Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


This
December 6, 2001 12:55 PM   Subscribe

This ruined my day. The Yankees are going to buy another World Series. If I ever hear that the Yankees do not buy championship again I am going to poop my pants. They do buy championships. Man, do they suck.
posted by aj100 (58 comments total)

 
Yankee hating is bad for the soul. It corrupts the hater, and doesn't hurt the Yankees one bit.
posted by Faze at 1:02 PM on December 6, 2001


Whatever happened to "We're all New Yorkers now"?
posted by Mo Nickels at 1:06 PM on December 6, 2001


Mo: We're all Mets fans.
posted by argybarg at 1:08 PM on December 6, 2001


<voice style="Red Sox Fan">This is our year! I'm not worried about the Yanks. Good luck to them.</voice>

It's hard work being an optimist.
posted by J. R. Hughto at 1:09 PM on December 6, 2001


I'm listening to the live audio feed from the congressional hearings on baseball owners' monopoly status. Interesting to listen how Bud Selig dodges specific questions. And how my own Gov. Jesse Ventura manages to make references to his own accomplishments anytime he gets a chance.
posted by CosmicSlop at 1:09 PM on December 6, 2001


Hey, if the Yankess want to buy a couple more World Series like this year's, I'm all for it.

Mmmmmmmm....soulcrushinglossinthebottomhalfofthelastinning.
posted by thewittyname at 1:16 PM on December 6, 2001


"You suck! I'll elaborate. Jeter, you suck in three very specific ways -- so hard, so bad and wicked bad."

god, i hate the yankees.
posted by jerseygirl at 1:18 PM on December 6, 2001


The would be Yankees.....whatever, so long as they lose.
posted by thewittyname at 1:18 PM on December 6, 2001


aj100: The Yankees do not buy championships.

I'm waiting for it.
posted by o2b at 1:22 PM on December 6, 2001


Grow up, aj100. Just because the Yankees have a lot of money doesn't mean they necessarily will win. This year's Series is a case in point. Also, just look at other teams with high payrolls, like the Mets and the Red Sox, who perpetually fall short.
posted by Bezuhin at 1:22 PM on December 6, 2001


As a Yankee fan living in Oakland, I'll have to keep my gloating under wraps about this. Frankly, I do feel bad for the A's and their fans, but the owners blew their chance in pre-season to sign Giambi (for an amount he agreed to, but the owners wouldn't give a no-trade clause that wouldn't have mattered in a couple seasons because of the 10-and-5 rule). From Giambi's perspective, losing to the Yankees this year really hurt, and as the saying goes, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. That said, in a couple of years, the Yankees are going to be envious of the A's pitching staff. But I guess Steinbrenner will just sign Huddy, Mulder and Zito then.
posted by msacheson at 1:24 PM on December 6, 2001


The answer to this is (wait for it) revenue sharing. Once this socialist inroad into America's Game topples our government and brings about an invasion by Castro, maybe the Mariners could get their hands on the starting pitching rotation for the Cuban national team (not that we'd get rid of Mr. Moyer).

What's that I smell?
posted by skyscraper at 1:24 PM on December 6, 2001


Maybe the Yanks didn't really just sign Lou Gehrig-- more like Albert Belle, another guy who looked like he'd rule baseball for eight years, signed a huge contract, then slid into oblivion by age 32. Or Ken Griffey Jr., who didn't even make it to 32 without talking about retiring. Or Danny Tartabull, who joined the Yanks in '92 then faded fast. In other words, some big signings go belly-up in a hurry.

And I wouldn't wish injury on anyone, but who knows what Jason Giambi will look like when he's 37 years old? Especially if he keeps power-lunching on McDonald's before every game? He could be a very very expensive pinch hitter.
posted by argybarg at 1:34 PM on December 6, 2001


The Yankees are going to buy another World Series.

When the world series consists of two countries I'm sure its a buyer's market.
posted by skallas at 1:40 PM on December 6, 2001


Just because the Yankees have a lot of money doesn't mean they necessarily will win. This year's Series is a case in point.

