Page 7 of 24 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#11983 - 09/22/06 08:47 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
madcapper Online   content
John Brown

Registered: 10/13/04
Loc: Ozarks
Quote:

Yep, amazing what money can buy.
_____________________________________________

Signed, Washington Redskins Owner




So are you saying money can't buy chamionships?
_________________________
I had my cat neutered and now he's a liberal

Top
#11984 - 09/22/06 12:29 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: rockchalk2305]
jayhawk154 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 01/31/03
The Braves are almost the perfect case study to make madcapper's point...

Rich enough to buy their division
Not high enough to buy their WS titles

2006 - 9th
2005 - 10th
2004 - 8th
2003 - 3rd
2002 - 7th
2001 - 5th
2000 - 4th
1999 - 3rd
1998 - 3rd
1997 - 5th
1996 - 3rd
1995 - 3rd
1994 - 3rd
1993 - 7th
_________________________
"You came to Kansas to play in this game."

Top
#11985 - 09/22/06 07:58 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
tulsahawk13 Offline
Phog Fanatic

Registered: 09/28/05
Keep in mind it's much harder to buy championships in football than baseball. They've got an actual salary cap, and everybody has the same shot at signing talent. The "homegrown" Yankees like Cabrera, Wang, and Robinson Cano were foreigners who were not eliglble for the MLB draft. That means anybody willing to pony up the most $ gets to sign these guys... and what a shocker that it was the Yanks.
_________________________
"We're sorta like 7-Eleven. We're not always doing business, but we're always open."

Top
#11986 - 09/22/06 08:03 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: tulsahawk13]
jayhawk154 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 01/31/03
It's becoming a joke...

2006:

1. NY Yankees - $ 194,663,079

2. Boston Red Sox - $ 120,099,824

3. Los Angeles Angels - $ 103,472,000



2005:

1. NY Yankees - $ 208,306,817

2. Boston Red Sox - $ 123,505,125

3. New York Mets - $ 101,305,821


2004:

1. New York Yankees - $ 184,193,950

2. Boston Red Sox - $ 127,298,500

3. Los Angeles Angels - $ 100,534,667
_________________________
"You came to Kansas to play in this game."

Top
#11987 - 09/23/06 12:15 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: jayhawk154]
JHAWX75 Offline
Lawrence Legend

Registered: 01/13/06
Loc: 911's A Joke!
So are you saying money can't buy chamionships?
______________________________________________________

It aint bought the Redskins one. It bought the Braves ONE during their 90's stomp. Red Sox aint even in the playoffs.

And I dont think i have EVER seen a situation where Steinbrenner handed Selig 200,000,000 and said "i'll take the platinum one". You still got to win on the field. I'll be the first to say that Steinbrenner overpays. When they one 3 in a row and 4 in 5 years that was with role players. after the Arizona defeat is when it escalated. And I would be thanking Steinbrenner if I was a Royals fan cause they get a part of that luxury tax. Put that towards one of your players so you can keep whoever.






It's becoming a joke...
______________________________________________

The jokes on teams like the Royals, Devil Rays, Mariners.
Either step up to the plate and spend some money or be a cellar dwellar like those teams. Or better yet just be the bottom feeding farm team for teams like the Yankees,Red Sox and the Mets. It's great to invade a team like the Royals and end up with players they CHOSE not to pay. Seriously, how many years do people replay the "salary" story? What Steinbrenner does every year is he gives the Yankees every chance to win the WS. What they do with that is up to them.

Since we are in K.C territory, if I were Royals fans I would be worried about your young prospects and them waving bye-bye in a few years. And if your owner is ballin' on a budget, than teams like the Yanks and Red Sox will be more than happy to open their wallet.

Don't hate cause the Yanks have an owner who wants to win EVERY year.
_________________________
it takes a nation of millions to hold us back

Top
#11988 - 09/23/06 07:41 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
jayhawk154 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 01/31/03
Either step up to the plate and spend some money or be a cellar dwellar like those teams.


This just proves you don't understand the economics involved. And, saying the previous championships were all about role players is hilarious...how do you think he got them? How much did he pay them? Who did he trade to get them and where did those players come from? Give me a break.

The simple fact that you can't admit a.) baseball and football economics are different and b.) the Yankees tip the tables so there is very little competition for the prize only proves that you're a real Yankees' fan.
_________________________
"You came to Kansas to play in this game."

