 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » The Yankees must be destroyed!
sycophantman
Rules, indeed...
When the rules in place are obscenely in your favor, I suppose there's little reason to complain.
No more!
Yankee Stadium will crumble!!!!:mad:
The Yankees must be destroyed!
February 15, 2004 at 04:34PM View BBCode
It's time, we baseball fans have sat quietly by long enough. We've borne witness too many times to the hubris and arrogance of the Yankees and their fans. We see clearly, we see that baseball can't continue on this path if it wants to remain relevent in the future. Yet, the Yankees continue to damage the game and the spirit of competition on a regular basis, why, because it's allowed in the rules?Rules, indeed...
When the rules in place are obscenely in your favor, I suppose there's little reason to complain.
No more!
Yankee Stadium will crumble!!!!:mad:
ME
that is realistic. boston or chicago winning is unrealistic. if they had better owners then they might be as good.
February 15, 2004 at 05:14PM View BBCode
THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YANKEES WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!that is realistic. boston or chicago winning is unrealistic. if they had better owners then they might be as good.
hobos
[Edited on 2-15-2004 by hobos]
February 15, 2004 at 05:36PM View BBCode
Check out my latest nation in NationStates. Feel free to declare war on it[Edited on 2-15-2004 by hobos]
sycophantman
That isn't being better, that's being a poster child of a much larger problem....
February 16, 2004 at 04:13AM View BBCode
How does having more money to spend make Steinbrenner a better owner?That isn't being better, that's being a poster child of a much larger problem....
Duff77
That is the most childish and inaccurate statement I've ever heard. The Yankees have more money. They spend more money. They win. That doesn't mean Stienbrenner is a great owner. When you spend $200 million dollars it's pretty damn easy. It may be true that Stienbrenner puts that money back into the team, but the last time I checked the Yankees still make money. And besides, lots of owners put their profits back into the team. They just don't have any!
If you're going to jump on the Yankee bandwagon at least have the guts to admit the Yankees are as great as they are because they can afford to hire exceptionally good players. And you'll fire back with "Money doesn't buy you championships," so let me say right now, you're right--it doesn't. But it buys you playoff appearences. If ANYONE can make a reasonable argument that the Yankees could've made the playoffs nine years in a row had the payrolls of all AL East teams been equal, then I'll admit that Stienbrenner is a great owner.
February 16, 2004 at 12:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ME
that is realistic. boston or chicago winning is unrealistic. if they had better owners then they might be as good.
That is the most childish and inaccurate statement I've ever heard. The Yankees have more money. They spend more money. They win. That doesn't mean Stienbrenner is a great owner. When you spend $200 million dollars it's pretty damn easy. It may be true that Stienbrenner puts that money back into the team, but the last time I checked the Yankees still make money. And besides, lots of owners put their profits back into the team. They just don't have any!
If you're going to jump on the Yankee bandwagon at least have the guts to admit the Yankees are as great as they are because they can afford to hire exceptionally good players. And you'll fire back with "Money doesn't buy you championships," so let me say right now, you're right--it doesn't. But it buys you playoff appearences. If ANYONE can make a reasonable argument that the Yankees could've made the playoffs nine years in a row had the payrolls of all AL East teams been equal, then I'll admit that Stienbrenner is a great owner.
nextyearcubs
What's great about baseball is that you don't win championships based upon your roster, and having a team of multi millionaires might help, but you still have to play the games. They haven't won a World Series in three years, and have lost to what many thought were inferior teams, teams that had much lower payrolls. They are still an aging team, I think the only regulars under 30 are A-Rod, Jeter, Vasquez, and Heredia, and maybe whoever will be at 2B. From what I hear, their farm system has nothing. It needs to be seen how the new players' egos will get along, and how they will react to the pressure to win right away. What will happen when they hit a losing streak early?
Personally, this Yankees team looks great on paper, but I'm not altogether sure it will be able to get it done. This version of the Yankees is everything the World Series teams of the late 90s weren't. That team was a low key collection of lower profile guys who just knew how to play... Your Martinezes and O'Neills, Brosius and Williams...Girardi, Graeme Lloyd, Cone, Knoblauch. All Stars, yeah, but maybe not the best in all of baseball at their respective positions. The final product was far greater than the sum of the parts. I always had the feeling that those type of guys won championships because they play as if the team is more important than the individual. But we will see.
PS Enjoy Lofton, the most overrated CF in baseball. Countless times he'd try to throw the runner going to 3rd out (and never even get close) only to allow the guy who hit the single to end up at 2nd. This happened all the time in the two and a half months he was a Cub, but his offense overshadowed it.... I still think he's a selfish player for that, it was obvious to everyone that he wasn't gonna throw the guy out, but he still wouldn't hit the cutoff man.