How? The Arizona Diamondbacks had an $81 million payroll and built entirely through high-dollar free agents who are unaffordable to 2/3rds of the teams in the league. Seems like more proof that the World Series is limited to the big-money teams.
posted by rcade at 1:49 PM on December 6, 2001


skallas, right on! The "World" Series, indeed!
posted by mmarcos at 1:50 PM on December 6, 2001


If the rules allow for the Yankees to buy a World Series, then why shouldn't they do it? Fans are always complaining that owners are tight, cheap and indifferent about winning championships (believe me, I used to live in Chicago). Here is an owner willing to spend money to build a winning organization. It's not the Yankees fault; it's the silly rules of Major League Baseball that allow such disparity.
posted by jacknose at 1:50 PM on December 6, 2001


At least you've got baseball teams... They're going to take my lovely Twins away. :(
posted by esch at 2:06 PM on December 6, 2001


Whatever happened to "We're all New Yorkers now"?

Well, that's certainly more true now for Giambi.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:25 PM on December 6, 2001


Whatever happened to "We're all New Yorkers now"?

Well, that's certainly more true now for Giambi.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:25 PM on December 6, 2001


esch, your comment brought a small tear to my eye. I'm not a Twins fan, but they are a good young team -- in a couple of years they could be like the A's have been the past two years, provided someone stays Selig's hand (and provided the Yankees don't just buy out Mays, Radke and Guzman).
posted by argybarg at 2:32 PM on December 6, 2001


Yankees sin! Yankees SIN!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:36 PM on December 6, 2001


All your players belong....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:38 PM on December 6, 2001


Oh yes, how evil, the Yankees have money and strategically use it to acquire good players who are capable of winning games. How dare they use their available assets to further success. The bastards.
posted by tomorama at 2:41 PM on December 6, 2001


Whatever happened to "We're all New Yorkers now"?


Well, Giuliani told us all to try to return to "normal," so... yankees suck


I have to say that quietly because my fiancee's uncle was an all-star pitcher for the Yankees in the 40s, and in the interest of not pissing off the future in-laws...

posted by arco at 2:45 PM on December 6, 2001


It's not the Yankees; it's their fans. The mindset which would make one interested in a team which is supposed to, and probably will win is totally alien and sickening to me.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:47 PM on December 6, 2001


The issue isn't that they use those assets, tomorama- it's that they have them at all; NY has a competitive advantage that can't be matched in terms of its ability to not only keep homegrown talent like Jeter but to sign top free agent talent like Clemens, Mussina, and Giambi as well. Other teams have these things, called "limits" in which the GM has to "prioritize" "spending" and try to use their "resources" in the most "effective" way. This is a way of "competing" with "other" teams. The Yankees, see, they don't have these limits. At all. It's about as much fun as playing Quake with someone who's operating in /god mode. Money alone doesn't guarantee a championship, but it sure does help.

And yeah, what Paris said- a World Championship is supposed to be a pinnacle, not a freakin' birthright: it's the things fans and players can spend a lifetime longing for, such as in Chicago or Boston. In NY, it's assumed to be nothing more fantastic than the start of the holiday season...

NYC used to support 3 teams, which made things at least a little bit more competitive (so that the times the Yankees didn't win, the Dodgers or Giants would instead. ^_^ ). Revenue sharing needs to become a reality; it's not a question of whether a city can "support" a baseball team financially, but whether any but a handful can approach the stratosphere of the Yankees.
posted by hincandenza at 2:56 PM on December 6, 2001


But as long as the rule allow it, what should the Yankees do? I'm all for changing the rules, creating a salary cap, but you can't fault a team, an owner, or a city for playing within the rules to win championships. ParisParamus, Do you always hope your favorite team is bad enough to not be expected to win?
posted by jacknose at 3:02 PM on December 6, 2001


Well Griffey and ARod obviously did not bring pennants to their new teams. . and the Yankees will have a very different lineup next year. . .more talent but uncertain chemistry. . . .I hate them. . .but I also respect how well they have played the game in the past few years. . . this could change as Brosius and Knoblach and O'Neill are out of there. . .

