of the good franchises to actively seek out better deals to help sell their product. Why should Seattle go out of their way to sell their broadcast rights in Japan when that money just goes to Montreal, who are (or at least were) too inept to even get English radio broadcasts.
Stadium-based revenue sharing should be increased, but this won't amount to a full-out socialistic system like full revenue sharing. Owners, especially those in lucrative markets like New York and Los Angeles, pay a lot of money for the priviledge of owning that franchise. MLB can't just pull the rug out from under them in the name of competitive balance by robbing them of their hard-earned money.
September 09, 2003 at 09:31PM View BBCode
The problem with a new league isn't really the lack of talent: baseball talent is everywhere, all across the globe, and a lot of it has barely been tapped. The problem with a new league is the enormous initial capital expenditure needed to get a new league off the ground. With MLB having teams in 28 cities, there just isn't much room for a new league unless it shells out ridiculous sums of money on facilities and players, and I doubt there is enough interest in baseball nationwide to support that kind of venture.As far as NFL-style revenue sharing, look, this is an idea that just doesn't make sense. I've pointed this out before, but the NFL and MLB operate on two very different business models. The NFL has a huge national TV deal which covers every team's games. There is no such thing as local TV broadcasts for NFL games. Therefore the entire league is covered by this package, so no owner has to go out and cobble together his own TV package. The only thing an owner can change is the revenue from merchandise and stadium revenues, but just the TV revenue alone is enough to make most owners fat and happy.
In the MLB, teams have to actually go and seek out TV and radio contracts. Those owners who are blessed with the ability or the luck to put together lucrative TV deals, like the Yankees or the Cubs, see more revenue than those franchises that aren't. Again, it is up to the individual teams to foster demand for their product, and those that do this well are rewarded with more income. If you institute league-wide, big-time revenue sharing, you eliminate the impetus of the good franchises to actively seek out better deals to help sell their product. Why should Seattle go out of their way to sell their broadcast rights in Japan when that money just goes to Montreal, who are (or at least were) too inept to even get English radio broadcasts.
Stadium-based revenue sharing should be increased, but this won't amount to a full-out socialistic system like full revenue sharing. Owners, especially those in lucrative markets like New York and Los Angeles, pay a lot of money for the priviledge of owning that franchise. MLB can't just pull the rug out from under them in the name of competitive balance by robbing them of their hard-earned money.
skierdude44
September 09, 2003 at 09:49PM View BBCode
another problem is that the players association will never settle on a salary cap or revenue sharing. itll mean a decrease in players salaries. one thing they need is a max contract like in the nba. its insane that arod makes 25.2 mill a year. i mean in the nfl thats like a third of the salary cap spent on one player. in my algebra book last year it had a chart for salary milestones in baseball. i think that it started in '79 with nolan ryan making 1 million dollars and it went up to pedro martinez making something like 12.5 mill in the late 90s than the very next salary wuz arods which is double pedros. thats insane. and yea the owners want salary caps but they created a monster with the huge contracts and the players association is basically saying u made ur bed now lie in it.