February 16, 2004 at 02:24PM View BBCode
I'm with Duff on this one. Steinbrenner isn't a good owner, he's just an owner with piles of money to throw at any problems the team has. That doesn't make him a better owner than anyone else.What's great about baseball is that you don't win championships based upon your roster, and having a team of multi millionaires might help, but you still have to play the games. They haven't won a World Series in three years, and have lost to what many thought were inferior teams, teams that had much lower payrolls. They are still an aging team, I think the only regulars under 30 are A-Rod, Jeter, Vasquez, and Heredia, and maybe whoever will be at 2B. From what I hear, their farm system has nothing. It needs to be seen how the new players' egos will get along, and how they will react to the pressure to win right away. What will happen when they hit a losing streak early?
Personally, this Yankees team looks great on paper, but I'm not altogether sure it will be able to get it done. This version of the Yankees is everything the World Series teams of the late 90s weren't. That team was a low key collection of lower profile guys who just knew how to play... Your Martinezes and O'Neills, Brosius and Williams...Girardi, Graeme Lloyd, Cone, Knoblauch. All Stars, yeah, but maybe not the best in all of baseball at their respective positions. The final product was far greater than the sum of the parts. I always had the feeling that those type of guys won championships because they play as if the team is more important than the individual. But we will see.
PS Enjoy Lofton, the most overrated CF in baseball. Countless times he'd try to throw the runner going to 3rd out (and never even get close) only to allow the guy who hit the single to end up at 2nd. This happened all the time in the two and a half months he was a Cub, but his offense overshadowed it.... I still think he's a selfish player for that, it was obvious to everyone that he wasn't gonna throw the guy out, but he still wouldn't hit the cutoff man.
hobos
February 16, 2004 at 04:05PM View BBCode
Steinbrenner just pays whoever looks good a lot of money. Sheffield was terrible for Atlanta in '02 and he plagued the Dodger clubhouse until they were forced to trade him. MVP numbers for year means very little. Contreras looked great for Cuba, so shall we give him $30 million a year?(I know that's a little high) He hasnt looked great but he could... As for the minor league system, Dioner Navarro(I think that's his name) is the only bright spot and he is going to be traded very soon, possibly to Texas
Duff77
But it's interesting so many people take that schizophrenic kind of perspective. On the one hand, we all agree the Yankees jeopardize baseball because they, along with a few other teams, consolidate most of the leagueâ??s great talent. And yet on the other hand, we don't think the talent is all that great...or at least not the kind of clutch talent you need to win in crunch time.
Maybe it's that teams with those kind of players--the money players--can win out in the regular season but have trouble in the clutch. Maybe that explains what Atlanta's problem has been all these years. Obviously the Yankees have won a good number of World Series in this last run, but of late they've been knocked out by some teams you wouldn't expect... In 2003 it was the Marlins, in '02 it was the Angels, and in '01 it was Arizona--all teams that seemed to get by on clutch hitting and raw determination as opposed to massive talent. I think that says something about what it takes to win championships, and validates my point about Stienbrenner: He's not the greatest owner that ever lived. These aren't the right guys. Which isn't to say that they won't have enough talent to win it all a few more times... It's just...there's a lot not to like about the '04 Yankees.
February 18, 2004 at 06:14AM View BBCode
Exactly. I really don't think the Yankees have made exceptionally good personnel decisions the last six years or so. NYCubs hit the nail on the head: Those Yankee teams of years past...the Tino Martinez, Paul O'Neil, Scott Brosious type teams always ended up being more than the sum of their parts. The Yankees of the last several years have almost always ended up being less than what the sum of their parts should have been. I loved Paul O'Neil... I had tremendous respect for those Yankee teams. Even now, the Yankees strongest assets are those types of players... Hidecki Matsui and Andy Pettitte are/were two good examples. Every year, the Yankees seem to have a less of those players and more guys like Sheffield and Giambi, who just strike me as not quite caring enough to stay consistently great.But it's interesting so many people take that schizophrenic kind of perspective. On the one hand, we all agree the Yankees jeopardize baseball because they, along with a few other teams, consolidate most of the leagueâ??s great talent. And yet on the other hand, we don't think the talent is all that great...or at least not the kind of clutch talent you need to win in crunch time.
Maybe it's that teams with those kind of players--the money players--can win out in the regular season but have trouble in the clutch. Maybe that explains what Atlanta's problem has been all these years. Obviously the Yankees have won a good number of World Series in this last run, but of late they've been knocked out by some teams you wouldn't expect... In 2003 it was the Marlins, in '02 it was the Angels, and in '01 it was Arizona--all teams that seemed to get by on clutch hitting and raw determination as opposed to massive talent. I think that says something about what it takes to win championships, and validates my point about Stienbrenner: He's not the greatest owner that ever lived. These aren't the right guys. Which isn't to say that they won't have enough talent to win it all a few more times... It's just...there's a lot not to like about the '04 Yankees.