But yes, very disappointing that Giambi grabbed for the bucks in this way. How much money do you need?
posted by Danf at 3:07 PM on December 6, 2001


The whole Yankee fan mentality is incomprehensible to me. Why would anyone want to root for the overdog? The team with all the money, glory, power? Goliath instead of David? It has so little to do with what makes rooting for a team fun -- that they can grow from the inside (see Ms, As, Twins, Phillies this year) and get closer to something new by their own collection of wits. Instead you root for the bully. Unbelievable.
posted by argybarg at 3:10 PM on December 6, 2001


Will someone please answer these questions: If your favorite team started dominating the league would you root against them? Do you want your team only to be good enough to be an underdog that might win an occasional game? How can there be underdogs without overdogs? Would you be upset if your owner decided to spend a lot of money on your team? AND as long as it is within rules, why shouldn't the Yankees try to buy the best team possible?
posted by jacknose at 3:22 PM on December 6, 2001


Will someone please answer these questions: If your favorite team started dominating the league would you root against them?

If the Mets won a World Series, I would have somewhat less interest in them the following year. If, in year #2, if the repeated, or were in the World Series, or even did very well in the playoffs, my interest in Year 3 would be only a fraction of what it was in the first year. Again, its about the fans, not the players.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:26 PM on December 6, 2001


I don't think I would root against them; just not root.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:27 PM on December 6, 2001


ParisParamus, you seem to be a fickle fan, attracted to losers (no disrespect intended). I'm not sure how to respond. If your favorite team started winning you would stop rooting for them? I'm speechless. If your child started winning all the awards in school would you also stop rooting for her?
posted by jacknose at 3:31 PM on December 6, 2001


The New York Rangers have had (until this year) the highest payroll in the NHL ($60ish million per year, paltry compared to other sports) and haven't made the playoffs since what, 95?

$$$ != Championship. Neither does a bunch of stars.

If your favorite team started dominating the league would you root against them?

Heeeeellll, no. Go Red Wings!!!
posted by adampsyche at 3:35 PM on December 6, 2001


bombs falling, suicide pilots, fascist moron in the white house... who really gives a florking schnit about baseball? (tho it have been berry berry good to me...)
posted by quonsar at 3:38 PM on December 6, 2001


jacknose, I wouldn't stop rooting for the Mariners if they won the world series or even three in a row. But if they, over the course of decades, became the dominating financial power of the major leagues, the perennial overdog, treating other teams like their farm system -- in short, the Microsoft of baseball ... I'd switch alleigances.
posted by argybarg at 3:43 PM on December 6, 2001


I'm an A's fan through and through, and as much as I hate the Yankees for being able to pull this off, I'm more pissed at Giambi. For an extra few million a year, he leaves behind his brother, his fiancee's hometown, a city that loves him, and a clubhouse in which he can have fun and be amongst great friends, to be one of many in New York >> and might not even do anything but hit most of the time. He has sold his soul, and that really really sucks.
posted by whoshotwho at 3:45 PM on December 6, 2001


bombs falling, suicide pilots, fascist moron in the white house... who really gives a florking schnit about baseball?

For Christ's sake, get your priorities in order before interrupting. 50 years from now, we'll have long since moved on to other crises, but the Red Sox will still be torturing me.

Screw the Yankees and their money. Just give me a new Sox administration. The current one has all of the panache of Microsoft and as much soul as Furbee.