Top
#11989 - 09/23/06 07:54 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: jayhawk154]
rockchalk2305 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 03/14/05
Of all the reading I have done about this, I have found one thing. All the teams have enough money to spend, it's just if they choose to spend it or not. I read in the Sporting News a while back that the Royals received somewhere between $60-$80 million last year from luxury tax and revenue sharing. That's money they could have put into payroll.
_________________________
Win if you can. Survive if we let you.

Top
#11990 - 09/23/06 08:23 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: rockchalk2305]
jayhawk154 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 01/31/03
The only two teams who paid a luxury tax in 2005 were the Yankees ($34M) and the Red Sox ($4M), so I'm not sure how your math adds up.

Listen, the Yankees had higher gate, promotional and television revenues than anyone else. Do the math on the gate revenues for the Royals and you'll quickly see how the concept of "decide to pay more" doesn't work as well unless the owners are supposed to win at all costs.

I'm not saying the Royals' ownership shouldn't spend more, but their ability to pay 2x more is non-existent. The fact that their being outspent by 2x (and 3+x in some cases) makes this a real barrier to true competition.
_________________________
"You came to Kansas to play in this game."

Top
#11991 - 09/23/06 09:10 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: jayhawk154]
madcapper Online   content
John Brown

Registered: 10/13/04
Loc: Ozarks
It just shows that regardless of how well one recruits and develops the bottom line is having money to retain them. Teams like the yankees can forget about development, let other teams do it and then just offer more money than anyone else.
_________________________
I had my cat neutered and now he's a liberal

Top
#11992 - 09/23/06 05:18 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: madcapper]
JHAWX75 Offline
Lawrence Legend

Registered: 01/13/06
Loc: 911's A Joke!
The Yankees have been around before most of our Grandfathers were even born. Steinbrenner makes madd loot off memoribilia, clothing and most anything that has the Yankees symbol. The Yankees are the number 1 market when talking clothing dollars. It goes further back than ALL teams combined in any sport. Steinbrenner buys the Yanks in the 70's and is determined to put them back where they belong, the World Series. Teams like the Royals have had a narrow mindset year after year after year and where have they gone? How many WS have they been in since their existence? Without Denkinger they have ZERO titles. I could name 27 other teams just like them. Would you Royal fans be upset if they signed a Ryan Howard if he was a FA? If they gave Howard a 5 year 65 million contract you wouldnt be pissed. Suprised, but not pissed. But thats not in the Royals nature now is it?

And 154, Name one playoff contender that has ALL of their players still with the MLB team from the farm team they came. Tell you what, go look up playoff bound teams, hell go look up all the teams, and scroll to the part where it says "drafted in ____round by the ______. I guarndammtee you most came from OTHER teams. Teams are built from other teams farmers.

Also 154, Jeter,Cano,Cabrera,Wang,Rivera,Posada,Proctor and Williams are all Yankee poducts. The first six have been major contributors this season. Players 1,5,6 and 8 have 4 rings.

Oh yeah, and who do you speak of about the role player issue? Let's see, Paul O'Neil? his best year with the Reds was '91 when he hit .256,28 hr and 91 rbi. Scott Brosius? His best year was '96 with Oakland, .304 ba, 22 hr, 71 rbi. Jim Leyritz? Oops, he was in the Yankee farm. Pettitte? Yankee farm.

Now for the fun part. Transactions: Paul O'neil. November 3, 1992: Traded by the Cincinnati Reds with Joe DeBerry (minors) to the New York Yankees for Roberto Kelly. Man sure do miss that Kelly.
Salary:
1993 New York Yankees $3,833,333
1994 New York Yankees $3,858,334
1995 New York Yankees $2,850,000
1996 New York Yankees $5,300,000
1997 New York Yankees $5,500,000
1998 New York Yankees $5,500,000
1999 New York Yankees $6,250,000
2000 New York Yankees $6,500,000
2001 New York Yankees $7,250,000

Now that's some big loot 154. 4 rings later that was a good investment. Steinbrenner 1, 154 0.