ME
February 18, 2004 at 06:24AM View BBCode
Chicago/Boston/LA are similar markets (at least LA and Chicago) to NY. All those teams have money. The Yankees are the best of those teams by far. If Steinbrenner owned the Cubs instead of the Newspaper then they would be a better team (with a much bigger payroll, but they would eb taking in a lot mroe)
Dogbelly
Just my 2 cents
February 18, 2004 at 10:37PM View BBCode
I don't know, maybe it's me, but for all the money the Yankees spend, it doesn't keep teams like the Marlins (who probably spend about a third as much, I don't know for sure) from beating them. Besides, don't the Yankees have some question marks in their rotation?Just my 2 cents
skierdude44
February 20, 2004 at 02:22AM View BBCode
believe it or not steinbrenner does to more than just randomly throw money at people. teams have tried that and it hasnt worked. the mets, knicks, and rangers (ny and texas) are good examples. u cant prove that guys like giambi are just "money" players but to tell u the truth i like having a guy like oneil around bcuz u can count on him in the clutch.
Duff77
February 20, 2004 at 12:01PM View BBCode
Right, and Jason Giambi is not Paul O'Neil, at least in my opinion. Like I'll tell anybody, I had great respect for those Yankees teams of Brosious, O'Neil, etc... They were the kind of teams that won everything despite the fact that no individual player was tops in anything. And while it's fair to say that yes, other teams have gone the money root and failed, to me that just says the Yankees are a little better at spending money. Some teams truly suck at it.
jigakoeochiro
February 20, 2004 at 12:30PM View BBCode
how is it unrealistic for a team with mark prior, kerry wood, greg maddux, victor zambrano and another solid person as their rotation? add in some of that hitting and they can challenge the yankees. and the red sox, they werent in desperate need for a-rod. they led the al in hitting last year and return all the key components. then on top of it they add one of the games best starters in schilling, who will team with pedro and lowe to make a killer top 3, then foulke in a solid bullpen already. they have all thats necerssary for a championship. 3 or more very good starters, a good bullpen and excellent hitting. not gonna say who will win but the yankees are not guaranteed it not even close.
skierdude44
1996-2000 lineup:
1. knoblauch (for the most part)
2. jeter
3. oneil
4. williams
5. martinez
6. DH (there were many, im gonna use David Justice for my purposes.)
7. broscius (didnt always bat here)
8. girardi/posada
9. various left fielders including chad curtis
2003 lineup:
1. soriano
2. jeter
3. giambi (DH)
4. williams
5. posada
6. matsui
7. nick johnson
8. mondesi/garcia/dellucci (no particular order for RF here)
9.ventura/boone
now looking at that, soriano is clearly better than knoblauch even defensively, giambi is a better DH (except for justice's one year where he was acquired mid season but i still give giambi the edge) matsui is better than any of the left fielders out there, johnson and tino are similar (i liked both but i give the edge to tino just on coolness), oneil is better than the crap in right, boone/ventura and broscius are pretty much equal except for broscius's first season where he was better. overall i would say 2003 was a better lineup but the clutch factor in the postseason set these teams apart. the yankees batted horrible in the post season and especially in the world series this year with RISP, but if u watch the yes network, which most of u dont get, they show great yankee moments and most of them are guys like a broscius or a tino martinez hitting a game winning or tying homer in the ninth, while u have guys like soriano setting the strike out record for the post season. hopefully they will turn around the clutch factor and playoff offense this year.
February 20, 2004 at 11:09PM View BBCode
i used this argument for the clutch factor too. if u look at the yankees from the championship years to now u would say that these yankees are a lot better on paper than the 96-2000 yankees (without counting championships.) i should really compare the 2003 yanks with the 1996-2000 yanks because some of the guys like arod and sheffield havent gotten a chance to play for the yankees yet.1996-2000 lineup:
1. knoblauch (for the most part)
2. jeter
3. oneil
4. williams
5. martinez
6. DH (there were many, im gonna use David Justice for my purposes.)
7. broscius (didnt always bat here)
8. girardi/posada
9. various left fielders including chad curtis
2003 lineup:
1. soriano
2. jeter
3. giambi (DH)
4. williams
5. posada
6. matsui
7. nick johnson
8. mondesi/garcia/dellucci (no particular order for RF here)
9.ventura/boone
now looking at that, soriano is clearly better than knoblauch even defensively, giambi is a better DH (except for justice's one year where he was acquired mid season but i still give giambi the edge) matsui is better than any of the left fielders out there, johnson and tino are similar (i liked both but i give the edge to tino just on coolness), oneil is better than the crap in right, boone/ventura and broscius are pretty much equal except for broscius's first season where he was better. overall i would say 2003 was a better lineup but the clutch factor in the postseason set these teams apart. the yankees batted horrible in the post season and especially in the world series this year with RISP, but if u watch the yes network, which most of u dont get, they show great yankee moments and most of them are guys like a broscius or a tino martinez hitting a game winning or tying homer in the ninth, while u have guys like soriano setting the strike out record for the post season. hopefully they will turn around the clutch factor and playoff offense this year.
Pages: 1