See, baseball is either a fun diversion (like the Yankee "fans" referred to here who attend a few innings here and there and watch the playoffs (not that there aren't die-hard, intelligent Yankees fans-- I met them both)) or it's something you live: suffering with the Red Sox makes you a better person and looks good on a resume for Heaven.
posted by yerfatma at 3:49 PM on December 6, 2001


argybarg, nicely put. But, of course, the issue with Microsoft is breaking the rules. I agree that Major League Baseball is not a fair system. The Yankees have an incredible advantage, but what should they do? Try to become worse? Try not to win? Isn't the goal of pro sports (a trite form of entertainment, no doubt) to win the Championship every year? By the way, are you an Apple or Linux user?
posted by jacknose at 3:50 PM on December 6, 2001


Excellent reading, Jacknose -- I'm an Apple user. If I were a Linux user I'd be a Twins fan.

You're right that we can't ask the Yankees to please stop spending that money, please stop trying to win. I don't even think that much should change except a bit more equitable revenue sharing. Having the Yankees as the big-image team has, historically, been good for baseball -- it gives it a dominant storyline; it gives other teams something to gun for. If some other team smacks the Yankees on the kisser by deploying a whole team, put together with craft rather than dollars, then it's a triumph. (Sure with the M's could have triumphed thusly.)

I'm just a little mystified at the rewards of being a Yankees fan.
posted by argybarg at 4:03 PM on December 6, 2001


There is a frequent fallacy that rears its head in any of these discussions I can't think of the name of it (or be bothered to work out the symbolic logic) but it goes something like this.

Money buys championships
X Team had money
X Team didn't win championship
Therefore Money doesn't buy championships

In a simplistic sense this is true. In reality it is not. What you are buying is a greater probability of winning a championship. The fact that some teams spend foolishly (Baltimore) or some small market teams have spent well doesn't change the reality that the teams that have more money to spend have consistently done better on average.

Of course your team's payroll won't make one iota of difference in performance during the upcoming labor strife.
posted by srboisvert at 4:07 PM on December 6, 2001


Money is necessary but not sufficient for a championship.
posted by skyscraper at 4:29 PM on December 6, 2001


Yankee hating is bad for the soul. It corrupts the hater, and doesn't hurt the Yankees one bit.

Bullshit.

"Yankee hating" is an American birthright and a buncha fun.

Watching that overrated prick Jeter sit in the dugout and stare while the D's celebrated was the highlight of the year.

Last year's oh-so-coveted-by-the-media Subway Series got low ratings because no one outside of New York wanted to see it. Game 7 of this year's series got big ratings because almost everyone wanted to see the Yankees lose.

Thanks, Gonzo.

As far as the Yanks buying Giambi, everyone knew he was going to be wearing pinstripes next year. It's just another reason to hate the Yankees, I'll throw it on the pile.
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 4:54 PM on December 6, 2001


Yankee-bashing is fun on the one hand, but perhaps bad for playoff baseball on the other hand. I, for one, can fully empathize with those who can't stand the "God's team" sentiment (since I live in Toronto Maple Leaf territory and am quick to anger when I hear the phrase "Canada's Team"), and I do think it hurts the entertainment value of sports to have one team winning it every year (even though the Leafs never win it, ha ha Leafs).

However, it's up to the league. Revenue sharing is a good idea in principle, but in reality, what team would want to give up revenues to other teams? It's up to the league, period. And if the league decides they'd rather have dynasties instead of exciting playoffs, then that's their decision.

I like the way the NFL works. I'm not a football fan so maybe I'm no expert, but different teams are winning the Super Bowl every year. I guess that's the one-game series format at work.
posted by Succa at 5:29 PM on December 6, 2001


Money is necessary but not sufficient for a championship.

I know this is an ongoing fan debate, but one of the most depressing things I ever learned in Economics (and let's remember that it's "The Dismal Science") was that professional sports teams' winning percentage correlated very strongly with their home city's population size. The bigger the town, the better the team over the course of decades. It may not always mean championships, and there can be those small-town teams (mainly in the helping friendly world of the NFL) that experience long-term success, but big town == +.500 winning percentage over the long haul.

