How Pissed off would you be if the Yankees get Randy Johnson?

[NYHoustonman]

I would die... It's bad enough they beat the Sox yesterday ... The only advantage we have is pitching, and this would even it out. It's not happening though.

BTW-to all you Yanks fans... Vazquez vs. Lowe was in your favor, the next two matchups will likely be different (tomrrow should be a massacre ).

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

I dont watch baseball, I just came in to crap in this thread about how much baseball sucks

There is probably nothing on the planet that would concern me less than if the yankees get randy johnson.

Gotta agree. As a side note, I personally have nothing against randy johnsons. I'm all for them.

Oh, and for the thread crap about how much baseball sucks:
If baseball was any slower, they'd call it farming.

 

[MechJinx]

Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

 

[Fingolfin269]

This would just give me a reason to hate baseball more. The lack of a salary pack is stupid.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Yet small market teams have won championships in the last two seasons.

 

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

What you mean like the Marlins and Angels the past two years?

Yeah but no team could possibly win multiple Super Bowls... excluding, you know the Patriots two of the last three and the domination of the Cowboys and 49ers before that.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Very true.
Arizona, Anaheim and Florida won and they had the highest payroll in baseball.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Very true.
Arizona, Anaheim and Florida won and they had the highest payroll in baseball.

Add lakers to that. We all know that high paid superstars (or superstars playing for cheap) equals championship. Team chemistry has nothing to do with that.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Very true.
Arizona, Anaheim and Florida won and they had the highest payroll in baseball.

Add lakers to that. We all know that high paid superstars (or superstars playing for cheap) equals championship. Team chemistry has nothing to do with that.

I'll do you one better:
The Knicks and Rangers have the highest payrolls in their respective leagues.
And, brudda, they are swimming in championships.

 

[Fingolfin269]

The Lakers aren't even a fair comparison.

And, how about we count the World Series winning % of the Yanks in the past 40 years. Then tell me how many small market teams have won multiple times.

In the NFL you at least know that if your team sucks it's because your ownership sucks. It's not because you didn't at least have a chance to compete eventually due to one team being able to afford a ridiculously better team than you.

 

[Ynog]

I cannot remember Arizona's payrolls in 2001

But the Marlins 2003 ($53 Million) and Anaheim's 2002 ($62 million) payrolls were not the highest nor close.

 

[Achtung]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Very true.
Arizona, Anaheim and Florida won and they had the highest payroll in baseball.

Um, sarcasm?

2001 Arizona was 8th, 2002 Anaheim was 15th, 2003 Florida was 20th

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Lakers aren't even a fair comparison.

And, how about we count the World Series winning % of the Yanks in the past 40 years. Then tell me how many small market teams have won multiple times.

In the NFL you at least know that if your team sucks it's because your ownership sucks. It's not because you didn't at least have a chance to compete eventually due to one team being able to afford a ridiculously better team than you.

In the last 40 years the Yankees have not had the highest payroll in baseball. It's only been the last few seasons where they have outspent everyone.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Achtung

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: MechJinx
Just another example of how out of whack the system is in baseball. Steinbrenner can buy championship after championship and the small market teams start each year knowing they don't have a chance for a championship. Ooooo, really exciting. Bring on football, already.

Very true.
Arizona, Anaheim and Florida won and they had the highest payroll in baseball.

Um, sarcasm?

2001 Arizona was 8th, 2002 Anaheim was 15th, 2003 Florida was 20th

 

[arod]

Good lord NY already has by far the highest salary of anybody and they want to add more? NY is going to turn into what the lakers are now... real bad for the next 10+ years because they tried to sell their soul for one last championship.

 

[nitsuj3580]

Randy Johnson is the Diamondbacks franchise. I hope he stays with that team and becomes the first guy in the Hall of Fame with a Diamondbacks hat.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Lakers aren't even a fair comparison.

And, how about we count the World Series winning % of the Yanks in the past 40 years. Then tell me how many small market teams have won multiple times.

In the NFL you at least know that if your team sucks it's because your ownership sucks. It's not because you didn't at least have a chance to compete eventually due to one team being able to afford a ridiculously better team than you.

In the last 40 years the Yankees have not had the highest payroll in baseball. It's only been the last few seasons where they have outspent everyone.

I could be mistaken, but 1998 Yankees, arguable the best baseball team ever had lower payroll than baltimore.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
The Lakers aren't even a fair comparison.

And, how about we count the World Series winning % of the Yanks in the past 40 years. Then tell me how many small market teams have won multiple times.