Scott Brosius: November 18, 1997: Sent by the Oakland Athletics to the New York Yankees to complete an earlier deal made on November 7, 1997. The Oakland Athletics sent a player to be named later to the New York Yankees for Kenny Rogers and cash. The Oakland Athletics sent Scott Brosius (November 18, 1997) to the New York Yankees to complete the trade.
1998 New York Yankees $2,650,000
1999 New York Yankees $5,250,000
2000 New York Yankees $5,250,000
2001 New York Yankees $5,250,000

Rogers: 190-131. No rings. Brosius? Gw home runs in WS, clutch hits in every WS.Good investment. Steinbrenner 2, 154 0. Also, did you catch his salary?

What other role players did you think of?

Were the figures that outrageous? And if they were, was it worth it?

And who did they really get rid of? Rogers? Pitching wasnt a problem then. Roberto Kelly? Hmmmm, maybe that's who you must be speaking of, you must be a big Roberto Kelly fan. Trust me Kelly for O'Neil was worth it.

Please correct me if the above mentioned has any errors.
_________________________
it takes a nation of millions to hold us back

Top
#11993 - 09/23/06 05:23 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
JHAWX75 Offline
Lawrence Legend

Registered: 01/13/06
Loc: 911's A Joke!
154. And when I say spend money, spend money on your farm players so you can keep them. What the hell good is it to groom a kid at 18-19, have him be a major prospect, then lose him cause your wallet got stolen? when the kid has a 3 year contract, go to him in the second year and present him a deal, dont wait until the third and leave the nest open.
_________________________
it takes a nation of millions to hold us back

Top
#11994 - 09/23/06 11:24 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
jayhawk154 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 01/31/03
You're just proving my point, man. 154 1, Yankee's biotch 0
_________________________
"You came to Kansas to play in this game."

Top
#11995 - 09/24/06 02:21 AM Re: Yankees. [Re: jayhawk154]
JHAWX75 Offline
Lawrence Legend

Registered: 01/13/06
Loc: 911's A Joke!
I proved your point is mud. Your point is about as sharp as a marble.

This was your point......

"how do you think he got them?"

I think I explained that real clear.
________________________________________________________


"How much did he pay them?"

Did I not give you salaries?
___________________________________________________________


I summed your point up.

Why dont you hate on the Red Sox? Or the Mets? They paid loot for OTHER teams players. Your just a Yankee hater. But like my man Kat Williams said....."If your gonna be a hater than be good at what you do".

Your doin a good job of it so keep it up!
_________________________
it takes a nation of millions to hold us back

Top
#11996 - 09/24/06 01:05 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: JHAWX75]
tulsahawk13 Offline
Phog Fanatic

Registered: 09/28/05
75 the only thing I can say that might help this is you need to take some kind of math or economics class. If we did what you're saying, spend what about 120 million so we can keep up, we'd lose about 50-60 million a year. This is all about economics. Let's forget about comparing the Yankees and Royals, we've been bad for so long it just doesn't work.

Let's concentrate on a team that has more World Series titles than the Yankees in the last 8 years, the Marlins. Why is it that a team that wins 2 World Championships, can't seem to afford their players when the to time to re-sign them comes? Is it just that their owner is cheap, or is there a chance that their owner got to be a multi-millionaire because he's a smart business man and realizes that if he pays his players more than they can bring in he'll lose millions every year? Nobody here is asking for an apology, I just want you to understand what we're up against. You can take chances on players that we can't, for example what would've happened if we decided to spend a bunch of money one year and took on Giambi and Randy Johnson a few years back, we'd be screwed. They haven't produced to what they're getting paid, but the Yankees can cover up bad big money signings with more big money signings, we'd be screwed for the next 10 years.

And enough talk about all the homegrown talent you've produced, if you take out the foreign players that you simply give the most money to, we're talking about 4 or 5 guys. If you insist on including the foreign players you better add Matsui to the list because we all know you guys developed him... yeah. Posada, Jeter, Pettite, and B. Williams... I'd take Dye, Beltran, Damon, and Flash Gordon anyday, and we could've done much better during that time if we had a better G.M. which we now do.
_________________________
"We're sorta like 7-Eleven. We're not always doing business, but we're always open."

Top
#11997 - 09/24/06 01:18 PM Re: Yankees. [Re: tulsahawk13]
rockchalk2305 Offline
Max Falkenstein

Registered: 03/14/05
Go back and look at the last 8 years again. The Marlins have won 1 WS and the Yankees 3.


Edited by rockchalk2305 (09/24/06 01:22 PM)
_________________________
Win if you can. Survive if we let you.

Top
Page 7 of 24 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 23 24 >

Preview