As an example, the Red Sox are regularly pointed to as a sadsack, but their lifetime win % is well north of .500. Plus they have 5 World Series titles. Looked at in the abstract, you'd think they were winners.
posted by yerfatma at 5:35 PM on December 6, 2001


Like whoshotwho, I, too, am a diehard A's fan, and am disgusted with the idea of Giambi "selling out," so to speak, although, for that kind of money I'd probably sell out, too.

Do any Yankee haters feel that their team has, at times, resembled a Yankees AAA club? The A's helped Reggie Jackson develop, then the Yankees got him when he was a prime time player. Same with Rickey Henderson. Now Giambi (I'm sure there must be others, but can't think of them at the moment). It's like the Yankees wait around for other clubs to spend the time, effort, and money it takes to develop a player, then the Yankees, erm, buy their championships...

(tiny troll)
posted by Bixby23 at 5:41 PM on December 6, 2001


Do any Yankee haters feel that their team has, at times, resembled a Yankees AAA club?

No, as a Red Sox fan, I've never felt we lost any really talented players to the Yankees.
posted by yerfatma at 6:01 PM on December 6, 2001


Revenue sharing needs to become a reality; it's not a question of whether a city can "support" a baseball team financially, but whether any but a handful can approach the stratosphere of the Yankees.

Compare and contrast with Selig's statement today that the Twins and Expos were garnering more than 80% of their budgets from MLB as a whole, and there are more than a dozen teams who use MLB to finance more than 50% of their operations. Sounds like revenue is being shared, and is keeping baseball in a bunch of cities which do not have sufficient means to keep it for themselves.
posted by Dreama at 6:10 PM on December 6, 2001


There is no meaningful revenue sharing in baseball (gates receipts go 80% to the home team and most $ come from local media contracts and tickets). The three or four largest teams have to donate a portion of their profits to the three or four smallest. Worse yet, a year or two ago, the Expos received $15 million in revenue sharing, yet spent only $13 million on salary. None of these teams is losing money at a rate close to MLB's claims. Name another industry that lost (as an industry) $500 million in a year. Everyone would get out of the industry.

I saw some highlights of Selig on ESPN tonight: I love that he has no problem lying to Congress. There's so much creative accounting in baseball (and pro sports in general), they can claim whatever they want. The fact that their labor is depreciable (the only industry where that is allowed) alone should make them profitable. Think about it: the SF Giants were allowed to claim that Barry Bonds, having served the team 9 years, was worth no value to them, while they paid him $10 million+. 73 home runs shows as a multi-million dollar loss on their books. So they show a loss which they count against profits in another company they own. And then they cry poverty.

53% of the Red Sox is worth $400 million. Why would anyone pay all that money to lose money?
posted by yerfatma at 6:26 PM on December 6, 2001


The real trick in winning a World Series is to fire Buck Showalter and replace him with a broadcaster-turned-manager.
The only differences between the 1995 Yankees and the 1996 Yankees are the addition of pitcher Kenny Rogers and Tino Martinez replacing Don Mattingly at first base.
There are no major difference between the 2000 Diamondbacks and 2001 Diamondbacks rosters. Maybe Curt Schilling was more at-home at Bank One Ballpark this year.
Then there's always the option of better scouting to build a team.
posted by tamim at 11:15 PM on December 6, 2001


Baseball needs to go revshare like the NFL. They've had no repeats as Lombardi-winners since the Broncos went back to back (and probably won't this year). Not that this has helped the Redskins (Please Dallas, may we have another?) or will it help the Orioles (more money than god, nothing to show for it). But for those of you who aren't sports masochists will have a more enjoyable season.
posted by owillis at 1:32 AM on December 7, 2001


I'll agree to that, owillis. I'm not a football fan, per se (I'll watch the occasional game, and the Superbowl of course), but I have to admire the incredible parity it has enjoyed. Some may even say too much parity- but to me, there's no such thing. Every team has a very legitimate chance to win it all when the start the season, and there aren't a handful of teams that run around vastly outspending all the rest.
posted by hincandenza at 3:47 AM on December 7, 2001


If your favorite team started dominating the league would you root against them? Do you want your team only to be good enough to be an underdog that might win an occasional game? How can there be underdogs without overdogs?