In the NFL you at least know that if your team sucks it's because your ownership sucks. It's not because you didn't at least have a chance to compete eventually due to one team being able to afford a ridiculously better team than you.

In the last 40 years the Yankees have not had the highest payroll in baseball. It's only been the last few seasons where they have outspent everyone.

That doesn't matter. When have they been comparable to today's small market teams in the last 40 years?

 

[ThePresence]

Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

All the spending in the world guarantees you nothing except a good record during the regular season. That?s it. In a short series it is anyone?s game.
Right now the Yankees are outspending everyone.
The Yankees are destroying baseball?
Look at the standings. I count eight teams that are double digit games away from their division leader. The rest of baseball is still in it. Just get to the playoffs, get hot, and any team can win.

Spending doesn?t guarantee anything except a, hopefully, decent product on the field.

EDIT-
CRAP, quoted the wrong post!

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

All the spending in the world guarantees you nothing except a good record during the regular season. That?s it. In a short series it is anyone?s game.
Right now the Yankees are outspending everyone.
The Yankees are destroying baseball?
Look at the standings. I count eight teams that are double digit games away from their division leader. The rest of baseball is still in it. Just get to the playoffs, get hot, and any team can win.

Spending doesn?t guarantee anything except a, hopefully, decent product on the field.

I was being sarcastic.
The market size argument has been argued to death already. Market size does not win games. Neither does spending. Sure, it's helpful, but then how do you explain the Mets? They share the same market as the Yankees, and they can't win.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

All the spending in the world guarantees you nothing except a good record during the regular season. That?s it. In a short series it is anyone?s game.
Right now the Yankees are outspending everyone.
The Yankees are destroying baseball?
Look at the standings. I count eight teams that are double digit games away from their division leader. The rest of baseball is still in it. Just get to the playoffs, get hot, and any team can win.

Spending doesn?t guarantee anything except a, hopefully, decent product on the field.

EDIT-
CRAP, quoted the wrong post!

The point is that there is one certainty every year : The Yankees will be in the playoffs. There's also another almost certainty : The Yankees will probably win the World Series this year (every year) but hopefully someone will beat them in a 7 game series.

How is that even remotely interesting? I open up watching every baseball season looking for the team that might beat the Yankees. That's stupid.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

That?s why I have always hated the Mets.
They have all of the same advantages of the Yankees, without the history, except they want to act like a small market team.
And when they do expand their payroll they somehow always get the wrong players. So, in the Mets case, spending does not exactly equate to winning.

 

[MechJinx]

It is true about the Angels and Marlins. But, who was the favorite going into the playoffs both years? The Yankees. How many championships have the Yankees won in the last 10 years? 4 times, including 3 in a row. How many times have the Yankees been in the World Series in the last 10 years? 6 times. How many times have they finished first in the AL East in the last 10 years? 8 times. I'm sorry, but going into the playoffs each year listening to reports of who, if anyone, can beat the Yankees gets a little old even when teams do manage to beat them. A little variety would be nice instead of trying to decide if there is going to be a David this year that is going to stop Goliath.

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: TheAudit

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Yeah, it's all about the size of the market. That's why the Mets, who share the exact same market, have such an awesome history. :roll:

All the spending in the world guarantees you nothing except a good record during the regular season. That?s it. In a short series it is anyone?s game.
Right now the Yankees are outspending everyone.
The Yankees are destroying baseball?
Look at the standings. I count eight teams that are double digit games away from their division leader. The rest of baseball is still in it. Just get to the playoffs, get hot, and any team can win.

Spending doesn?t guarantee anything except a, hopefully, decent product on the field.

EDIT-
CRAP, quoted the wrong post!

The point is that there is one certainty every year : The Yankees will be in the playoffs. There's also another almost certainty : The Yankees will probably win the World Series this year (every year) but hopefully someone will beat them in a 7 game series.

How is that even remotely interesting? I open up watching every baseball season looking for the team that might beat the Yankees. That's stupid.

I would argue that there are plenty of examples of smaller market teams that contend.
If you can?t spend a lot then you need to make good baseball decisions.
How about the Brewers?
Obviously that is a small market team and their budget is marginal. They are five games over .500.
Minnesota contends every year as does Oakland (although Moneyball seems always fall down in the playoffs). St. Louis has the second best record in baseball and their payroll isn?t astronomical. Atlanta, the team of the decade, never has had the highest payroll.

If your team is not winning it?s always easy to blame the bigger market, it never has to do with poor management or with an owner who does not want to invest in his team.