I think you have to question how that team came to be your favorite team. Much like the diehard Dallas Cowboys fans (who are now cowering in their closets after so much glory in the 90s), Yankees fans, for the most part, became Yankees fans because the team was overly dominant. It's at that point that I begin to wonder where the fun is in rooting for a team that is always going to win. But then, I guess that's strictly rhetorical.

Anyway, I have to agree with Owillis: Football does a much better job of mixing things up. And that, in turn, makes the game more exciting for everyone.
posted by dogmatic at 6:59 AM on December 7, 2001


I begin to wonder where the fun is in rooting for a team that is always going to win

Personally, I begin to wonder where the fun is in rooting for a team that is always going to lose.

I really don't think that we will see revenue-sharing in baseball that is on par with what we see in the NFL - and besides most of the cash comes from the TV contracts. Something to remember is that the NFL itself controls the TV rights, whereas in baseball each club has TV/radio rights, and MLB negotiates a national contract too. I doubt that Steinbrenner and Wilpon (owns the Mets) would give their collective $90 million or so in local TV contracts to MLB!
posted by PeteyStock at 8:26 AM on December 7, 2001


53% of the Red Sox is worth $400 million. Why would anyone pay all that money to lose money?

Because besides the team, you're getting NESN, which has local broadcasting rights to the Red Sox games as well as rights to Boston Bruins games.

Plus, you're also getting historic (and outdated) Fenway Park any surrounding real estate owned by the team.

Many teams don't own their own park, nevermind the valuable Kenmore Square land it's on, and the cable broadcasting company they are televised on.

All this and Carl Everett!
posted by jerseygirl at 10:45 AM on December 7, 2001


So why is there so much Yankee-hate in the world?

- sports dynasties are monotonous (unless it's your home town). Spectator sports is just a form of entertainment, and Yankee championships are tired reruns.

- too many times a smaller team develops star talent to compete with the Yankees, only to see them lured away. Ka-ching. Imagine Jesus losing two disciples to Satan every offseason.

- the conceit that (pre or post-9/11) we are the United States of New York, and little outside Manhattan is noteworthy (but I blame television here, not most fans. Maybe if the networks were in Minneapolis we'd all be sick of the Twins)

- the idea that fans of other teams are just bitter, envious, and undeserving of the success that is the Yankees' birthright

So it might seem unfair and irrational to NYC why so many people will root for "whoever's playing the Yankees." It's the combination of factors (arrogant, rich, winning too much, from New York) that cause the Yankees to get singled out. And there aren't many teams in sports like them: the Lakers, Duke... who else? The NFL and NHL don't have Yankee-ish teams at all.

"World" Series 2000 was an abomination. WS 2001 had a surprise happy ending. But we're looking forward to a playoffs free of New York teams, hopefully not that far off.

(Disclaimer: I like NYC)
posted by kurumi at 3:04 PM on December 7, 2001


ParisParamus, you seem to be a fickle fan, attracted to losers (no disrespect intended). If your child started winning all the awards in school would you also stop rooting for her?

The Mets just got Mo Vaughn, so I thought of this thread.

In response to the above, NO. But it's just that if a team is significantly better than its competition, it just isn't interesting being a fan. And if the team's success appears to be primarily bought, rather than developed through a farm system and/or through a season or two or MORE of struggle, it's no fun rooting for them; basically, I'm an entrepreneur: the reward is getting successful, not being successful.

As for the child, in that scenario, I would likely spend less time with them regarding their studies and be concerned they were not being sufficiently challenged; perhaps a more challenging school? Generally, there needs to be an element of challenge/struggle in living a good life. OK?

So, the Mets have just acquired a lot of talent. But now I'm concerned whether they have enough pitching. Better to get a starter than Gonzales.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:52 AM on December 28, 2001


« Older Ashcroft tells Congress that his critics are helpi...  |  Science brings the pub home.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments